but don’t you know what absolute risk reduction is? it’s always lower unless the whole population is exposed during the current period of the study
-
-
If the comparison goes back to January it is cooked. Hardly anybody was vaccinated in the winter 20-21 spike, so they are juking the unvaccinated number by including them.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Yup. Which changes the percentage of vaccinated people dying of COVID from 10-15%, to closer to 30-40% conservatively. It should be tough to hide this data for much longer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
sorry, newb question, how do you get that %?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you separate 2 groups of the same people then they should have things happen the same. If the groups are large enough. So 2 halves of the same group should get covid at the same rate or die from COVID at the same rate. So baseline of 2 equal groups is 50:50.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pravduh15 @DanielleFong and
If you vaccinate one group and don't vaccinate the other group, the base would be no effect, which would be 50:50. Unaltered. If 40% of severe COVID cases are vaccinated, then that is a 10% change from the nothing group. 50:50.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
don’t see how you get these numbers, precisely, but also % of people who have severe covid who are vaxxed is not the operative number probably. if everyone is vaxxed the number will still be 100%. relative risk reduction still the relevant metric imho
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In Texas, the percentage of fully vaxxed was super close to 50% and according to the chart at the beginning of the thread or somewhere in the middle, looks like vax covid deaths are between 30-40%, so a 10-20% improvement from nothing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
there’s a lot of ways for bias to make this go wrong when measured that way, eg older people more likely to be vaxxed first. that why you do randomized controlled trials…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Clearly, this is one way the data could be skewed, but it seems like a lesser skew than assuming 100% of the other party had severe COVID and that is the level of protection. Or using 2 years of un
Covid deaths vs 2 mo of
COVID deaths.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
yeah try not to get it wrong in any direction…
-
-
Without the data, we are flying blind and being herded by big pharma with blinders on. I'm sure there is efficacy, but let's hear the truth about it and not some dumb blame the anti-vaxxers for the vaccine not protecting the vaccinated.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pravduh15 @DanielleFong and
Every study that I've seen has shown efficacy, but seeing the number obfuscation and data hiding has made me very suspicious.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
