Absolutely brain dead. He's ignoring the most obvious fact - the lots aren't the same size. Pfizer said their lots vary from 1 to 3 million doses. His analysis only has meaning if all lots are the same size.
This isn't tricky, it's elementary math.
| semimojo wrote: |
| Assuming the lots are not preferentially assigned to certain cohorts (e.g. one goes to all nursing homes, etc) adverse reactions should thus be normally distributed between lots; Absolutely brain dead. He's ignoring the most obvious fact - the lots aren't the same size. Pfizer said their lots vary from 1 to 3 million doses. His analysis only has meaning if all lots are the same size. This isn't tricky, it's elementary math. |
Absolutely brain dead.
Yes, you seem like you are, but let me point out I think you're faking.
There it is, the troll's 'meaningless' comment embedded in your post.
The rest of us understand Karl's analysis is not meaningless. While it has limitations, there simply is no excusing the consistent pattern of death over 3 different manufacturers, using two different technologies.
They are using mountains of decoy lots to escape detection, and deploying weaponized lots in a distributed manner to avoid 'too much death' in too short a radius too soon after injection.
Pfizer said their lots vary from 1 to 3 million doses.
A dozen or so lots are associated with around four or five deaths and others are associated with none.
Pfizer’s lot “EN6201” is associated with 117 deaths.
The difference between “most deadly” and “least deadly” is a factor of 25, while the lot sizes vary by only a factor of three.
Where’s the elementary math that explains that?