This article is pure fake news, spread by numbskulls.
Its Infowars. One of the most well known batshit conspiracy nutcase sites on the internet.
You can immediately discount anything posted by anyone linking to it.
25th June 2021 info, from ;
Relax this is pure hogwash only believed by fools,
[ failed attempt at basic mathematics deleted]
I've done my best.
First, inforwars is 99.9% noise and almost no signal..but there is the occasional signal.
Second, you really dont seem to understand even basic statistics and the mathematics involved.
This is the way it actually works.
We have a population which are 10% high risk / 90% low risk (according PSI/PORT or equivalent)
The vaccine is claimed to reduce infection health risk by about 10x (published claimed efficacy rates)
The high risk population is vaccinated at a much faster rate than the low risk (as expected).
Once the total population vaccination rate goes above 20% the majority of those vaccinated are low risk.
As the total population vaccination rate goes up the ratio of high risk to low risk in the vaccinated population starts approaching the ratio in the general population but will always remain higher.
If the claimed efficacy rates for the vaccines are correct then there is no possible solution where the case rate in the vaccinated population will be higher than the unvaccinated group except when the total population vaccination rate was far less than 10% and if very few low risk people were vaccinated. Once the total population vaccination rate went into double digits the relative case rate for both groups, vaccination against unvaccinated should have quickly reached a equilibrium point in the 4x to 6x less risk range.
So the mathematics is very simple. Unless the case rate among the vaccinated is at least 3 to 4 times lower (minimum) than the unvaccinated the actual vaccine efficacy is much lower than claimed for high risk people. Which is exactly what would be expected based on the many decades of experience with influenza vaccines. Vaccines dont work very well with old sick people. The high risk population. The actual efficacy is less than 20%. Often far less.
So yes, the case rate among the vaccinated will of course as expected be higher than the unvaccinated. Because of science. And mathematics.
25th June 2021 info, from ;
...
This is the way it actually works.
We have a population which are 10% high risk / 90% low risk (according PSI/PORT or equivalent)
The vaccine is claimed to reduce infection health risk by about 10x (published claimed efficacy rates)
The high risk population is vaccinated at a much faster rate than the low risk (as expected).
Once the total population vaccination rate goes above 20% the majority of those vaccinated are low risk.
As the total population vaccination rate goes up the ratio of high risk to low risk in the vaccinated population starts approaching the ratio in the general population but will always remain higher....
You've got to be careful with this argument. You'd think it would be true always, but there are gotchas.
At the moment in the >50 group nearly all the vulnerable are vaccinated. I'd say that the >80 yrs old are vulnerable. About 20% of the >50 group are 80+ and the vast majority of them are vaccinated.
But not all.
There are about 800,000 over 50's unvaccinated. Most of these are 50-60, and relatively few 60-80. But there are about 200,000 unvaccinated in the 80+ yrs old. Thus 25% or so of the unvaccinated >50 population are 80+, ie, more than the vaccinated group. Now, this clearly has an impact if comparing unvaccinated vs vaccinated deaths (say), but it will also have an impact on your assumption that 'ratio of high risk to low risk in the vaccinated ... will always remain higher <than the general population>'
Now, I don't know why this is, but that's what the data says. I find it rather weird, frankly. Some people claim that it is evidence of benefit fraud (ie, keeping dead people alive 'on the books', so clearly they can't be vaccinated). I'd say there is a chance that they're so frail that the medical advice is to avoid vaccination.
Anyway, I don't know why this is and I'm not sure what the consequences would be, but it has to be considered.
Game set and match again jmc..some characters are gluttons for punishment.. still god loves a trier....
😉🤣
Game set and match again jmc..some characters are gluttons for punishment.. still god loves a trier....
😉🤣
Posters like that are very useful. When an erroneous explanation honestly made can be corrected. As long as these people dont cop an attitude I'm always glad to provide a better explanation to correct any mistakes. Which hopefully readers might find useful.
My day job often involves taking very complex mathematics and mathematical models and turning them into a form that does not fail when used as tools to solve real world problems. So I have developed a good nose for potential problems, unsupported assumptions and stuff that just does not work when mapped into the real world.
When someone published a scientific paper with bad assumptions, bad data or unsupported conclusions there are very rarely any penalties for such sloppy work. Most published papers are not read and very few errors no matter how profound are ever corrected. In my day job if such mistakes are made there are very serious repercussions. Senior management gets all shouty. As do the people who pay the bills. And often millions of dollars of time invested has been wasted. So there are big consequences to sloppy work.
This is the compete opposite of the scientific publishing world at the moment. Where sheer volume (no matter what quality) is rewarded by academic advancement and sloppy work and gross errors are almost never penalized. Which is why most published papers have little scientific value. And most "scientific" explanations you read in the media are wrong. For very basic reasons.
So yet another example of Gresham's Law in action.
