| 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.
He said the events should be normally distributed between lots yet the lots aren't the same size.
That's brain dead yet you choose to accept his analysis.
Not only accept it, use it to concoct some off-the-rails conspiracy, involving thousands, to kill us.
You're obviously free to peddle any kind of crazy you want but when you do it with such obviously flawed material don't be surprised when someone points that out.
Yep, this should be normalized to lot size. It should be a kaggle contest, but I doubt they’d ever allow that.