Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Fractal Trader

Cases mean nothing, one must look at deaths.

You also have to break it down by age or demographics.

The earliest vaccinated were the most susceptible so it is conceivable the 20% may reflect a much lager percent of the risk group that accounts for almost all the actual cases or deaths.

It’s a good observation you’ve made, but you need to do further analysis.

It may also reflect ups and downs of cold and flu type diseases and the vaccine roll out was at a down turn.

It may be the vaccine is not very effective at all.

We certainly know it’s not as effective as traditional vaccines.


4 posted on 10/13/2021 8:55:37 PM PDT by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ifinnegan
Cases mean nothing, one must look at deaths. You also have to break it down by age or demographics.

The four charts are broken down by age group. The headings are cropped in the article. You have to open each chart from within the tweet to see the full chart.

To make it easier for you, I did so. Here are the headings:

If we accept your premise that one must look at deaths, can we assume that "deaths" is a much smaller subset of "cases?"

If so, what do you make of the inference of the article that the number of cases/deaths plateaus at about a 20% vaccination rate, and diminishes marginally after that?

How would an age breakout show something different when the overall rates are already low and the higher ages would naturally have the most vaccinated people?

You do recall that the earliest people who were vaccinated were the elderly? Is it safe to assume that once we reached the 20% vaccinated level that it was the elderly that was mostly vaccinated and that the remaining people getting vaxxed were under 60 years old?

If that's the case that the elderly were the first to be vaccinated and that vaccinating the rest of the population had marginal effect on reducing future cases, does this justify ruining a nation over a vaccination mandate?

This appears to be the Pareto Rule (the 20/80 rule). In fact, look at the change in total cases between the 20% point and where the upper part of the curve starts to bend. What is the change in cases between these two points? I'll tell you: it's marginal compared to the early part of the chart.

So, what does this tell you about the need for mandates?

-PJ

28 posted on 10/13/2021 10:22:34 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson