Pilgrim, if you put blind faith with the fact checkers on the internet, please read the following carefully to see how this game is played.
The issue for today is — Do more people who have been vaccinated die of COVID more. than the unvaccinated?
The claim out of England was that this is the case … which was then contested by the “fact checkers.” Read this seeming debunking here: Yahoo News Story. Read it carefully then come back for more.
Basically, the statistics collected showed that 4.8 times as many vaccinated patients died in England for each unvaccinated patient who died.
OK, in this article Politifact says this is a biased claim primarily because it doesn't account for the fact that 90% of the population was vaccinated and “A very small percentage of a large population is still more people than a higher percentage of a very small one." This, of course, is true.
However, there is still a flaw in this logic … and that is that it assumes that the ratio of COVID patients … both vaccinated and unvaccinated … is the same as the vaccinated ratio … 9 to 1. Of course, if this be the fact, what’s the point of the vaccine? Both vaxed and unvaxed would need to be getting sick at the same rate.
We are not given the number of people, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, who actually got COVID … key numbers.
How do we resolve this? Well, to me, let’s use what the pharma companies themselves claim … that their vaccines are effective over 90% of the time.
This would mean that only about 10% of the 90% of the vaccinated general population should get COVID … or 9% of the general population.
Conversely, 90% of the 10% of the unvaxed general population should get COVID … or also 9% of the general population.
Shazam! Suddenly we realize that the number of patients from both the vaxed and unvaxed populations should be roughly the same. Yet those who have been vaccinated are dying at 4.8 times the rate of the unvaxed!
QED … (and don’t trust the fact checkers!)
STAND UP FOR LOGIC!
7 comments:
One factor to consider: People with underlying conditions are more likely to get vaccinated, and the underlying disease could (fatally) exacerbate COVID.
also "Conversely, 90% of the 10% of the unvaxed general population should get COVID … or also 9% of the general population." Nowhere is it claimed that 90% unvaxed should get COVID.
Thus your pretzel Fact-checking house of cards crashes and burns.
Your first point only helps my argument.
Your second point can’t apply only to the unvaccinated. It need apply equally to the vaccinated. And the theoretical populations should still even out.
Ponder a little longer before you dis what you don’t understand.
Ok, to make it simpler for the logically challenged,
1. People who were already sick or at risk because of other factors were more likely to get vaxed. For some, the vax was too little or too late. If the vax was ineffective in 10% of this cohort that could have been higher than the # of deaths in the unvaxed group. It does not prove that the vaccine killed people, as you imply.
2. Pay attention. I was saying that YOUR statement that began with "Conversely...." is fallacious, because it is not the converse of the pharma's claims of 90% effectivity in people who got vaxed. And it is not stipulated anywhere.
3. Understanding is found mainly in totem poles. Stand up against disinformation!
You two
you would need to line up the population by age grade and compare the number of cases and deaths on each side. it looks like you are averaging averages and a wise prof once told me that is not a valid measure.
the vaccine is to ameliorate the disease and slow it's.. It was not to cure those who already have the infection when they are inoculated.
As I remember, the best way to average averages is to invert them first, average them and then invert the
answer back. This may be called the harmonic mean.
Parlor tricks for Statisticians
Post a Comment