It's interesting to see the trend lines for the elderly graph converge, and the others diverge. This is consistent with what we would expect if the vax injured elderly largely died, but that younger people are living with injury.
Yes, I omitted my usual caveat that we should expect fewer COVID hospitalisations regardless of the effectiveness (or not) of the jab - many vulnerable will be dead by the time of the post-vax period and the virus is less virulent (as reminded by Dr Syed above). And, indeed, if I understand your point, the vax-injured elderly might simply not be making it to the hospital in the post-vax period because they die sooner (more so than they did in the pre-vax period) before they could even get there! Regardless of our hypotheses, the facts remain - the COVID hospitalisation rates are HIGHER in the post-vax period than the pre-vax period for the under 65s. Please, pro-vax cultist, rationally explain how this fits the Safe and Effective™ hypothesis. Waiting...
Aug 8, 2022·edited Aug 9, 2022Liked by Joel Smalley
Yes, my theory is, the vax tends to kill more older than younger people. The younger people don't die, in some cases, they become disabled, cannot work, and become dependent on gov't programs, which is their goal.
Yes, shocking. Shocking that the public health authorities are not all over this public health emergency that seems to be occurring in the face of the science established pre-COVID.
In fact what they do instead is hide or eliminate the stats showing this is now a pandemic of the boosted- while at the same time encouraging or mandating (University ofToronto) boosters. At what point is this murder?
Different alma mater but yea same breaking ties. "You don't do war crimes on your staff and customers by requiring them to take experimental injections" was my final communication.
you could replace "unvaccinated" with every one of the million other things that government and the masses force people to do and it would still apply. sadly, that lesson is unlikely to be learned.
A recent Russian press briefing claimed that C19 came out of one of the US biolabs in the Ukraine. For what it’s worth. Unfortunately, I do not think their reports can be dismissed out of hand — they appear to have the receipts.
In younger groups vax doesnt' work and likely to increase susceptibility to covid by depressing the immune response or ADE. Anyone knowing genetics would predict this. People get jubbed with the vax matching the varient that muteted lond time ago and now gone. The "experts" keep blabbing about levels of vaxxine-coded antibodies which is nonsense. It is not the matter of concentrations, it is about antibody's specificity. Antibody and the spike protein are supposed to match like a lock and a key.
To show efficacy of the vaccine in prevention of hospitalization it is necessary to evaluate the odds ratio for hospitalization between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Looking at gross hospitalisation prevax and post vax is subject to confounding variables, such as the differences in variants in the prevax period vs postvax, and the differences between rates of hospitalization of individuals vaccinated vs unvaccinated. If you want to look at gross numbers, the number of vaxed people who have not died is far greatrer than the number of unvaxed people who have not died. this illustrates the folly of looking at hospitalisation numbers rather than hospitalisation rates. It's known as the base rate fallacy. What you're doing is like saying people who are not bald have a greater chance of being in an automobile accident because more people who die in auto accidents are not bald.
If only they gave us reliable data to do that but they don't. And when we cut through the statistical fraud, we get back to the same conclusion I present using simpler, higher level data and clear, logical interpretation. At the end of the day, everyone can choose who to believe and act accordingly. How do you think you're doing?
"If you want to look at gross numbers, the number of vaxed people who have not died is far greatrer than the number of unvaxed people who have not died."
Are you serious? The conclusion is self evident from simple math. For example, 68% of US people have been vaccinated. That leaves 32% unvaccinated. Even if 20% of the vaccinated people died (which is preposterous) That would mean 54% of the population were vaccinated and did not die, which is greater than 32% even of no unvaccinated people had died.
I’m a bit confused by the graphics vs the inferences you are making … (might be the second beer is clouding my judgment, or was it the third..). Can you put callouts on the charts?
Look at the slope. Chart is of accumulated cases. Slope is the rate. If the curve is steeper after the vax, the rate is higher. If the VAX is working the slope should be lower. We were promised the rate was going to be 0 after vaccination. (A horizontal line).
I appreciate your ability to find new, yet simple, angles to this story - yet another case of "this can't possibly be consistent with the narrative". (Simple is a compliment...)
Just a quick look without a 1st and 2nd derivative test, I potentially see three points of inflection in Oct-20, Jul-21, Aug-21. Is there a possible explanation? More data would be helpful here.
I think I get it but I'd love it if you drilled in closer and and walked through the gaps in the postvax segments. Do all three end with hospitalization up? Even the > 65 though overall its 18% down? Just want to be sure I understand what I'm seeing.
Looking at the rates so the information is normalised. People will always be hospitalised, with/for COVID as well as anything else. But the "rate" at which they are hospitalised should decrease if the vaccine were effective. The rate is the only metric we need to be concerned with.
Looking at overall rate people are hospitalized does not tell you how much worse the situation would be if there were not a majority of people vaccinated. That’s why you need an odds ratio.
It's interesting to see the trend lines for the elderly graph converge, and the others diverge. This is consistent with what we would expect if the vax injured elderly largely died, but that younger people are living with injury.
Yes, I omitted my usual caveat that we should expect fewer COVID hospitalisations regardless of the effectiveness (or not) of the jab - many vulnerable will be dead by the time of the post-vax period and the virus is less virulent (as reminded by Dr Syed above). And, indeed, if I understand your point, the vax-injured elderly might simply not be making it to the hospital in the post-vax period because they die sooner (more so than they did in the pre-vax period) before they could even get there! Regardless of our hypotheses, the facts remain - the COVID hospitalisation rates are HIGHER in the post-vax period than the pre-vax period for the under 65s. Please, pro-vax cultist, rationally explain how this fits the Safe and Effective™ hypothesis. Waiting...
Yes, my theory is, the vax tends to kill more older than younger people. The younger people don't die, in some cases, they become disabled, cannot work, and become dependent on gov't programs, which is their goal.
Can I even say Oh Sxxt? 74% higher in the under 18's?
It is the slaughter of the Innocents.
Alas, numerous independent datasets and independent researchers keep drawing us back to this appalling conclusion.
It's worse still when you consider the lower virulence of the 2022 strains
Yes, shocking. Shocking that the public health authorities are not all over this public health emergency that seems to be occurring in the face of the science established pre-COVID.
In fact what they do instead is hide or eliminate the stats showing this is now a pandemic of the boosted- while at the same time encouraging or mandating (University ofToronto) boosters. At what point is this murder?
My alma mater. Broke ties with them at the start of the plandemic.
Different alma mater but yea same breaking ties. "You don't do war crimes on your staff and customers by requiring them to take experimental injections" was my final communication.
Very impressive data! Txs! that goes prefectly with this article I just red.
For the ones that missed this great letter from Canadian journalist Susan Dunham, a must read!
https://susandunham.medium.com/what-we-learned-from-hating-the-unvaccinated-fc428fa0732c
you could replace "unvaccinated" with every one of the million other things that government and the masses force people to do and it would still apply. sadly, that lesson is unlikely to be learned.
How long can they hide the data?
Until foreign governments force their hands, I guess.
Foreign governments all in on it. The people must decide.
A recent Russian press briefing claimed that C19 came out of one of the US biolabs in the Ukraine. For what it’s worth. Unfortunately, I do not think their reports can be dismissed out of hand — they appear to have the receipts.
In younger groups vax doesnt' work and likely to increase susceptibility to covid by depressing the immune response or ADE. Anyone knowing genetics would predict this. People get jubbed with the vax matching the varient that muteted lond time ago and now gone. The "experts" keep blabbing about levels of vaxxine-coded antibodies which is nonsense. It is not the matter of concentrations, it is about antibody's specificity. Antibody and the spike protein are supposed to match like a lock and a key.
To show efficacy of the vaccine in prevention of hospitalization it is necessary to evaluate the odds ratio for hospitalization between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Looking at gross hospitalisation prevax and post vax is subject to confounding variables, such as the differences in variants in the prevax period vs postvax, and the differences between rates of hospitalization of individuals vaccinated vs unvaccinated. If you want to look at gross numbers, the number of vaxed people who have not died is far greatrer than the number of unvaxed people who have not died. this illustrates the folly of looking at hospitalisation numbers rather than hospitalisation rates. It's known as the base rate fallacy. What you're doing is like saying people who are not bald have a greater chance of being in an automobile accident because more people who die in auto accidents are not bald.
If only they gave us reliable data to do that but they don't. And when we cut through the statistical fraud, we get back to the same conclusion I present using simpler, higher level data and clear, logical interpretation. At the end of the day, everyone can choose who to believe and act accordingly. How do you think you're doing?
"If you want to look at gross numbers, the number of vaxed people who have not died is far greatrer than the number of unvaxed people who have not died."
Source?
Are you serious? The conclusion is self evident from simple math. For example, 68% of US people have been vaccinated. That leaves 32% unvaccinated. Even if 20% of the vaccinated people died (which is preposterous) That would mean 54% of the population were vaccinated and did not die, which is greater than 32% even of no unvaccinated people had died.
I’m a bit confused by the graphics vs the inferences you are making … (might be the second beer is clouding my judgment, or was it the third..). Can you put callouts on the charts?
Look at the slope. Chart is of accumulated cases. Slope is the rate. If the curve is steeper after the vax, the rate is higher. If the VAX is working the slope should be lower. We were promised the rate was going to be 0 after vaccination. (A horizontal line).
many vax-injured in fact drew the line. It is a dark humour.
I love Team Reality for their sense of humour too!
Helpful - thank you.
Charts are often better with some kind of voiceover ….
I have added another explanatory paragraph at the end of the introduction. Does that help?
It is for this very reason I always skip the second and third beers, and go straight to the forth and fifth...
Precisely why I don’t drink beer in the first place and go right to the whiskey.
I knew Vanderbilt had to be in on this.
I appreciate your ability to find new, yet simple, angles to this story - yet another case of "this can't possibly be consistent with the narrative". (Simple is a compliment...)
The numbers for the elderly are probably down because they have already killed off most of them.
How long can this be ignored by good people?
Genius. I love your presentations. I will share this as broadly as I can.
This is an excellent picture of truth. Definitely worth keeping this reference on the top shelf for arguments that still arise.
Just a quick look without a 1st and 2nd derivative test, I potentially see three points of inflection in Oct-20, Jul-21, Aug-21. Is there a possible explanation? More data would be helpful here.
I think I get it but I'd love it if you drilled in closer and and walked through the gaps in the postvax segments. Do all three end with hospitalization up? Even the > 65 though overall its 18% down? Just want to be sure I understand what I'm seeing.
Looking at the rates so the information is normalised. People will always be hospitalised, with/for COVID as well as anything else. But the "rate" at which they are hospitalised should decrease if the vaccine were effective. The rate is the only metric we need to be concerned with.
Looking at overall rate people are hospitalized does not tell you how much worse the situation would be if there were not a majority of people vaccinated. That’s why you need an odds ratio.