"official Public Health data shows that over the past three months the majority of Covid-19 cases have been among the fully vaccinated, two-thirds of Covid-19 hospitalisations have been among the fully vaccinated, and a frightening 91% of Covid-19 deaths have been among the fully vaccinated, and projections shows things are about to get a lot worse." Safe and effective!?!?!?
Lolz. You're failing to convince anyone. Plus i can see by your replies you completely fail to understand my point about how this data is presented and it's very limited parameters for anyone wishing to make a decision on vaccination. While you openly advocate that they could use this data to base their vaccination decision on. Not wise. So let me get this straight - you're implying the CDC data can be corrupt ( no argument there, although surely you're not suggesting the absolute risk using their own official data is even lower than what they are reporting?) but yet this data is not. This isn't an independent study. It's produced by Public Health Scotland - who are tasked with recording Covid statistics in accordance with WHO guidelines and procedure. With said data collated by the CDC for worldwide figures and analysis. Duh. My bias is evident ??. Because i query the logic for relying on snapshot data that is only relevant for the time period presented and as such it is completely outside of what total overall data may show and while this snapshot data may suggest one thing - it can still be completely at odds with what the overall data presents. 'At what point do you think the full picture emerges?' by including the overall data and not simply snapshots - duh. Again, Absolute risk v's relative risk. You completely avoid any rebuttal to that point but its the most cogent point of my post. This data completely omits any reference to absolute risk (IFR infection fatality rate) and only conveys relative risk (snapshot). Again bad science for decision making. Regardless of what you're doing, I'm pointing out that using this data to base whether to vaccinate or not (which is what you seem to imply in your comments), and by using some perceived benefit for 3x protection is bad science and anyone suggesting different is a total fool. EDIT: Look I don't have a problem with you personally but i do have a problem with your defending the use of this data for whether to vaccinate or not as if this data is actually indicative of something meaningful (when it is not taking into account the overall context of all available data). Good day.
dassar 0 points 3.6 years ago
Lolz. You're failing to convince anyone.
Plus i can see by your replies you completely fail to understand my point about how this data is presented and it's very limited parameters for anyone wishing to make a decision on vaccination. While you openly advocate that they could use this data to base their vaccination decision on. Not wise.
So let me get this straight - you're implying the CDC data can be corrupt ( no argument there, although surely you're not suggesting the absolute risk using their own official data is even lower than what they are reporting?) but yet this data is not.
This isn't an independent study. It's produced by Public Health Scotland - who are tasked with recording Covid statistics in accordance with WHO guidelines and procedure. With said data collated by the CDC for worldwide figures and analysis. Duh.
My bias is evident ??. Because i query the logic for relying on snapshot data that is only relevant for the time period presented and as such it is completely outside of what total overall data may show and while this snapshot data may suggest one thing - it can still be completely at odds with what the overall data presents. 'At what point do you think the full picture emerges?' by including the overall data and not simply snapshots - duh.
Again, Absolute risk v's relative risk. You completely avoid any rebuttal to that point but its the most cogent point of my post. This data completely omits any reference to absolute risk (IFR infection fatality rate) and only conveys relative risk (snapshot). Again bad science for decision making.
Regardless of what you're doing, I'm pointing out that using this data to base whether to vaccinate or not (which is what you seem to imply in your comments), and by using some perceived benefit for 3x protection is bad science and anyone suggesting different is a total fool.
EDIT: Look I don't have a problem with you personally but i do have a problem with your defending the use of this data for whether to vaccinate or not as if this data is actually indicative of something meaningful (when it is not taking into account the overall context of all available data). Good day.