How is that alarming? There is no context.
Suppose you have 80 Trillion vaccinated people and 2 die. And you have 10 unvaccinated people and 1 dies.
67% of people dying are vaccinated.
But it’s not alarming because of the context. Context is everything.
Covid has been the most horrible exercise in statistics out of context I’ve ever seen.
Could be the author finds it ‘alarming’?
Well said.
Sadly, many simply can’t grasp that simple concept. They seem to forget that 95% of people most likely to die of COVID (65 and up) have received at least one shot and 85% have been fully vaccinated.
“67% of people dying are vaccinated.”
...I’m trying to figure out how you came up with 67% from the 2 examples you displayed.
Your example is spot-on. That really bugs me, too. Does it result from idiot “journalists” that understand nothing about numbers and statistics? Or does it result from intentional scare-mongering?
Almost like tax cuts for the rich. Cuts in the rate of growth being a major reduction in spending.
But, I doubt their “statistics” for the 40% number was arrived at any differently than their other numbers. So, given that, it probably is as accurate, statistically speaking, as everything else they have told us. See, my word salad explains their word salad ;)
Say you 95% vaccination rate, but your case rate is unchanged or higher, can you still claim the vaccine is effective, while at the same time demand a booster (third dose)?
“Covid has been the most horrible exercise in statistics out of context I’ve ever seen.”
Reminds me of the Civid meme someone posted here a couple days ago, a take-off of the “Who’s On First?” routine by Abbott and Costello.
Thank you! Excellent explanation!
I do wonder if any asked for the FLCCC.net Ivermectin protocol? Probably not. Info is suppressed by the media.
Oh well. Sad.