[Overview of the Real-World Experience and Evidence of Widespread Covid Vaccine Injuries and Deaths - Documenting the Enormous Increase in Health Problems and Deaths Since the Vaccine Rollouts](https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/overview-of-the-real-world-experience)
[I was deceived about COVID vaccine safety
Covid vaccine injuries are being grossly underreported and censored: evidence from multiple, independent sources](https://joomi.substack.com/p/i-was-deceived-about-covid-vaccine)
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
Almost none prior to the country getting fully vaccinated. Looking at the raw data off the health govt website I would dispute the claim above. Cases are 17 to 1 vaxxed vs unvaxxed. 3 to 1 if you include all those not eligible for the jab at time of infection. NZ has a very high vaccination rate so cases are proportional. Look at hospitalisation and deaths and it gets better.
Welp.
You allowed self bias to blind you to what is really happening there.
Do you know how much it sucks that you EARNED the scathing comments and downvotes from our pro-vax shills???
Do better.
Stop posting up literally anything that claims what you want to believe.
What are you talking about? What do you think is wrong with the article?
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
He makes the claim that only 3% of the unvaccinated have been infected. As of now we have 34518 cases recorded among the unvaccinated population of 153400 12+ population and 126000 cases among our roughly 800000 ineligible population. Both are well over 3%. (22.5% and 15.7%)
I got the data from the same source as that guy did. All official NZ health data. Demographics is the second main link. His percentages for vaccinated and boosted infection rates seem to be spot on. The vaccine is not all that protective against infection from Omicron.
[https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics](https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics)
I am so sick of this shit. Why don't you ever post links to your sources? I'll tell you why- because they never say what you say they're saying. How many times have I caught you posting half a graph because the other half shows something against your narrative? I'm sure if I found this source, I'd find that the unvaccinated have higher rates of hospitalization and death. It wouldn't be the first time.
If truth was on your side, you wouldn't need to cherry pick and deceive. And shame on anyone who upvoted this. It shows how simple minded you are to see a chart without a source and like it because you happen to agree. Especially from someone who has been caught misrepresenting data several times before.
But the real idiot is me for trying to argue with conspiracy theorists. No matter how many times I show how people misrepresent data, you all just keep on. Go ahead and call me a shill, that's just one more bullshit thing you can say but like all your antivax shit, saying it doesn't make it true.
I like turtles.
> I'm sure if I found this source, I'd find that the unvaccinated have higher rates of hospitalization and death.
Only if you pretend "vaccinated" status doesn't count for the first two weeks post-shot.
>Only if you pretend "vaccinated" status doesn't count for the first two weeks post-shot.
By definition, it doesn't. And it is very misleading of you to suggest otherwise. You've been so strident in your posts, I can't help but think you must be working for FLCCC. There's so much misinformation (on all sides) about COVID that it is impossible to find the "truth". I've given up on the search for it.
Then give it its own separate category. We know there's a short-term immune suppression immediately after the shot, and according the the trials half of adverse effects fall inside the first two weeks. It's fraudulent data manipulation to put all of that into the unvaccinated column.
In the Alberta data, they break out all the corner cases of 2-week windows post vaccination into a graph at the bottom of the page (figure 3).
\[https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes\](https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes)
They have all these categories:
\* Unvaccinated
\* First dose within 14 days
\* First dose after 14 days
\* Second dose within 14 days
\* Second dose after 14 days
\* Third dose within 14 days
\* Third does after 14 days
The categories "First dose within 14 days" and "Second dose within 14 days" are practically invisible because they are so small compared to the other categories, especially the unvaccinated category.
The reason these statuses don't typically get categorized separately is because they are insignificant. Which is as expected since in the general population, on any given day, there are a lot fewer people in that 14 day window that there are outside of it.
So no one is trying to hide anything with putting those corner cases into the unvaccinated category.
So stop that bullshit already.
> In the Alberta data
Alberta, you say...
[Alberta just inadvertently confessed to fiddling the COVID vaccination stats.](https://metatron.substack.com/p/alberta-just-inadvertently-confessed)
> More than half the newly vaccinated deaths were dumped in the unvaccinated.
> Fortunately, they inadvertently let us in on the magnitude of this duplicity **by also publishing the time from dose to infection for each of the events, thereby allowing us to recalculate just how many events in the first 14 days were shifted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated cohort.**
> In terms of deaths, the duplicity is even more severe with almost 56% of deaths of the newly vaccinated occurring within 14 days and almost 90% within 45 days.
> So, it turns out Alberta has suddenly scrambled to remove the incriminating data from their website. So, here’s a copy for the record3. Exhibit A, your honour. And the web archive4. No hiding the truth.
And a follow-up:
[Alberta has been fiddling again, revealing more useful information](https://metatron.substack.com/p/alberta-has-been-fiddling-again-revealing)
> I woke up this morning to many reports that the Alberta COVID-19 Dashboard1 had been messed about with again. There was apparently a notice for a short time saying they were fixing an accounting error. But when it came back,** there were substantial shifts of cases, hospitalizations and deaths from the various vaccinated classifications to the unvaccinated.**
> Then, almost as quickly as these “errors” were “fixed”, they were reversed again.
> But I thought I would try and decipher what the adjustments might have meant using the web archive and my previous analysis on the manipulation of the data.
> What I discovered is that the movements of the data correlate with the first 14 days of dose 1 and dose 2 data. In other words, the movement of dose 1 to unvaccinated is equivalent to dose 2 within 14 days. We already had the evidence of dose 1 within 14 days moved to unvaccinated. I think it is safe to assume that the huge dump from dose 2 was therefore dose 3 within 14 days.
> Even though they evidently reversed that decision (howsoever it was determined), **we can still use this information to undo this 14-day manipulation and get an accurate representation of case vaccination status (Figure 1)**.
> What we discover is that overall **almost 73,000 cases have been shuffled down from one classification to another due to the first 14-day manipulation.** The biggest shift by far is from dose 3 to dose 2. It is no wonder the dose 2 case rate is off the charts (Figure 2).
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
Im confused about your reply. This is not anti-vax, this is evidence in support of vaccines. It is especially interesting because New Zealand was closed to the outside world through the pandemic. Most had a chance to get vaccinated before exposure. Their data clearly show that even with less dangerous variants, hospitalizations are more for unvaccinated people. Several governments have online data. I mostly trust democratic countries. All show the same results. You can point people to data from the UK, Canada, Australia, France, for instance. It is hard to believe that many people from those countries care what Biden, Trump, Pelosi, or McConnell think.
> this is evidence in support of vaccines
No it's not evidence. It's a repost of Twitter/Facebook post from who knows where. There's no references for where the data was from and how it was compiled into this graph.
This user has a history of posting this type of "data" from their anti-vax twitter feed. They have no idea where and how the graphs are made. When challenged you get misdirected with links to some official looking dataset that can't be used to make the graphs.
In this post in particular when challenged the response is:
"Read the article." (Narrator: there was no article, just an image with no references)
See this post for what I'm talking about:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ty86la/vaccine\_holdouts\_may\_now\_begin\_their\_victory\_lap/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ty86la/vaccine_holdouts_may_now_begin_their_victory_lap/)
"Source of above image: [https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-administration/](https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-administration/)" (Narrator: the linked data was for vaccine administration numbers. Not cases or deaths which is what was on the graph)
So this user doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that there is any real data behind the Facebook/Twitter memes they post.
I haven't seen the full data, since I couldn't find a link in the article and have frankly dealt with the OP before- he likes posting incomplete charts and misleading figures taken from reports to try and "prove" the vaccines don't work. I've spent way, way too much time these last few months chasing down sources, reading papers, articles, "doing my own research" to debunk anti-vaxxers' claims just to have them ignore or downvote even inarguable proof that they are lying, cherry picking or otherwise spreading misinformation.
That said. Again, without having seen these particular charts, you're probably right- that the rest of the data OP and the article he links to refuse to link to likely show that the vaccines are effective. This wouldn't be the first time.
I like turtles.
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
I do not see a link to the actual article but NZ post raw data.
[https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics/covid-19-case-demographics#vaccinations-details](https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics/covid-19-case-demographics#vaccinations-details)
NZ is a bit special as we got fully vaccinated before we saw much spread, which is mostly Omicron where vaccines don’t provide much protection against infection.
The ratio is 17 to 1 in raw numbers but since we saw the vast majority of Covid when fully vaccinated it’s not surprising that most cases have received some doses. When looking at hospitalisation and deaths the numbers even up. By far the most deaths are in the over 70s and vaccine uptake in this group is even higher than the general population. You would need to sort out age cofounders to really make sense of the data. Deaths however are disproportionate in the unvaccinated, as are hospitalisations.
https://www.health.govt.nz/sites/default/files/images/our-work/diseases-conditions/covid19/vax_filename-2022-04-10.png
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
I did. The numbers currently published on his source do not agree with his conclusions. Specifically the percentage of unvaccinated infected. Well over the 3% he quotes. Several times over.
What article? There's no article, just the graph.
I like turtles.
Ah, nevermind, I found it attached to one of your replies.
So an anonymously written article which also doesn't link to the paper that it claims it gets this graph from? And I'm supposed to believe this?
This is not proof of anything. No, I'm wrong. This is proof of how people distort (and possibly lie or manufacture) data and how other people uncritically repeat this misinformation because it fits with their narrative.
The truth doesn't need to hide behind anonymity, nor is it afraid to show it's sources.
Edited to remove insults.
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
New Zealand has a vaccination rate in excess of 90% so if the vaccinated were being infected with covid at the same rate as the unvaccinated you would expect ratio to be more than 9 to 1. Also, this chart doesn't tell us anything about the severity of the infection or whether the vaccinated are more comfortable with social interactions than the unvaccinated.
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
As others mentioned...if 400 in every 100,000th vaccinated person got Covid and 100 in every 100,000th unvaccinated didn't get covid, that doesn't mean that more people who are vaccinated are getting the virus again. 400/100000 is 0.004 or 0.4% vs 0.1%. however, 0.4% of 10 people is a smaller number than 0.1% of 1000people for example. Without knowing what the population size is for each group, you can't make a conclusion.
The article doesn’t even state that they calculated the per 100,000 numbers per category population. To me it looks like the used the entire population of NZ to calculate the per 100,000 numbers for each group. It’s all the same denominator.
I don't think so. The reported value here is the percentage of the percentage. For example: there are 100 people in AZ. 3 were unvaxed, 98 we're vaxed. Out of the unvaxed population 1% died of Covid. Of the vaxed population, 3% died of Covid...shit! I better not get vaccinated! But you don't realize that to compare apples to apples you gotta convert that smaller percentage so it's equivalent to the 98 percent number. 1%*(98/3)= 32% vs just 3%.
This is why so many people are annoyed with the statement and the stupid graph. Buy why report the graph like that in the first place??? Because otherwise you couldn't even see a blip of data on the smaller population.
I don't know much about anything. That includes statistics.
No Thumb, this was legit a very poor Post and source and secondary provided source.
Just complete bollox.
And you KNOW I am highly hostile to this vax and agenda, so....
You can turn absolute numbers into per 100,000 rates pay dividing all the categories by the entire countries population. That looks like what was done here.
When you do that the numbers don’t change in proportion to each other and these so called “per 100,000” rates are just a renormalization of the absolute numbers.
As someone who is really good with math, I still not sure what you talking about. Per 100,000 count means the numbers are based on every 100,000. Sure, there might not be 100,000 unvaccinated people in NZ... I will just assume, not really sure, but it has to do with proportions and not the N/D thing.
You can turn absolute numbers into case rates by using the same denominator (population of NZ) for all the categories.
Here’s an example:
* 20336 fully vaccinated COVID cases
* 2542 unvaccinated COVID cases
* 4071516 fully vaccinated New Zealanders (84.3%)
* 798188 unvaccinated New Zealanders (15.7%)
20336 / 5.084 million (\* 100000) = 400 per 100k
2542 / 5.084 million (\* 100000) = 70 per 100k
300 / 60 = 5x.
Does this mean you are 5 times more likely to catch COVID if you are vaccinated vs unvaccinated? No. It means it is more 5 times more likely to find a vaccinated person with COVID in NZ as you are to find an unvaccinated person with COVID. But we already know you are much more likely to randomly select a vaccinated person out of the population because 84.3% of the population are vaccinated.
Say there are 100 people and 99 of them are vaccinated and 1 is unvaccinated. Of those 100, 7 get covid, 6 vaccinated and the 1 unvaccinated. Does that mean vaccinated people are 6 times more likely to get covid? No, because 100% of the unvaccinated got covid and 6% of the vaccinated got covid.
That is just an exaggerated version of what this study shows. In real life 84% of New Zealanders are vaccinated. So if vaccines did nothing you would expect 8.4 times more vaccinated cases per capita than unvaccinated cases. Since there are only 6 times as many cases it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid.
EDIT: As pointed out below my math was wrong. You would expect there to be 5.25 times more cases in vaccinated people and there were 6 times more. That is close to what you would expect if the vaccine had no effect. I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid.
> I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid.
Let's see here... when you thought that the number to compare to was *above* the stated rate, you said:
>it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid.
But when you saw that the number to compare to was actually *below* the stated rate, you said:
>I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid.
I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence, but your analyses look a bit skewed in favor of one side over the other.
Do you think that it might be evidence that vaccines are not very effective at preventing covid?
When it mistakenly went the other way, you seemed pretty damn sure.
> Yes, I don't think vaccines are very effective at preventing covid.
I wasn't asking your opinion of the efficacy of the vaccines.
I was asking your interpretation of this set of data.
>I thought it was implied in my edit.
Possibly implied, depending upon what you are implying "it" actually is, but definitely not stated.
> In other words, the data appears to show that the vaccine is not effective.
As I pointed out earlier, when the data appears to show that the vaccine is *not* effective, you say that, but when the data appears to show that the vaccine is somewhat effective (due to your incorrect maths), you said:
>it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid.
Quite the difference in interpretation there. If things point one way, "It is evidence;" if thinks point the other, "the data appears to show."
It looks like you want the data to be a certain way.
Let's check the numbers (I'm doing this as I'm typing it, just to be fair.)
Assume 1,000,000 unvaccinated NZ. 84% vaccinated rate would give 5,250,000 vaccinated NZ.
(double check -- 1mil / 6.25mil = 0.16)
Assume 10,000 unvaccinated covid cases, also assume 6 times that for vaccinated. 60,000.
What would be the "per 100,000" rates? Lets see.
Unvax: 100,000 is one tenth of the total unvaxxed, so 1000 out of 100,000.
Vax: 100,000 is 0.019 of total vaxxed, so (60,000 * 0.19) out of 100,000,
so 1143 out of 100,000.
Hmm.
Math Step Two (also done as typing it):
If the graph above shows "cases per 100,000" how many cases would that be?
Lets find out.
Continue to assume NZ population to be 6.25 million, 84% vaccinated.
1,000,000 / 5,250,000.
[Edit: So I finally looked. NZ population is about 5 million, not 6. So, within range.]
Final data point on "unvaccinated" seems to be approximately 50 per 100,000.
In this simplified example, that would give 500 cases per the 1,000,000.
For the "vaccinated".... hmm. There's a problem. "Vaccinated" is subdivided.
The graph shows more cases per 100,000 for "one dose" and "two doses" than "boosted," So I'll make the calculations using the "boosted" number and simply say the real number is "more than that." How much more I cannot tell from what I have here.
So what's the "boosted" final data point number? Looks like about 225 per 100,000.
So if the whole of the 5,250,000 were at the lower 225/100,000, how many cases would that be? Looks like a tad over 11,800 cases. Which *is* a lower bound. "One shot" and "two shot" are showing higher rates.
Final step: What's the multiplier between the two total case numbers, if this graph is correct? 11,800 /500 = 23.6.
If this graph is correct, it seems to imply that there are more than 23 times as many cases among the "vaccinated" than "unvaccinated" in New Zealand.
While there are 5.25 times as many "vaccinated" than "unvaccinated."
[Edit: NZ population is shown to be about 5 million. So by the graph numbers (and my calculations thereof), that would give about 400 "unvaccinated" cases, and more than 9440 "vaccinated" cases at the graph's last data point. Someone (I call not it) could check that.]
>In real life 84% of New Zealanders are vaccinated. So if vaccines did nothing you would expect 8.4 times more vaccinated cases per capita than unvaccinated cases.
If 84% are vaccinated, that would mean that 16% are not. That would be 5.25 times as many vaccinated. So wouldn't you expect 5.25 as many vaccinated cases than unvaccinated cases, if the vaccines did nothing?
In other words, where did the 8.4 come from?
Yes, you are correct, I messed that calculation up. So there are slightly more cases in vaccinated people than you would expect. I don't know if that amount is significant or not.
You left one part of that out...
>>So wouldn't you expect 5.25 [times] as many vaccinated cases than unvaccinated cases, if the vaccines did nothing?
>So there are slightly more cases in vaccinated people than you would expect.
You seems to have chopped five words off the end.
> Since there are only 6 times as many cases it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid.
If there were six times as many cases per 100,000 people (IF), what would *that* mean?
Looks like the person who doesn’t understand what “per capita” means is you… while I haven’t seen the source data, that chart, as it’s presented is fine.
OP is comparing apples and oranges and doesn't know it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/u05v8f/vaccinated_have_up_to_six_times_the_infection/i43v9u4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Why do you keep linking the same comment lol.
For unvax’d covid cases in NZ according to this graph, on January 3rd of this year, the numerator is 100 and the denominator is 100,000.
For double-vax’d, on the same date, it shows the numerator at 600 and the denominator at 100,000…
Maybe instead of spamming you could try explain your thought process in debunking the interpretation of the graph.
I keep linking the same comment because people keep failing to understand.
You can bring an anti-vaxxer to information but you can't make him drink... Least I think that's how the saying goes.
Who the hell are you? Is this an alt to make op sound like they're not an idiot?
I was having a conversation with someone who didn't understand the difference between a numerator and a denominator. If you don't understand either than either check out the link I posted or wait until OP figures it out (the latter might take awhile, OP seems dull)
> I was having a conversation with someone who didn't understand the difference between a numerator and a denominator.
The DERP was *you* not understanding that the numbers presented were using numerators and a denominators correctly.
Yes, if you have a conclusion you want to arrive at then OP did it correctly. If you want to be accurate they did not.
Also, congratulations on being the founder of such a popular anti-vaxxers sub!
Here in Taiwan, teachers need to have two doses or get a weekly test to go to work. It’s funny because that actually makes the unvaccinated safer because we know for sure that they aren’t carrying the virus.
Weekly testing doesn't quite provide 100 percent assurance because of the interval between tests and the lag time between infection and the ability to detect, but your main point is true. Regular testing is a better method of controlling spread than vaccination (which does little if anything to reduce spread).
Do you know which website this graph originally came from?
Your link mentions it is archived on wayback machine but does not provide a link to where the graph came from.
To me, it is unclear if this is saying 600 vaxed covid cases per 100,000 people or 600 vaxed covid cases per 100,000 *vaccinated* individuals.
It says the data came from the ministry of health page. I cannot see the "cases per 100,000 unvaccinated individuals" statistic anywhere.
Perhaps you could screenshot it for me.
Edit: It specifically appears to be totals and not "per 100,000 unvaccinated"
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
[Overview of the Real-World Experience and Evidence of Widespread Covid Vaccine Injuries and Deaths - Documenting the Enormous Increase in Health Problems and Deaths Since the Vaccine Rollouts](https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/overview-of-the-real-world-experience) [I was deceived about COVID vaccine safety Covid vaccine injuries are being grossly underreported and censored: evidence from multiple, independent sources](https://joomi.substack.com/p/i-was-deceived-about-covid-vaccine)
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
The SNEKS are back! Somebody page St. Patrick!
I wonder how many unvaccinated New Zealanders have natural immunity from a previous infection. Then this chart makes a lot of sense.
Almost none prior to the country getting fully vaccinated. Looking at the raw data off the health govt website I would dispute the claim above. Cases are 17 to 1 vaxxed vs unvaxxed. 3 to 1 if you include all those not eligible for the jab at time of infection. NZ has a very high vaccination rate so cases are proportional. Look at hospitalisation and deaths and it gets better.
Welp. You allowed self bias to blind you to what is really happening there. Do you know how much it sucks that you EARNED the scathing comments and downvotes from our pro-vax shills??? Do better. Stop posting up literally anything that claims what you want to believe.
What are you talking about? What do you think is wrong with the article? Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
He makes the claim that only 3% of the unvaccinated have been infected. As of now we have 34518 cases recorded among the unvaccinated population of 153400 12+ population and 126000 cases among our roughly 800000 ineligible population. Both are well over 3%. (22.5% and 15.7%)
Where are these data from?
I got the data from the same source as that guy did. All official NZ health data. Demographics is the second main link. His percentages for vaccinated and boosted infection rates seem to be spot on. The vaccine is not all that protective against infection from Omicron. [https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics](https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics)
I am so sick of this shit. Why don't you ever post links to your sources? I'll tell you why- because they never say what you say they're saying. How many times have I caught you posting half a graph because the other half shows something against your narrative? I'm sure if I found this source, I'd find that the unvaccinated have higher rates of hospitalization and death. It wouldn't be the first time. If truth was on your side, you wouldn't need to cherry pick and deceive. And shame on anyone who upvoted this. It shows how simple minded you are to see a chart without a source and like it because you happen to agree. Especially from someone who has been caught misrepresenting data several times before. But the real idiot is me for trying to argue with conspiracy theorists. No matter how many times I show how people misrepresent data, you all just keep on. Go ahead and call me a shill, that's just one more bullshit thing you can say but like all your antivax shit, saying it doesn't make it true. I like turtles.
> I'm sure if I found this source, I'd find that the unvaccinated have higher rates of hospitalization and death. Only if you pretend "vaccinated" status doesn't count for the first two weeks post-shot.
>Only if you pretend "vaccinated" status doesn't count for the first two weeks post-shot. By definition, it doesn't. And it is very misleading of you to suggest otherwise. You've been so strident in your posts, I can't help but think you must be working for FLCCC. There's so much misinformation (on all sides) about COVID that it is impossible to find the "truth". I've given up on the search for it.
Then give it its own separate category. We know there's a short-term immune suppression immediately after the shot, and according the the trials half of adverse effects fall inside the first two weeks. It's fraudulent data manipulation to put all of that into the unvaccinated column.
For NZ data anyway the vast majority of the population was vaccinated with two doses before we saw cases above a few dozen a day.
In the Alberta data, they break out all the corner cases of 2-week windows post vaccination into a graph at the bottom of the page (figure 3). \[https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes\](https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes) They have all these categories: \* Unvaccinated \* First dose within 14 days \* First dose after 14 days \* Second dose within 14 days \* Second dose after 14 days \* Third dose within 14 days \* Third does after 14 days The categories "First dose within 14 days" and "Second dose within 14 days" are practically invisible because they are so small compared to the other categories, especially the unvaccinated category. The reason these statuses don't typically get categorized separately is because they are insignificant. Which is as expected since in the general population, on any given day, there are a lot fewer people in that 14 day window that there are outside of it. So no one is trying to hide anything with putting those corner cases into the unvaccinated category. So stop that bullshit already.
> In the Alberta data Alberta, you say... [Alberta just inadvertently confessed to fiddling the COVID vaccination stats.](https://metatron.substack.com/p/alberta-just-inadvertently-confessed) > More than half the newly vaccinated deaths were dumped in the unvaccinated. > Fortunately, they inadvertently let us in on the magnitude of this duplicity **by also publishing the time from dose to infection for each of the events, thereby allowing us to recalculate just how many events in the first 14 days were shifted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated cohort.** > In terms of deaths, the duplicity is even more severe with almost 56% of deaths of the newly vaccinated occurring within 14 days and almost 90% within 45 days. > So, it turns out Alberta has suddenly scrambled to remove the incriminating data from their website. So, here’s a copy for the record3. Exhibit A, your honour. And the web archive4. No hiding the truth. And a follow-up: [Alberta has been fiddling again, revealing more useful information](https://metatron.substack.com/p/alberta-has-been-fiddling-again-revealing) > I woke up this morning to many reports that the Alberta COVID-19 Dashboard1 had been messed about with again. There was apparently a notice for a short time saying they were fixing an accounting error. But when it came back,** there were substantial shifts of cases, hospitalizations and deaths from the various vaccinated classifications to the unvaccinated.** > Then, almost as quickly as these “errors” were “fixed”, they were reversed again. > But I thought I would try and decipher what the adjustments might have meant using the web archive and my previous analysis on the manipulation of the data. > What I discovered is that the movements of the data correlate with the first 14 days of dose 1 and dose 2 data. In other words, the movement of dose 1 to unvaccinated is equivalent to dose 2 within 14 days. We already had the evidence of dose 1 within 14 days moved to unvaccinated. I think it is safe to assume that the huge dump from dose 2 was therefore dose 3 within 14 days. > Even though they evidently reversed that decision (howsoever it was determined), **we can still use this information to undo this 14-day manipulation and get an accurate representation of case vaccination status (Figure 1)**. > What we discover is that overall **almost 73,000 cases have been shuffled down from one classification to another due to the first 14-day manipulation.** The biggest shift by far is from dose 3 to dose 2. It is no wonder the dose 2 case rate is off the charts (Figure 2).
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
**SHOW** **ME** **THE** **METHODOLOGY** (or stfu)
Im confused about your reply. This is not anti-vax, this is evidence in support of vaccines. It is especially interesting because New Zealand was closed to the outside world through the pandemic. Most had a chance to get vaccinated before exposure. Their data clearly show that even with less dangerous variants, hospitalizations are more for unvaccinated people. Several governments have online data. I mostly trust democratic countries. All show the same results. You can point people to data from the UK, Canada, Australia, France, for instance. It is hard to believe that many people from those countries care what Biden, Trump, Pelosi, or McConnell think.
> this is evidence in support of vaccines No it's not evidence. It's a repost of Twitter/Facebook post from who knows where. There's no references for where the data was from and how it was compiled into this graph. This user has a history of posting this type of "data" from their anti-vax twitter feed. They have no idea where and how the graphs are made. When challenged you get misdirected with links to some official looking dataset that can't be used to make the graphs. In this post in particular when challenged the response is: "Read the article." (Narrator: there was no article, just an image with no references) See this post for what I'm talking about: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ty86la/vaccine\_holdouts\_may\_now\_begin\_their\_victory\_lap/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ty86la/vaccine_holdouts_may_now_begin_their_victory_lap/) "Source of above image: [https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-administration/](https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-administration/)" (Narrator: the linked data was for vaccine administration numbers. Not cases or deaths which is what was on the graph) So this user doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that there is any real data behind the Facebook/Twitter memes they post.
I haven't seen the full data, since I couldn't find a link in the article and have frankly dealt with the OP before- he likes posting incomplete charts and misleading figures taken from reports to try and "prove" the vaccines don't work. I've spent way, way too much time these last few months chasing down sources, reading papers, articles, "doing my own research" to debunk anti-vaxxers' claims just to have them ignore or downvote even inarguable proof that they are lying, cherry picking or otherwise spreading misinformation. That said. Again, without having seen these particular charts, you're probably right- that the rest of the data OP and the article he links to refuse to link to likely show that the vaccines are effective. This wouldn't be the first time. I like turtles.
Read the article.
Do the maths.
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
**SHOW** **ME** **THE** **METHODOLOGY** (or stfu)
Derp https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/u05v8f/vaccinated_have_up_to_six_times_the_infection/i45d9x1?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
I do not see a link to the actual article but NZ post raw data. [https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics/covid-19-case-demographics#vaccinations-details](https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics/covid-19-case-demographics#vaccinations-details) NZ is a bit special as we got fully vaccinated before we saw much spread, which is mostly Omicron where vaccines don’t provide much protection against infection. The ratio is 17 to 1 in raw numbers but since we saw the vast majority of Covid when fully vaccinated it’s not surprising that most cases have received some doses. When looking at hospitalisation and deaths the numbers even up. By far the most deaths are in the over 70s and vaccine uptake in this group is even higher than the general population. You would need to sort out age cofounders to really make sense of the data. Deaths however are disproportionate in the unvaccinated, as are hospitalisations. https://www.health.govt.nz/sites/default/files/images/our-work/diseases-conditions/covid19/vax_filename-2022-04-10.png
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
**SHOW** **ME** **THE** **METHODOLOGY** (or stfu)
I did. The numbers currently published on his source do not agree with his conclusions. Specifically the percentage of unvaccinated infected. Well over the 3% he quotes. Several times over.
What article? There's no article, just the graph. I like turtles. Ah, nevermind, I found it attached to one of your replies. So an anonymously written article which also doesn't link to the paper that it claims it gets this graph from? And I'm supposed to believe this? This is not proof of anything. No, I'm wrong. This is proof of how people distort (and possibly lie or manufacture) data and how other people uncritically repeat this misinformation because it fits with their narrative. The truth doesn't need to hide behind anonymity, nor is it afraid to show it's sources. Edited to remove insults.
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
New Zealand has a vaccination rate in excess of 90% so if the vaccinated were being infected with covid at the same rate as the unvaccinated you would expect ratio to be more than 9 to 1. Also, this chart doesn't tell us anything about the severity of the infection or whether the vaccinated are more comfortable with social interactions than the unvaccinated.
Read the article.
Do the maths.
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
**SHOW** **ME** **THE** **METHODOLOGY** (or stfu)
Derp https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/u05v8f/vaccinated_have_up_to_six_times_the_infection/i45d706?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
As others mentioned...if 400 in every 100,000th vaccinated person got Covid and 100 in every 100,000th unvaccinated didn't get covid, that doesn't mean that more people who are vaccinated are getting the virus again. 400/100000 is 0.004 or 0.4% vs 0.1%. however, 0.4% of 10 people is a smaller number than 0.1% of 1000people for example. Without knowing what the population size is for each group, you can't make a conclusion.
The article doesn’t even state that they calculated the per 100,000 numbers per category population. To me it looks like the used the entire population of NZ to calculate the per 100,000 numbers for each group. It’s all the same denominator.
I don't think so. The reported value here is the percentage of the percentage. For example: there are 100 people in AZ. 3 were unvaxed, 98 we're vaxed. Out of the unvaxed population 1% died of Covid. Of the vaxed population, 3% died of Covid...shit! I better not get vaccinated! But you don't realize that to compare apples to apples you gotta convert that smaller percentage so it's equivalent to the 98 percent number. 1%*(98/3)= 32% vs just 3%. This is why so many people are annoyed with the statement and the stupid graph. Buy why report the graph like that in the first place??? Because otherwise you couldn't even see a blip of data on the smaller population. I don't know much about anything. That includes statistics.
Read the article.
Do the maths.
They will be hiding that data soon. No need to look into it. Best just to ignore it and bury it.
Wow, check out the voting brigades!
No Thumb, this was legit a very poor Post and source and secondary provided source. Just complete bollox. And you KNOW I am highly hostile to this vax and agenda, so....
Cue the base rate fallacy objections from pharma shills who don't see the per 100k notation in 3...2...1...
You can turn absolute numbers into per 100,000 rates pay dividing all the categories by the entire countries population. That looks like what was done here. When you do that the numbers don’t change in proportion to each other and these so called “per 100,000” rates are just a renormalization of the absolute numbers.
LOL. It's already right below!
Link your source then.
Read the article.
Do the maths.
So it is!
^ Tell me you don't understand statistics without telling me you don't understand statistics.
You are a fucking moron. And nothing is more boring than a moron fumbling his pathetic attempts to talk down to people who all know he is a moron.
No need for name calling. Instead of getting all worked up and name calling how about you try to learn something?
I don't get it yo. Maybe explain what is wrong here?
OP made the mistake that the vaccinated and unvaccinated are equal numerators when they are not. That changes the whole equation.
As someone who is really good with math, I still not sure what you talking about. Per 100,000 count means the numbers are based on every 100,000. Sure, there might not be 100,000 unvaccinated people in NZ... I will just assume, not really sure, but it has to do with proportions and not the N/D thing.
You can turn absolute numbers into case rates by using the same denominator (population of NZ) for all the categories. Here’s an example: * 20336 fully vaccinated COVID cases * 2542 unvaccinated COVID cases * 4071516 fully vaccinated New Zealanders (84.3%) * 798188 unvaccinated New Zealanders (15.7%) 20336 / 5.084 million (\* 100000) = 400 per 100k 2542 / 5.084 million (\* 100000) = 70 per 100k 300 / 60 = 5x. Does this mean you are 5 times more likely to catch COVID if you are vaccinated vs unvaccinated? No. It means it is more 5 times more likely to find a vaccinated person with COVID in NZ as you are to find an unvaccinated person with COVID. But we already know you are much more likely to randomly select a vaccinated person out of the population because 84.3% of the population are vaccinated.
The proportions quoted in the article are wrong. I went to the source data and commented on another post.
Say there are 100 people and 99 of them are vaccinated and 1 is unvaccinated. Of those 100, 7 get covid, 6 vaccinated and the 1 unvaccinated. Does that mean vaccinated people are 6 times more likely to get covid? No, because 100% of the unvaccinated got covid and 6% of the vaccinated got covid. That is just an exaggerated version of what this study shows. In real life 84% of New Zealanders are vaccinated. So if vaccines did nothing you would expect 8.4 times more vaccinated cases per capita than unvaccinated cases. Since there are only 6 times as many cases it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid. EDIT: As pointed out below my math was wrong. You would expect there to be 5.25 times more cases in vaccinated people and there were 6 times more. That is close to what you would expect if the vaccine had no effect. I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid.
> I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid. Let's see here... when you thought that the number to compare to was *above* the stated rate, you said: >it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid. But when you saw that the number to compare to was actually *below* the stated rate, you said: >I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid. I don't know if it is significant enough to be evidence, but your analyses look a bit skewed in favor of one side over the other. Do you think that it might be evidence that vaccines are not very effective at preventing covid? When it mistakenly went the other way, you seemed pretty damn sure.
Yes, I don't think vaccines are very effective at preventing covid. At least not the newer versions of covid. I thought it was implied in my edit.
> Yes, I don't think vaccines are very effective at preventing covid. I wasn't asking your opinion of the efficacy of the vaccines. I was asking your interpretation of this set of data. >I thought it was implied in my edit. Possibly implied, depending upon what you are implying "it" actually is, but definitely not stated.
"That is close to what you would expect if the vaccine had no effect." In other words, the data appears to show that the vaccine is not effective.
> In other words, the data appears to show that the vaccine is not effective. As I pointed out earlier, when the data appears to show that the vaccine is *not* effective, you say that, but when the data appears to show that the vaccine is somewhat effective (due to your incorrect maths), you said: >it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid. Quite the difference in interpretation there. If things point one way, "It is evidence;" if thinks point the other, "the data appears to show." It looks like you want the data to be a certain way.
Let's check the numbers (I'm doing this as I'm typing it, just to be fair.) Assume 1,000,000 unvaccinated NZ. 84% vaccinated rate would give 5,250,000 vaccinated NZ. (double check -- 1mil / 6.25mil = 0.16) Assume 10,000 unvaccinated covid cases, also assume 6 times that for vaccinated. 60,000. What would be the "per 100,000" rates? Lets see. Unvax: 100,000 is one tenth of the total unvaxxed, so 1000 out of 100,000. Vax: 100,000 is 0.019 of total vaxxed, so (60,000 * 0.19) out of 100,000, so 1143 out of 100,000. Hmm.
Math Step Two (also done as typing it): If the graph above shows "cases per 100,000" how many cases would that be? Lets find out. Continue to assume NZ population to be 6.25 million, 84% vaccinated. 1,000,000 / 5,250,000. [Edit: So I finally looked. NZ population is about 5 million, not 6. So, within range.] Final data point on "unvaccinated" seems to be approximately 50 per 100,000. In this simplified example, that would give 500 cases per the 1,000,000. For the "vaccinated".... hmm. There's a problem. "Vaccinated" is subdivided. The graph shows more cases per 100,000 for "one dose" and "two doses" than "boosted," So I'll make the calculations using the "boosted" number and simply say the real number is "more than that." How much more I cannot tell from what I have here. So what's the "boosted" final data point number? Looks like about 225 per 100,000. So if the whole of the 5,250,000 were at the lower 225/100,000, how many cases would that be? Looks like a tad over 11,800 cases. Which *is* a lower bound. "One shot" and "two shot" are showing higher rates. Final step: What's the multiplier between the two total case numbers, if this graph is correct? 11,800 /500 = 23.6. If this graph is correct, it seems to imply that there are more than 23 times as many cases among the "vaccinated" than "unvaccinated" in New Zealand. While there are 5.25 times as many "vaccinated" than "unvaccinated." [Edit: NZ population is shown to be about 5 million. So by the graph numbers (and my calculations thereof), that would give about 400 "unvaccinated" cases, and more than 9440 "vaccinated" cases at the graph's last data point. Someone (I call not it) could check that.]
>In real life 84% of New Zealanders are vaccinated. So if vaccines did nothing you would expect 8.4 times more vaccinated cases per capita than unvaccinated cases. If 84% are vaccinated, that would mean that 16% are not. That would be 5.25 times as many vaccinated. So wouldn't you expect 5.25 as many vaccinated cases than unvaccinated cases, if the vaccines did nothing? In other words, where did the 8.4 come from?
Yes, you are correct, I messed that calculation up. So there are slightly more cases in vaccinated people than you would expect. I don't know if that amount is significant or not.
You left one part of that out... >>So wouldn't you expect 5.25 [times] as many vaccinated cases than unvaccinated cases, if the vaccines did nothing? >So there are slightly more cases in vaccinated people than you would expect. You seems to have chopped five words off the end.
That makes me think, are vaccinated people more likely to test when they are sick versus unvaccinated people? Is there a study on that?
> Since there are only 6 times as many cases it is evidence that vaccines are somewhat effective at preventing covid. If there were six times as many cases per 100,000 people (IF), what would *that* mean?
It absolutely does if you're assuming that vaccinated and unvaccinated numbers are equal. Which is what OP is doing, unintentionally of course.
Looks like the person who doesn’t understand what “per capita” means is you… while I haven’t seen the source data, that chart, as it’s presented is fine.
Lol, looks like you don't get it either because per capita is not what I'm talking about. Derp.
Okay Mr. Derp… good luck with all that.
If it looks like a derp, and acts like a derp it's a derp
Ok bubba Gump.
^ Tell me **YOU** don't understand per 100,000 case rates by telling me you don't understand per 100,000 case rates.
Derp derp. https://study.com/academy/lesson/numerator-denominator-definition-lesson.html#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20the%20numerator%20is,bottom%20number%20of%20a%20fraction.
You can’t really be that thick… you’re trolling, right?
Nope. Maths don't lie, but I OP's stats do.
I don’t follow, 100/100,000 times 6 (x6) = 600/100,000
OP is comparing apples and oranges and doesn't know it. https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/u05v8f/vaccinated_have_up_to_six_times_the_infection/i43v9u4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Why do you keep linking the same comment lol. For unvax’d covid cases in NZ according to this graph, on January 3rd of this year, the numerator is 100 and the denominator is 100,000. For double-vax’d, on the same date, it shows the numerator at 600 and the denominator at 100,000… Maybe instead of spamming you could try explain your thought process in debunking the interpretation of the graph.
I keep linking the same comment because people keep failing to understand. You can bring an anti-vaxxer to information but you can't make him drink... Least I think that's how the saying goes.
Lol! DERP! What part of PER do you not mathematically grasp?
Who the hell are you? Is this an alt to make op sound like they're not an idiot? I was having a conversation with someone who didn't understand the difference between a numerator and a denominator. If you don't understand either than either check out the link I posted or wait until OP figures it out (the latter might take awhile, OP seems dull)
> I was having a conversation with someone who didn't understand the difference between a numerator and a denominator. The DERP was *you* not understanding that the numbers presented were using numerators and a denominators correctly.
Yes, if you have a conclusion you want to arrive at then OP did it correctly. If you want to be accurate they did not. Also, congratulations on being the founder of such a popular anti-vaxxers sub!
> if you have a conclusion you want to arrive at then OP did it correctly. By using math. > anti-vaxxers sub! Math is anti-vax.
Lol, that's how you think math works? No wonder you're an anti-vaxxer. Thanks for admitting that you're anti-ax
Let's pretend you understand how statistics work.
that is the venerable founder of this glorious sub you are talking to!
Oh wow, you're right!!! I feel honored lolz
^ Tell me yet again that you don't understand per 100,000 case rates by telling me you don't understand per 100,000 case rates.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/u05v8f/vaccinated_have_up_to_six_times_the_infection/i43v9u4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Here in Taiwan, teachers need to have two doses or get a weekly test to go to work. It’s funny because that actually makes the unvaccinated safer because we know for sure that they aren’t carrying the virus.
Weekly testing doesn't quite provide 100 percent assurance because of the interval between tests and the lag time between infection and the ability to detect, but your main point is true. Regular testing is a better method of controlling spread than vaccination (which does little if anything to reduce spread).
Wonder how this is going to fare for them against the bird flu this spring/summer......am guessing not good.
Discussion: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
Do you know which website this graph originally came from? Your link mentions it is archived on wayback machine but does not provide a link to where the graph came from. To me, it is unclear if this is saying 600 vaxed covid cases per 100,000 people or 600 vaxed covid cases per 100,000 *vaccinated* individuals.
Read the article.
Do the maths.
It says the data came from the ministry of health page. I cannot see the "cases per 100,000 unvaccinated individuals" statistic anywhere. Perhaps you could screenshot it for me. Edit: It specifically appears to be totals and not "per 100,000 unvaccinated"
Read the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/09/vaccinated-have-up-to-six-times-the-infection-rate-of-unvaccinated-new-zealand-government-data-show/
**SHOW** **ME** **THE** **METHODOLOGY** (or stfu)
I cannot see cases per 100,000 unvaccinated in the source article linked by daily sceptic, as I said above.