The Scottish data mirrors the latest UK data that the vaccine is driving escalations in infection, hospitalization, and deaths especially in the double vaccinated (vaccinated on the whole)
This is not great new for the people getting sick. When will the elites stop the mandates, especially for kids? And masks as well? I know they cannot admit they were wrong, but there is so much evidence.
Unfortunately the threshold of deaths, and repeated infections in the vaccinated have not been crossed yet to shatter the false narratives the general public is clinging on to. I hope we get there soon so the madness will stop.
This data mainly shows the "card trick" directing people to the prefered policy of boosting (previously boosting).
Basically the official 2-week lag (and then some reporting lag too) between considered unvaxt>vaxt, 2-jabbed>boosted ...means the negative data falls into the category the politicians are pushing. It's like attributing a pedestrian death to the pavement when they actually got run over in the street.
I'm curious how accurate the age standardization method is. I don't really understand it. Like so many, I have taken an acute interest in statistics and politics over the last two years for some odd reason ;-)
Will age standardization somehow correct for the fact that some people in the unvaccinated group are too old or sick to take a vaccine and additionally are very likely to die, thus driving up the unvaccinated death rate?
we have to see how the data settles out for not even I would say this is complete. There is overlap too. That is, we do not know the outcome 'yet' for the triple jabbed. What is clear is that this data is consistent with UK and Israel etc. There is a catastrophic hot mess with these vaccines
Thank you. Believe me I’m not advocating for boosters (or vaccines at all). I just dont like getting blindsided by people who point this out and I don’t know what to say to them.
Does actual data need to be countered? What it seems to show is that non vaxxed fair better than those who got the original 2 shots but that those who got a booster faired better than the unvaxxed and those who got the original 2 shots. The data is what it is. Negative efficacy of the original 2 shots is a far cry from what people were told when the shots were rolled out. It is even a far cry from what people are still being told.
And as a non scientist I can't help but wonder what happens to bring about that negative efficacy after 2 shots. That negative efficacy seems to come a period of time after the initial 2 shots which seem to initially give some protection. This begs the question: Over time will those who received a booster in addition to the initial 2 shots experience even greater loss of efficacy.
None of this even takes into account the risk of adverse events from taking the vax that are already known and the possible long term risks that are as of yet unknown due to a short and less than ideal trial.
So all in all the risk benefit analysis to me seems to weigh in favor of not getting vaxxed. Someone else might decide differently. Everyone should have access to the information to make an informed decision. And based on what is known it is unethical to mandate being vaxxed and unethical to discriminate against those who chose to not be vaxxed since they pose no greater risk of transmission than those who chose to be vaxxed.
Censorship and suppression of facts is repugnant to those who support a free and open culture. The censorship continues. The disinformation from MSM continues. The suppression of effective early treatments continue. That suppression has lead to many, many deaths. That is immoral.
So the whole thing boils down to ethics and humanity.
What the positive efficacy of the 3rd booster says to me is that any benefits of the shots are short lived, and over months will put people at progressively higher odds of becoming sicker or dying from Covid. One only needs to look at the first and second dose data to affirm that.
Seems very likely that will happen but time will tell. Either way, based on what is known now, real informed consent for a booster would include being informed of that possibility. Informing people who recieved the initial 2 shots that they are at greater risk than unvaxxed if not boosted is also part of real informed consent.
The whole vax roll out and mandates, misinfo, and MSM propaganda being transnational shows that transnational corporations have control over the governments of many nations.
1. Healthy User Bias, those getting the 3rd dose are very often the healthiest to begin with. They have not suffered enough side effects from the first two doses to dissuade them from the third. Being healthier, on average, would push their numbers down some.
2. The "data crime" of pushing any sickness (and then death from that sickness) in the first two weeks after the 3rd dose into the 2nd dose pushes down the numbers for those with the 3rd dose and pushes up the numbers of the 2nd dose. Same effect occurs in the unvaxxed vs 1st dose. What makes that math slight even worse is that the data available shows a strong immune suppression, particularly of the innate portion of the immune suppression, for those 2 weeks.
3. The flip side of the Healthy User Bias, those in the unvaxxed category include those too sick, unhealthy, or too near end of life to get or justify the vaccine. That pushes the numbers for the unvaxxed up here. This is why you need thorough double-blind trials where the trial groups are setup to account for whatever confounding factors you can think of. This would include age and other comorbidities, such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.
Having trouble believing that any legit age standardization process could result in 77 deaths out of 3 million triple vaxed looking actually better than 18 deaths out of 1.5 million in the unvaxed. If vaxed or so heavily weighted toward older, then we should she a similar effect in the double vaxed crowd also. Can you explain this?
This is not great new for the people getting sick. When will the elites stop the mandates, especially for kids? And masks as well? I know they cannot admit they were wrong, but there is so much evidence.
Paul appreciate your dedication and Pitbull tenacity helping we layman to understand the Medical deception.. Here is another one. Is it possible the HIV is in the 1st 2nd or 3rd jabs? https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/new-hiv-variant-with-more-damaging-health-impacts-discovered-in-netherlands-1.5766602
Unfortunately the threshold of deaths, and repeated infections in the vaccinated have not been crossed yet to shatter the false narratives the general public is clinging on to. I hope we get there soon so the madness will stop.
This data mainly shows the "card trick" directing people to the prefered policy of boosting (previously boosting).
Basically the official 2-week lag (and then some reporting lag too) between considered unvaxt>vaxt, 2-jabbed>boosted ...means the negative data falls into the category the politicians are pushing. It's like attributing a pedestrian death to the pavement when they actually got run over in the street.
Full (necessarily complex) analysis
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bayesian-datacrime-defining-vaccine
I'm curious how accurate the age standardization method is. I don't really understand it. Like so many, I have taken an acute interest in statistics and politics over the last two years for some odd reason ;-)
Will age standardization somehow correct for the fact that some people in the unvaccinated group are too old or sick to take a vaccine and additionally are very likely to die, thus driving up the unvaccinated death rate?
One could also say that hospitalization and death is lower for the triple jabbed than the unvaxxed. How do you counter that?
we have to see how the data settles out for not even I would say this is complete. There is overlap too. That is, we do not know the outcome 'yet' for the triple jabbed. What is clear is that this data is consistent with UK and Israel etc. There is a catastrophic hot mess with these vaccines
The vaxxing argument dies when you realise that there is effective early treatment. No one needs a vaccine against this bug.
a 99% recovery rate for those under 85 without four comorbidites
Thank you. Believe me I’m not advocating for boosters (or vaccines at all). I just dont like getting blindsided by people who point this out and I don’t know what to say to them.
Does actual data need to be countered? What it seems to show is that non vaxxed fair better than those who got the original 2 shots but that those who got a booster faired better than the unvaxxed and those who got the original 2 shots. The data is what it is. Negative efficacy of the original 2 shots is a far cry from what people were told when the shots were rolled out. It is even a far cry from what people are still being told.
And as a non scientist I can't help but wonder what happens to bring about that negative efficacy after 2 shots. That negative efficacy seems to come a period of time after the initial 2 shots which seem to initially give some protection. This begs the question: Over time will those who received a booster in addition to the initial 2 shots experience even greater loss of efficacy.
None of this even takes into account the risk of adverse events from taking the vax that are already known and the possible long term risks that are as of yet unknown due to a short and less than ideal trial.
So all in all the risk benefit analysis to me seems to weigh in favor of not getting vaxxed. Someone else might decide differently. Everyone should have access to the information to make an informed decision. And based on what is known it is unethical to mandate being vaxxed and unethical to discriminate against those who chose to not be vaxxed since they pose no greater risk of transmission than those who chose to be vaxxed.
Censorship and suppression of facts is repugnant to those who support a free and open culture. The censorship continues. The disinformation from MSM continues. The suppression of effective early treatments continue. That suppression has lead to many, many deaths. That is immoral.
So the whole thing boils down to ethics and humanity.
Crimes Against Humanity
This is what we like to call "the happy vaccine valley". The short period of a few months that the mrna therapy provides protection.
What the positive efficacy of the 3rd booster says to me is that any benefits of the shots are short lived, and over months will put people at progressively higher odds of becoming sicker or dying from Covid. One only needs to look at the first and second dose data to affirm that.
Seems very likely that will happen but time will tell. Either way, based on what is known now, real informed consent for a booster would include being informed of that possibility. Informing people who recieved the initial 2 shots that they are at greater risk than unvaxxed if not boosted is also part of real informed consent.
The whole vax roll out and mandates, misinfo, and MSM propaganda being transnational shows that transnational corporations have control over the governments of many nations.
There are number of things going on:
1. Healthy User Bias, those getting the 3rd dose are very often the healthiest to begin with. They have not suffered enough side effects from the first two doses to dissuade them from the third. Being healthier, on average, would push their numbers down some.
2. The "data crime" of pushing any sickness (and then death from that sickness) in the first two weeks after the 3rd dose into the 2nd dose pushes down the numbers for those with the 3rd dose and pushes up the numbers of the 2nd dose. Same effect occurs in the unvaxxed vs 1st dose. What makes that math slight even worse is that the data available shows a strong immune suppression, particularly of the innate portion of the immune suppression, for those 2 weeks.
3. The flip side of the Healthy User Bias, those in the unvaxxed category include those too sick, unhealthy, or too near end of life to get or justify the vaccine. That pushes the numbers for the unvaxxed up here. This is why you need thorough double-blind trials where the trial groups are setup to account for whatever confounding factors you can think of. This would include age and other comorbidities, such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.
Interesting points!
Having trouble believing that any legit age standardization process could result in 77 deaths out of 3 million triple vaxed looking actually better than 18 deaths out of 1.5 million in the unvaxed. If vaxed or so heavily weighted toward older, then we should she a similar effect in the double vaxed crowd also. Can you explain this?
It truly beggars belief that anyone fell for this.