Are they lower as would be expected if the vaccine was effective at reducing serious illness?
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.
Can I even say Oh Sxxt? 74% higher in the under 18's?
It is the slaughter of the Innocents.
It's worse still when you consider the lower virulence of the 2022 strains
Great work. Any single post of yours would have won journalism awards in an honest time. But of course we are not.
Hard to think what confounding issues would be other than more cases of a less virulent strain.
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!
How long can they hide the data?
Until foreign governments force their hands, I guess.
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.
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?
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.