You'd probably get more of a positive effect by injecting water into people, and you wouldn't get nearly as many heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, etc.
It does matter, but it's still a dismal result for the vaccine.
There's about 4.5 million vaccinated scots out of about 5.5 million. The ~800k children don't die from covid so take them out: 4.5/(5.5-0.8) is now 95% excluding children. Denominator is the population susceptible to dying.
The actual result of 87% is below 95% expected if vaccine did nothing. 0.13/0.05 is 2.6x effective at preventing death.
So this is not nothing, but it's a far cry from the 'unvaccinated are 40x more likely to die' bullshit the media spouts and is way too small to justify taking an experimental treatment with no long term studies unless you are very old. It's worse than eating a handful of fucking cranberries.
The saddest part of this is they actually got >90% of scots to take an untested experimental procedure. This is totally pathetic and they should all be forced to watch Braveheart until they understand that dying in their beds many years from now they'll regret not taking that chance to tell their enemies they may take their lives, but they will never take their freedom.
Actually the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups can be a lot different. For example in this study of veterans, people who were tested negative and didn't get covid were 0.96 likely to live 26 weeks for vaccinated and 0.88 likely for unvaccinated.
So if you took this into account that 2.6x would be even smaller, because the unvaccinated who died were likely to die from something else. Maybe they had 10 comorbidities and had already checked out, or their immune system was nuked and they'd die from somebody looking at them wrong.
What should be done is look at individuals. These national healthcare govs could take every death, calculate their odds of dying from 'old age', and compare those vax vs unvax. They calculate this number anyway even if they don't tell it to you, but have you ever seen any study that actually looked at individuals? It would take 2 minutes for the IT guy to run this database query, but nobody's done it? Weird.
Scotland government website :
We'd need to know how many are under 12 and can't get jabbed, but 81% of the population are jabbed based off this.
875,000 are under 16 according to Bing search results. If we add that to the first number, we get a jabbed + ineligible rate above 87%.
This data doesn't sound as good as we think.
You'd probably get more of a positive effect by injecting water into people, and you wouldn't get nearly as many heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, etc.
Sounds pretty damning to me
Trust Pfizer - a completely honest company since their last record breaking $billion dollar criminal fine.
(FYI - now facing new billion dollar fines due to outright fraud alleged during the vaccine trials)
It does matter, but it's still a dismal result for the vaccine.
There's about 4.5 million vaccinated scots out of about 5.5 million. The ~800k children don't die from covid so take them out: 4.5/(5.5-0.8) is now 95% excluding children. Denominator is the population susceptible to dying.
The actual result of 87% is below 95% expected if vaccine did nothing. 0.13/0.05 is 2.6x effective at preventing death.
So this is not nothing, but it's a far cry from the 'unvaccinated are 40x more likely to die' bullshit the media spouts and is way too small to justify taking an experimental treatment with no long term studies unless you are very old. It's worse than eating a handful of fucking cranberries.
The saddest part of this is they actually got >90% of scots to take an untested experimental procedure. This is totally pathetic and they should all be forced to watch Braveheart until they understand that dying in their beds many years from now they'll regret not taking that chance to tell their enemies they may take their lives, but they will never take their freedom.
Actually the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups can be a lot different. For example in this study of veterans, people who were tested negative and didn't get covid were 0.96 likely to live 26 weeks for vaccinated and 0.88 likely for unvaccinated.
So if you took this into account that 2.6x would be even smaller, because the unvaccinated who died were likely to die from something else. Maybe they had 10 comorbidities and had already checked out, or their immune system was nuked and they'd die from somebody looking at them wrong.
What should be done is look at individuals. These national healthcare govs could take every death, calculate their odds of dying from 'old age', and compare those vax vs unvax. They calculate this number anyway even if they don't tell it to you, but have you ever seen any study that actually looked at individuals? It would take 2 minutes for the IT guy to run this database query, but nobody's done it? Weird.