miquelangeles
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2021
- Messages
- 928
In order to believe the "per 100,000," you have to believe that
1. They have an accurate count of the population in that range
2. That they have an accurate count of the number of people vaccinated in that range
3. That these numbers reach statistical significance.
I certainly don't think they have the first two, but when you do the calcs with the publicly available numbers, you see how ridiculous making any such claims on these numbers are.
If you do the math in reverse, it seems like they are generating those "per 100,000" numbers based on all of the UK. So, for example, you are extrapolating any sort of "protection" in the 18-29 based on 24 total deaths...... out of approximately 8.5 Million people. Or, 0.00028% of the population.
Demographics of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's beyond ridiculous, it certainly doesn't rise beyond chance, and not to statistical significance.
Even with the largest total death numbers, the 80+, you are still only talking about 0.04% of the population.
It's meaningless, even in the best case scenario. And when you know that they have been manipulating case numbers (only had to have a positive PCR test 60 days before death, or had COVID written on the Death Certificate???!?!?), and likely inflating the number of people who took the vax (less than half a million 60-69 year olds are untainted?), you understand how this proves less than nothing about preventing COVID deaths.
I agree with you. The absolute risk reduction for any individual is insignificant. And the demonvax increases the risk of every other major disease severalfold.
The vaccine uptake by age is also in the PDF around page 9 - 10.
I doubt they have an accurate count of the population.
But assuming they do have accurate counts (and all vax injuries aside), the data does show protection. That's all I'm saying.
I haven't looked at data from the nordic countries, those are probably more reliable.
And no, still not taking it