Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 5

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a huge number of comments, so I'm opening another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 

3. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

Re: PHE bulletin 22

[(Anonymous)]

Figures like this keep coming up. They are drastically skewed by the fact that 100% of cases in children, who very rarely die, are among the unvaxxed, whereas the large majority of cases in the elderly, who often die, are among the vaxxed. When two groups are wildly different in ways unrelated to the intervention you wish to test, you cannot draw any conclusions. (If you have patient-level data, you can correct for age, though you'll never be able to correct for health and comorbidities, or behavior. But here that hasn't been done.)

Re: PHE bulletin 22

[(Anonymous)]

Then what of this? Here it's broken down by age.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243546

Re: PHE bulletin 22

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for this. I was going to bring up the same issue as above.

One of the problems with the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed data is that it can be skewed by age, no question. We need to see age-controlled data to know what's really going on.

Re: PHE bulletin 22

[(Anonymous)]

That is disturbing. It suggests that the vaccine is only really effective among precisely the people who need it least.

That said, I'm not sold on it actually making the 40-79 y.o. population more likely (as opposed to equally-likely) from these numbers. If you include all age ranges, you'd see a negative correlation between vaccines and COVID cases, and if you include only the 40-79 range, you risk cherry-picking.

My knowledge of statistics is sadly not sophisticated enough to allow me to correct for those problems and test the hypothesis.