Posted on 09/17/2021 3:54:38 AM PDT by MtnClimber
In short, the purpose of the report is for propaganda.
A newly published CDC study prompted the MSM to run headlines like "New study finds unvaccinated are 11 times more likely to die from Covid, CDC says," "Unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die of covid-19, CDC report finds," and "Unvaccinated People Are 11 Times More Likely To Die Of COVID-19, New Research Finds." It surely looks scary if you read only those headlines. I was curious about what the report actually says, and doesn't say. Below is what I found.
1. The purpose of the report is for propaganda
The report admits in its Discussion section that "the data assessed from 13 jurisdictions accounted for 25% of the U.S. population, and therefore might not be generalizable." But it still suggests that "[t]he data might be helpful in communicating the real-time impact of vaccines (e.g., persons not fully vaccinated having >10 times higher COVID-19 mortality risk) and guiding prevention strategies, such as vaccination and nonpharmacologic interventions." No wonder the MSM outlets quickly spread this message around.
It could be dangerous to continue the mass vaccination campaign that, at least, helped to drive the delta variant becoming the predominant virus in the United state today. The report admits that "[f]indings from this crude analysis of surveillance data are consistent with recent studies reporting decreased VE [vaccine effectiveness] against confirmed infection." If the CDC keeps up this mass vaccination campaign to continue drive the delta variant out, what are we going to do when the next, more dangerous variant comes?
2. The representation of the data used in the study
The raw data used by the study were collected from thirteen jurisdictions, including "Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Los Angeles County...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No one could think these people of medical integrity and communist leanings would cherry pick the data to show the results they want.
never trust a government that opens its border and spreads hundreds of thousands of disease carrying invaders across its country during a “global pandemic”...
I thought they did not have a test for the Delta variant alone?
I still think they fabricated Delta to cover the fact that the vax is worthless.
If youâre going full bore Soviet communism you absolutely have a need for Lysenkoist research to back up the state decrees.
They renamed the Indian “variant” to “delta variant.”
The PCR test, which is going to stop being used at the end of this year, cannot differentiate between the cold, the flu, and “covid,” nevermind any “variants.”
Ever wonder why the virus hasn’t been blasted all over TV? It isn’t isolated. I watched a video a few weeks ago regarding how virologists “prove” the existence of a virus. They add a ton of things to the sample, rather than isolating it.
I wonder why anti-parasitic medications work so well.
When you control the media, you don’t need any research.
Just like the Soviets who controlled the media more than our regime does. Let the Lysenkos at CDC generate BS forced result research for the media hordes to cram down the peopleâs throats.
I’ve had arguments with people both on FR and in other forums about this. I don’t trust the government or the media, but I know people who work in these fields. The real numbers nerds are faithful to their work. They’re performing calculations and using ACTUAL math and science with the data they’re receiving.
My contention all along has been that the higher ups are manipulating the numbers to fit a narrative, and we’re seeing that come to pass more and more often. Faithful adherence to statistical modeling is showing a much different picture, but it doesn’t fit the headlines needed to fan the flames of hysteria with the public.
The CDC is lying, of course.
I am tracking GA numbers (as flawed as they are) and as of Sept 15:
Vaccinated breakthrough cases:
Hospitalizations - 3.60%
Deaths - .75%
Unvaccinated, one shot, 2nd shot <14 days cases:
Hospitalizations - 4.38%
Deaths - 1%
Less than .25% difference between the two groups.
In addition, deaths of the vaccinated group increased .06% over last week, while the âunvaxxedâ only .01%
I will keep tracking.
I know the numbers are flawed, the tests are flawed, but this shows by their own numbers that the shot is not working.
True. This stands as an enduring slap in the face for all of those who have remained curled up in the fetal position while crying under a table in their homes for the past 20 months.
Do âVaccine Mandatesâ apply to these feral animals? Hardly. I mean the illegal invaders, not the entire democrat party, of course.
Nope, this is yet one more distraction, one more piece of the plot to overwhelm the nation with so many crisis that a societal collapse is a forgone conclusion.
Iâd hardly be surprised if the fraud pedojoe bidet scammer squad let a conflict with the chicoms go hot so they could use that for a reason to account for massive shortages and price increases. They feel they can get away with anything now. Can they?
This is something that has bothered me. We keep hearing “DELTA VARIANT! DELTA VARIANT!” but nobody actually says how they are quantifying this.
It is my understanding that they can distinguish the variants by running a more expensive and slower test that takes far more time (days) so perhaps they are running the test on 1% of the tests and extrapolating, but nobody that I know of has said how it is being done.
Chantix drug being recalled. Pfizer.
Now you can see that under the impact of the delta variant in the second period, the number of cases for the “not fully vaccinated” people is reduced. So are the hospitalizations and deaths. This was the same if I didn’t modify the days. But the “vaccinated” numbers increased by a lot â 191.14% for cases, 40.89% for hospitalizations, 31.78% for deaths. That’s terrible! Is that why the study had to use 80 days? To avoid this bad look?
—
The CDC is being selective in its reporting to downplay the effect of the delta variant on the vaccinated. The vaccine is ineffective against the variant, but the CDC is still pushing vaccinations.
headline may exaggerate, but it seems there have been a lot more responses now than first reported at FR:
15 Sept: Health Impact News: Local Detroit TV Asks for Stories of Unvaxxed Dying from COVID â Gets over 180K Responses of Vaccine Injured and Dead Instead
by Brian Shilhavy
WXYZ TV Channel 7 in Detroit asked their viewers on their Facebook Page last Friday to direct message them if they lost a loved one due to COVID-19 if they refused to get one of the COVID-19 vaccines.
This is a clear indication that they are getting desperate to find these stories, and are having a difficult time finding them.
I donât know if they got any such stories through direct messaging, but the post on their Facebook Page, as of the time of publication today, had received over 182,000 comments, and they seem to be all comments of those who have lost loved ones after receiving a COVID shot, and comments asking them why they are not covering that story...
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/local-detroit-tv-asks-for-stories-of-unvaxxed-dying-from-covid-gets-over-180k-responses-of-vaccine-injured-and-dead-instead/
I have worked with supplying data to decision-makers, and I am always suspect of numbers and statistics being used in any decision.
Not only is that is not a bad thing, it is vital and healthy to sound decision processes.
Biases can be introduced from the get go. In these things, what data is to be obtained and how it is to be processed is often a collaborative effort involving in-depth communication between those who understand the extraction, collection, and display of data, and those who understand the data and make the primary decisions about which data elements to use, how it is to be presented, and to what audience.
Bias can be introduced in every single stage of the process, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes maliciously. (less often maliciously to the actual intended effect of the statistics because people are well-meaning, but maliciously to truth and accuracy)
Heck. I have done it myself in the past. It is not uncommon to be involved in a situation where a decision has been made by nearly everyone that a path needs to be followed, and data is needed to justify that path. So the question, often unspoken is...how can we get the data to justify what is “obviously” the right decision? I have seen this thought process in action. So the data is pulled, someone slices and dices it, and it either supports weakly or doesn’t support at all a potential plan of action. So it is sliced a little differently. And this continues in a variety of ways, excluding this outlying data, narrowing this parameter or that, and so on.
Most of the time, this process is done to get closer to the truth, and is necessary to achieve that, since it is sometimes not obvious what the best way to look at and present the data is to make the point. I have done this many times myself, and after spending considerable time extracting, collating, and displaying data, you find it is a dead end because it becomes obvious it isn’t the right path at all. It was a mistake in deciding what elements to choose, etc. Sometimes, people honestly say “We think this is the right way to go, but the data doesn’t support it. We need to look at this differently.”
This is a sound approach.
You have a hypothesis on what a problem is, and you pull data to see if you are correct. Sometimes you aren’t according to the data, so either the data is incorrect, or the hypothesis is incorrect. It is a process.
But not always.
Sometimes the hypothesis is constructed, and supporting that hypothesis becomes paramount.
Sometimes the person pulling the data, the person presenting the data, and the person responsible for the decision-making all want the same outcome, and drive their efforts to buttress that goal. And that is bad. In that process, the data is bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated to achieve the goal. That is unsound, unethical, and is not “science”. It is advocacy.
THIS is what we see in Global Warming “science”.
It is also what we see in this COVID “science” in my opinion.
As long as there is aâpandemicâ, we are an authoritarian country. Which is only the beginning of the fascist leftist dreams of plunder and control.
Even with these numbers, the graph shows the cases for unvaced is higher than vaced. You can make up your own minds if you want it based on other things like side effects which they clearly downplay. A better graph would use the more important things like hospitalizations and deaths. Cases is a useless metric.
Tortured data will confess to any theory you want.
Is that the smoking pill that makes people have crazy dreams?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.