This obfuscation of data has served them well. Compare the mental challenge that the writer or reader of this article must engage in compared to the reader of, say, yesterday's article in the WSJ headlined "Protesters March in Washington Against Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates." One needs only to read the subtitle to understand, with absolute confidence, that "Studies show that vaccines and boosters offer superior protection from recent variants of the coronavirus."
Ah, well. At least you have a TL; dr, instead of a TT; ywu, (too technical, you won't understand), which is what the CDC stamps on top of the studies it forwards to journalists along with a helpful VACCINES GOOD.
I can't pretend to follow all the steps here but the overall progression made sense. I read another post on how repeated shifting the limbo cohort back two weeks keeps the efficacy figures rosy...until the boosterthon stops when it catches up and exposes the sleight of hand of course. It would be paranoid of me to think that's a driver for keeping the merrygoround running. Your column is very much up there now with other key information presenters. Well done. I see eugyppius gave you a mention the other day. Kudos, RR.
"But vaccine effectiveness is only defined in terms of a comparison between two populations." Is there some sort of justified reason for comparing only two populations? Is it because the systems and/or trials aren't set up to gather data on the limbo group? (I realize that Pfizer, Moderna, etc. have the incentive to cover their behinds and so can choose to ignore the limbo group, but I'm wondering if there are other reasons.)
We should lobby for implementation of LaTeX rendering in substack and its comment section...
Today I substacked on some of the ICU stats for Germany. Addendum to that: the DIVI (ICU register) counted, in a certain period of time, 3,156 unvaccinated and 562 partially vaccinated cases. The definition of the latter is a little vague (also includes "unvaccinated but with previous infection", and maybe Johnson&Johnson) but they are definitely overrepresented in ICUs.
Addendum 2: in Germany, only exclusion efficacy is being reported (in two flavours: unvaccinated vs double vaccinated, and unvaccinated vs boostered).
This obfuscation of data has served them well. Compare the mental challenge that the writer or reader of this article must engage in compared to the reader of, say, yesterday's article in the WSJ headlined "Protesters March in Washington Against Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates." One needs only to read the subtitle to understand, with absolute confidence, that "Studies show that vaccines and boosters offer superior protection from recent variants of the coronavirus."
Ah, well. At least you have a TL; dr, instead of a TT; ywu, (too technical, you won't understand), which is what the CDC stamps on top of the studies it forwards to journalists along with a helpful VACCINES GOOD.
From the start I knew the vaccine had ZERO EFFICACY, because the same is true of the flu shot.
I don't understand why people need over complicated explanations... But it must be this OCD mentality of virology that destroys logic.
What makes people sick are many many factors, ALL vaccines might affect one, and also add other issues.
https://drsambailey.com/2022/01/05/why-nobody-can-find-a-virus/
I can't pretend to follow all the steps here but the overall progression made sense. I read another post on how repeated shifting the limbo cohort back two weeks keeps the efficacy figures rosy...until the boosterthon stops when it catches up and exposes the sleight of hand of course. It would be paranoid of me to think that's a driver for keeping the merrygoround running. Your column is very much up there now with other key information presenters. Well done. I see eugyppius gave you a mention the other day. Kudos, RR.
I couldn't resist playing a round of Gompertz:
https://cm27874.substack.com/p/and-they-had-brick-for-stone-and
"But vaccine effectiveness is only defined in terms of a comparison between two populations." Is there some sort of justified reason for comparing only two populations? Is it because the systems and/or trials aren't set up to gather data on the limbo group? (I realize that Pfizer, Moderna, etc. have the incentive to cover their behinds and so can choose to ignore the limbo group, but I'm wondering if there are other reasons.)
We should lobby for implementation of LaTeX rendering in substack and its comment section...
Today I substacked on some of the ICU stats for Germany. Addendum to that: the DIVI (ICU register) counted, in a certain period of time, 3,156 unvaccinated and 562 partially vaccinated cases. The definition of the latter is a little vague (also includes "unvaccinated but with previous infection", and maybe Johnson&Johnson) but they are definitely overrepresented in ICUs.
Addendum 2: in Germany, only exclusion efficacy is being reported (in two flavours: unvaccinated vs double vaccinated, and unvaccinated vs boostered).