Go with the Pflow
This one’s a bit of a curious one that has left me a bit stumped. I am going to set up a (semi) plausible excuse for my lack of insight by saying that I’m currently visiting my mum and so not able to really concentrate on this properly. Just priming things so that when you all point out I’m being an idiot, I can retain a modicum of self-respect.
The issue of the two week delay between getting Pfunctured and being classed as ‘vaccinated’ is one that lots of people, including myself, have commented on. It opens up the possibility of all sorts of illusory efficacy. For example, Prof Fenton and his team have demonstrated that simply adding a 2 week definitional delay, even when the ‘vaccine’ is a placebo, can give the illusion of a positive efficacy for the injection.
So, I thought, the hour or two between when I wake up and when mum wakes up is an ideal time to try to reproduce some of Prof Fenton’s results so that I can understand what’s going on a bit better. I thought of a hypothetical vaccine scenario with a vaccine rollout time period of 24 weeks, fired up Excel, and with gay abandon started constructing the recursions and sums and formulas that I’d need.
When I’d satisfied myself I’d done it ‘right’ I looked at the results and saw an efficacy, as expected, with this 2 week definitional delay. OK. Time to check. If it’s just a placebo, and I remove the delay, and run the same calculations again, this positive efficacy should just disappear, right?
It didn’t - and so I thought I’d done something very wrong.
I then simplified things a bit and just considered a 2 week vaccination program (with no definitional delay) and the positive efficacy didn’t go away. What in the name of Pfizer’s Pointy Poison was I doing wrong?
So, let’s start with the result - and then I’m going to explain how I arrived at the result, and you’ll see the source of my confusion.
The scenario and result
The basic scenario is that there’s a pretty nasty virus going round which results in a 1% chance of death per week. We run a 2 week trial with a ‘vaccine’ (more on this later) and obtain the following result after 2 weeks.
1 million people in the trial
200,000 people vaccinated
Deaths in the vaccinated : 2,990
Deaths in the unvaccinated : 16,910
We plug these numbers into our efficacy formula and find the vaccine has an efficacy of just over 29%
What actually went on in those 2 weeks
It all seems clear cut from the data above - whatever we did it improved things a little bit. But not so Pfast.
Here’s the trial protocol
at the start of week 1 we ‘vaccinate’ 100,000 people
at the start of week 2 we ‘vaccinate’ another 100,000 people
the ‘vaccine’ is administered at the MagiVax centre at a busy shopping mall where a skilled operative rubs your elbow whilst wearing a tutu and casts the following spell : “Pfizer, Pfizer, in the Mall, who’s the deadliest of them all?”
In other words, we haven’t changed the actual risk people face one jot. So how come we end up with a positive efficacy, albeit not very high?
Let’s go through step-by-step what happens in those 2 weeks.
End of Week 1
At the end of week 1, 100,000 MagiVaxed people and 900,000 sane people have faced a 1% chance of death. So, at the end of the week we have
1,000 deaths in the MagiVax cohort
9,000 deaths in the sane cohort
Start of week 2
100,000 more people are MagiVaxed
We now have 800,000 sane people left, minus the number of sane people who died in week 1, facing the 1% risk in week 2
There are 200,000 MagiVaxed people, minus the number of MagiVaxed people who died in week 1, facing the 1% risk in week 2
End of week 2
A further 7,910 sane people die in week 2
A further 1,990 MagiVaxed people die in week 2
The end result is that over the 2 week period we have MagiVaxed 200,000 people, of whom 2,990 died. We have 800,000 people who remained sane, of whom 16,910 died.
When you work out the ‘efficacy’ based on these final numbers it yields a figure just shy of 30%.
Pfuck Me, what’s going on here?
So, in any given week, the sane and the MagiVax cohorts still alive are facing exactly the same risk. And yet the elbow rub and magic spell seems to have had some effect. Or maybe it was the tutu?
What’s going on here is that although the cohorts face the same risk, the size of the sane cohort is decreasing week by week, whereas the size of the MagiVax cohort is increasing week by week.
When you calculate ‘efficacy’ you’re comparing death rates (deaths per unit population). So, naturally, if you have a decreasing population it’s going to look, over time, as if the death rate is going up. If you have an increasing population it’s going to look as if the death rates are going down.
If you calculate the efficacy on a weekly basis, rather than trying to aggregate the data over the full 2 week period, then you get the following
Week 1
MagiVax death rate : 0.01 (100,000 initial population, 1,000 deaths)
Sane death rate : 0.01 (900,000 initial population, 9,000 deaths)
efficacy = 0
Week 2
MagiVax death rate : 0.01 (199,000 initial population, 1,990 deaths)
Sane death rate : 0.01 (791,000 initial population, 7,910 deaths)
efficacy = 0
The problem is, of course, all in the way I aggregated the data to arrive at overall figures for the 2 weeks.
This effect of inappropriate aggregation was a bit of a surprise to me - but I’m sure others must have covered it.
My concern is whether something like this has gone on in the ‘official’ calculations of efficacy. I would hope not - but, these days, who the Pfuck knows?
And if Mr. Tutu-Op dispenses all jabs at the last day of week 2, efficacy will be almost 100%.
As denominator, one should not use number of people, but total population time spent in the unvaccinated / vaccinated states.
1-2990*1700000/16910/300000 = zero (approx.)
I'm sure a better model would sort it out. That's science, innit, avin good models?
Somehow, this whole statistics cok-up of all thing Covid&jab-related reminds me of the tale of the Good Empiricist, who every morning before tea and biccies drops an old solid cast clothes iron on his foot, just to see if gravity is still working.
We test for the wrong things, in the wrong way and present it jumbled and obfuscated, ensuring that even if we find proof positive of the jabs being not only unnecessary but downright lethal, we've already subjected billions to them anyway.
Because you'd think, if gravity was off when the Empiricist woke up, he'd notice that before even making it to his clothes iron and graph, wouldn't you? But if he doesn't check anything until he uses said clothes iron... here we are.