Thanks - totally agree. The people I know who use this response, rather than look at the raw data, are like robots repeating something that MSM trained them to say. If you repeat something often enough, it sticks - no critical thinking. No one seems to remember that the world was told that no one would go to the hospital or die of COVID if they had the vaccine.
Yes. One could still argue that the vaccinated population had a higher baseline risk, but the argument is increasingly untenable and unmoored from reality at this point.
And the differences become even more stark if you look only at the unvaxxd vs boosted. Great job again Sheldon, only this time you've finally motivated me to actually start doing some analysis myself.
It makes no difference if the vaccines are miracles or death sentences, informed consent was made impossible and sometimes illegal through censorship. Without informed consent, each of these experimental injections is a crime scene.
I'm actually happy that my posts are now being used to shut down really stupid conversations. This is what we need to take back the social media platforms.
I think you failed to make your point, in my opinion. You never do the one thing necessary: explain why the "crayola drawing" as you put it, is wrong. It isn't wrong, I just doesn't give the whole context - but your other numbers do. Your mistake was not explicitly connecting the two.
BUT
It can be salvaged by two sentences: "If the number of boosted people make up 50% of the population, you would expect the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to be at most 50% of the counts in boosted individuals (and if the media is to be believed, much less than that). But since boosted people account for more than 50% of the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, it shows that being boosted is at best not effective, and at worst actually related to worse outcomes."
And before you attack the messenger, for what it's worth, I have a degree in computer science and mathematics, as well as 15 years working in healthcare statistics explaining exactly this kind of thing to people.
Not that credentials matter that much, I will stipulate. I'm just saying it could have been concluded a bit better, from experience. You need to tie a nice little bow around your conclusion for people to "get it".
Nobody liked when I simply identified that there was only 1 death in this reporting period in the unvaccinated community, showing 99.56% death in the vaccinated community. They threw the crayola drawing around like it was confetti at a wedding.
I hear what you are saying but you also need to appreciate the audience and be effective at reading the room.
Hmmm... this is really interesting ... so you are saying I should keep getting boosters because if I get enough of them I'll be fully protected from serious illness.
I understand the base rate fallacy, but I think that you are overlooking the confounding variable of age. I think 85-year-olds are more likely to be boosted than 5-year-olds, and 85-year-olds are more likely to die of Covid-19 than 5-year-olds, so I don't think it can be concluded that boosters are causing increased Covid-19 death without looking at deaths per 100k by vaccination status in each age group. I think that the confounding variable of age was similarly overlooked for myocarditis when it was concluded that myocarditis is more likely from Covid-19 infection than from vaccine reaction; for older people this may have been true, but for young people it was more likely the vaccine. I hope that you will consider breaking down your death analysis by both age and vaccination status as golden pup has done for analysis of hospitalizations (https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1521280997207203840).
Age is a moot point when comes to the "Base Rate Fallacy" claim. The pool was grossly diluted because with exception of the 4% of the population at risk, NOBODY needed the vaccines.
We had 1 group to focus on protecting - the vulnerable.
These are still the greatest population to be dying with/from COVID.
Those that try to use the amount of doses used world wide to show how effective they were aren't being sincere...and all of the age data was excluded from the original crayola picture.
The point raised on Base Rate Fallacy shows their logic being applied to actual data.
I do understand what you are saying and have broken it out in other substacks. For this one, I'm not changing anything.
One problem with looking at age alone is comorbidites are the prime determinant of outcomes. Age is merely a weak instrument of comorbidites. Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are two distinct and separate populations. They have different underlying comorbidites. Twice the rate of cancer (~25% of all "COVID deaths" in Alberta), say, in one population will lead to far worse outcomes in that population. It will lead to the rates looking awful for that population even though the number of people from that population actually affected is incredibly small. I've written a few articles on this and I call them "edge cases".
Sheldon is right when he says only a small percentage of the population falls into this category and no-one else should concern ourselves with vaccination status especially after the vaccines stopped working (and never worked as well as they claimed to begin with).
What we would need to know when looking at populations is not age but underlying conditions. The reason age is a weak instrument is it may be true that older people are more likely to have comorbidites. But it is unclear how people within the age categories choose to get vaccinated proportionally. If people are choosing to remain unvaccinated because they have stage 4 cancer and are very careful about what they put into their body, then that will affect things. In fact, different underlying conditions within age groups is exactly why we do NOT want to adjust based on age.
96% of the Alberta COVID associated mortalities were with one or more condition, not including morbid obesity. 92% were over the age of 60. The highest correlating factor is metabolic health...100% agree with you, dude.
My God, I've been trying to explain this to a woman on fb and she still insists YOU dont understand base rate fallacy all the while pointing out that the majority of deaths r in the unvaxxed on the charts. I feel like icepicking my brain would feel better than trying to explain that counting all deaths before anyone was even vaxxed is an example of the very thing she is saying I'm doing ffs😵😵😵. I'd like to record the date govt claims certain jab rates. First a starting point, like when we reached 70%, then look at cases etc for a few weeks after. Then 80%, then 90ish or whatever the fuck the govt is claiming to have so show people that as jabs increased, nothing decreased. I have a computer and an average brain, but haven't made the time. I think the time has come and i do love excel.
Hi Sheldon, I’m dealing with a naysayer who claims the CDC shows unvaccinated are dying at 5x the rate of vaccinated. What’s the single best source to refute this? Thanks
I really like the visuals. Makes sense to me. The narrative I hear the most now is that the Covid vaccines were not meant to cure anything or prevent you from getting it but rather prevent serious illness or hospitalization. I’m like what??? This is often the narrative I get from folks who are generally healthy, have an active lifestyle and generally eat well. I don’t understand where they forgot to trust their own immunity vs falling for an experimental shot with who knows what the ingredients are or long term effects. Frustrating and sad!
really appreciate your statistical approach - i worked as a wildlife biologist around the planet for 45 years and have always been a skeptic of most science as being hugely biased in hypothesis setting and role of confirmation biases in the absolute control of funding - did years of analysis on woodland caribou and bottom line is the system has been rigged for a very long time to deliver a top down government message and people actually believe it. Just finishing a long essay on evolution and modern human behaviour to illustrate how just about everything we read and hear reflects a desire to deliver subliminal messages to the masses who absorb it like a blotter. For the small percentage of people who do not buy the agenda that represents about 20% of the population re:the covid scam it is discouraging but we have to appreciate this as a reality of humans. We would like to think that people are just a little more intelligent but is always has been about mind control and as I suggested in an earlier communication big business and government are totally dedicated to that path and there is essentially no way it can change until masses eventually come to the realization they must stand up for freedoms - a very long and arduous path that IMHO is at generation or two away until we flip the demographic to a mass of people that grow up outside of the current game. In the meantime we have the role to be the source of the information and hopefully begin a transition in which the followers have a different mindset.
Like as you know the fear is deep rooted and subliminally implanted in the masses that we are facing apocalyptic times regardless of what the data says because big business interests are ALL about controlling what people think. Revolutions and resets come until the new tier of power mongers once again find other paths to control people.
Just look at the historical dialogue on climate change and how big business and government find that fertile ground for tomorrow - they want people to live in fear and uncertainty and fuelled with MSM in their pockets it is so easy to accomplish.
If you break this down by age bracket then very different numbers appear and a completely different story unfolds.
More than 80% of COVID deaths are among people who are of age 70 or more, so it’s worth examining this group in isolation.
About 97% of those over 70 have had booster shots. If the vaccines are of no use, then we would expect 97% of COVID deaths in this age group to have had booster shots as well. Instead the number is about 70%, which means getting booster shots is massively effective at saving lives.
By looking at the entire population, most of which are in very little danger of COVID death by dint of their youth, the “97% with booster shots” gets diluted down to 50%. The value of the vaccine to the aged is missed.
This is bullshit and I'll tell you why. The pool for success of the vaccine has been corrupted and completely polluted by showing efficacy in people who never needed the protection from a virus where 99.96% of the population survived without it.
Only 4% of the population ever needed protection, those that have the most are still predominantly the ones dying.
I'm always amazed at the critics of my statistics never ask Health Canada for this breakdown. If was available, I'd show it. It's not, so I can't speculate around it...like your stats of 97% fully boosted. You pulled that number out of your ass.
About 88% in Ontario above 70 have had booster doses according to their data. I would say that comes down to less than 80% when you correct their data for the denominator (I have spreadsheets at home that could give a closer number), so I have to agree. The 97% number cannot be true just based on the size and contribution of Ontario's population over 70 to Canada.
But if you don't give an analysis that's restricted to older people then you're the one that's bullshitting people.
The statistical flaw is that the deaths and the boosters are not evenly distributed among all age groups. Both -- particularly deaths -- are highly skewed towards the aged. By including all ages in your analysis, you have stirred a lot of extraneous data into the mix.
Dive through mortality and excess mortality in this same age cohort and see if you still believe this. Killing them prior to their COVID infection saves them from COVID but you know what...they're still dead.
It leaves me with the choice of believing almost every peer-reviewed scientific study on these vaccines, or some guy on the internet that swears and insults a lot.
The thing is... That 97% number might be true if the population did not age in the last two years / the population growth models were correct. They are using the wrong population base to get to that 97% number and it significantly changes things. I would guess by about 10% across Canada.
Yes, there is still a difference, but we are also loooing at edge cases. Ie., those few within the age bracket at most risk. I'm not saying the vaccine is entirely ineffective in that age group. I don't think the case is proven either way but it is less effective than we are being led to believe, that's for sure.
Thanks - totally agree. The people I know who use this response, rather than look at the raw data, are like robots repeating something that MSM trained them to say. If you repeat something often enough, it sticks - no critical thinking. No one seems to remember that the world was told that no one would go to the hospital or die of COVID if they had the vaccine.
Repetition Is The Basis Of Brainwashing & Mind Control!
I'm still confused by "base rate". Isn't this resolved by just looking at per capita rates for each vaccination group?
It's more simple than this...when you remember that only 4% of the population was ever at risk and never needed a vaccine.
Yes. One could still argue that the vaccinated population had a higher baseline risk, but the argument is increasingly untenable and unmoored from reality at this point.
And the differences become even more stark if you look only at the unvaxxd vs boosted. Great job again Sheldon, only this time you've finally motivated me to actually start doing some analysis myself.
It makes no difference if the vaccines are miracles or death sentences, informed consent was made impossible and sometimes illegal through censorship. Without informed consent, each of these experimental injections is a crime scene.
ABSOLUTELY!
Your argument is so clear and easy to follow. Thank you for sharing!
Often times, we try to over-complicate what should otherwise be very simple to understand.
I am guilty of this...more often than I will readily admit to.
Ask my wife. She'll tell you.
Sheldon Next Time Say To Your Wife, "I Thought I Was Wrong But I Was Mistaken."
This year we celebrate 30 years of our union...we don't even bother talking to each other anymore.
Your Sex Life Is Now Passing Each Other In The Hallway & Saying "Screw You"? LOLZ! :)
Something like that. After having 2 kids, we realized what was causing it and just stopped altogether.
Kids These Days! LOL! :)
😂😂😂😂😂
Awesome once again Sheldon. They are completely grasping at this point. So tired of it.
I'm actually happy that my posts are now being used to shut down really stupid conversations. This is what we need to take back the social media platforms.
Facts.
I think you failed to make your point, in my opinion. You never do the one thing necessary: explain why the "crayola drawing" as you put it, is wrong. It isn't wrong, I just doesn't give the whole context - but your other numbers do. Your mistake was not explicitly connecting the two.
BUT
It can be salvaged by two sentences: "If the number of boosted people make up 50% of the population, you would expect the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to be at most 50% of the counts in boosted individuals (and if the media is to be believed, much less than that). But since boosted people account for more than 50% of the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, it shows that being boosted is at best not effective, and at worst actually related to worse outcomes."
And before you attack the messenger, for what it's worth, I have a degree in computer science and mathematics, as well as 15 years working in healthcare statistics explaining exactly this kind of thing to people.
Not that credentials matter that much, I will stipulate. I'm just saying it could have been concluded a bit better, from experience. You need to tie a nice little bow around your conclusion for people to "get it".
Nobody liked when I simply identified that there was only 1 death in this reporting period in the unvaccinated community, showing 99.56% death in the vaccinated community. They threw the crayola drawing around like it was confetti at a wedding.
I hear what you are saying but you also need to appreciate the audience and be effective at reading the room.
I like your line: "I'll take survival over participation trophies."
Well said!
Dear Sheldon & Yakk Squad,
Reality Is Not Relevant To These Psychopathic Satanists!
Truth Is Just A Word To Them!
Humanity Is At War With Evil In Upside Down World!
Look At How Our Satanic Prime Minister Lies Through His Teeth & Demonizes Us Calling Us Extremists!!
They Are Going All Out To Destroy Us & The Sooner We Understand That & Forget The Rules Of Civility The Better!
World War Three Against The Fourth Reich Is Under Way!
We Were Wise To Their Plandemic De-Pop Plan & Now They Have Pulled All The Stops!
Let me pretend to be a CovIDIOT...
Hmmm... this is really interesting ... so you are saying I should keep getting boosters because if I get enough of them I'll be fully protected from serious illness.
Since We Are Playing Pretend Allow Me Too Say What I Am Thinking & Would Like To Say!
Yes Mr "Covidiot" Run Right Out & Get Every Shot & Booster Now!
For Your Own Good & The Good Of Humanity So We Can Quit Banging Our Heads Against That Stupidity Wall!
All While Improving The Gene Pool!
I understand the base rate fallacy, but I think that you are overlooking the confounding variable of age. I think 85-year-olds are more likely to be boosted than 5-year-olds, and 85-year-olds are more likely to die of Covid-19 than 5-year-olds, so I don't think it can be concluded that boosters are causing increased Covid-19 death without looking at deaths per 100k by vaccination status in each age group. I think that the confounding variable of age was similarly overlooked for myocarditis when it was concluded that myocarditis is more likely from Covid-19 infection than from vaccine reaction; for older people this may have been true, but for young people it was more likely the vaccine. I hope that you will consider breaking down your death analysis by both age and vaccination status as golden pup has done for analysis of hospitalizations (https://twitter.com/Golden_Pup/status/1521280997207203840).
Age is a moot point when comes to the "Base Rate Fallacy" claim. The pool was grossly diluted because with exception of the 4% of the population at risk, NOBODY needed the vaccines.
We had 1 group to focus on protecting - the vulnerable.
These are still the greatest population to be dying with/from COVID.
Those that try to use the amount of doses used world wide to show how effective they were aren't being sincere...and all of the age data was excluded from the original crayola picture.
The point raised on Base Rate Fallacy shows their logic being applied to actual data.
I do understand what you are saying and have broken it out in other substacks. For this one, I'm not changing anything.
"medical treatment for a virus that 99.9x% of the population would have survived without"
One problem with looking at age alone is comorbidites are the prime determinant of outcomes. Age is merely a weak instrument of comorbidites. Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are two distinct and separate populations. They have different underlying comorbidites. Twice the rate of cancer (~25% of all "COVID deaths" in Alberta), say, in one population will lead to far worse outcomes in that population. It will lead to the rates looking awful for that population even though the number of people from that population actually affected is incredibly small. I've written a few articles on this and I call them "edge cases".
Sheldon is right when he says only a small percentage of the population falls into this category and no-one else should concern ourselves with vaccination status especially after the vaccines stopped working (and never worked as well as they claimed to begin with).
What we would need to know when looking at populations is not age but underlying conditions. The reason age is a weak instrument is it may be true that older people are more likely to have comorbidites. But it is unclear how people within the age categories choose to get vaccinated proportionally. If people are choosing to remain unvaccinated because they have stage 4 cancer and are very careful about what they put into their body, then that will affect things. In fact, different underlying conditions within age groups is exactly why we do NOT want to adjust based on age.
96% of the Alberta COVID associated mortalities were with one or more condition, not including morbid obesity. 92% were over the age of 60. The highest correlating factor is metabolic health...100% agree with you, dude.
My God, I've been trying to explain this to a woman on fb and she still insists YOU dont understand base rate fallacy all the while pointing out that the majority of deaths r in the unvaxxed on the charts. I feel like icepicking my brain would feel better than trying to explain that counting all deaths before anyone was even vaxxed is an example of the very thing she is saying I'm doing ffs😵😵😵. I'd like to record the date govt claims certain jab rates. First a starting point, like when we reached 70%, then look at cases etc for a few weeks after. Then 80%, then 90ish or whatever the fuck the govt is claiming to have so show people that as jabs increased, nothing decreased. I have a computer and an average brain, but haven't made the time. I think the time has come and i do love excel.
Hi Sheldon, I’m dealing with a naysayer who claims the CDC shows unvaccinated are dying at 5x the rate of vaccinated. What’s the single best source to refute this? Thanks
https://sheldonyakiwchuk.substack.com/p/the-most-damning-evidence-that-vaccines
I really like the visuals. Makes sense to me. The narrative I hear the most now is that the Covid vaccines were not meant to cure anything or prevent you from getting it but rather prevent serious illness or hospitalization. I’m like what??? This is often the narrative I get from folks who are generally healthy, have an active lifestyle and generally eat well. I don’t understand where they forgot to trust their own immunity vs falling for an experimental shot with who knows what the ingredients are or long term effects. Frustrating and sad!
really appreciate your statistical approach - i worked as a wildlife biologist around the planet for 45 years and have always been a skeptic of most science as being hugely biased in hypothesis setting and role of confirmation biases in the absolute control of funding - did years of analysis on woodland caribou and bottom line is the system has been rigged for a very long time to deliver a top down government message and people actually believe it. Just finishing a long essay on evolution and modern human behaviour to illustrate how just about everything we read and hear reflects a desire to deliver subliminal messages to the masses who absorb it like a blotter. For the small percentage of people who do not buy the agenda that represents about 20% of the population re:the covid scam it is discouraging but we have to appreciate this as a reality of humans. We would like to think that people are just a little more intelligent but is always has been about mind control and as I suggested in an earlier communication big business and government are totally dedicated to that path and there is essentially no way it can change until masses eventually come to the realization they must stand up for freedoms - a very long and arduous path that IMHO is at generation or two away until we flip the demographic to a mass of people that grow up outside of the current game. In the meantime we have the role to be the source of the information and hopefully begin a transition in which the followers have a different mindset.
Like as you know the fear is deep rooted and subliminally implanted in the masses that we are facing apocalyptic times regardless of what the data says because big business interests are ALL about controlling what people think. Revolutions and resets come until the new tier of power mongers once again find other paths to control people.
Just look at the historical dialogue on climate change and how big business and government find that fertile ground for tomorrow - they want people to live in fear and uncertainty and fuelled with MSM in their pockets it is so easy to accomplish.
As you can say and as I say STUPID
If you break this down by age bracket then very different numbers appear and a completely different story unfolds.
More than 80% of COVID deaths are among people who are of age 70 or more, so it’s worth examining this group in isolation.
About 97% of those over 70 have had booster shots. If the vaccines are of no use, then we would expect 97% of COVID deaths in this age group to have had booster shots as well. Instead the number is about 70%, which means getting booster shots is massively effective at saving lives.
By looking at the entire population, most of which are in very little danger of COVID death by dint of their youth, the “97% with booster shots” gets diluted down to 50%. The value of the vaccine to the aged is missed.
This is bullshit and I'll tell you why. The pool for success of the vaccine has been corrupted and completely polluted by showing efficacy in people who never needed the protection from a virus where 99.96% of the population survived without it.
Only 4% of the population ever needed protection, those that have the most are still predominantly the ones dying.
I'm always amazed at the critics of my statistics never ask Health Canada for this breakdown. If was available, I'd show it. It's not, so I can't speculate around it...like your stats of 97% fully boosted. You pulled that number out of your ass.
And now you look like a fool.
About 88% in Ontario above 70 have had booster doses according to their data. I would say that comes down to less than 80% when you correct their data for the denominator (I have spreadsheets at home that could give a closer number), so I have to agree. The 97% number cannot be true just based on the size and contribution of Ontario's population over 70 to Canada.
Actually my mistake. 97% are fully vaccinated, not boosted.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/
But if you don't give an analysis that's restricted to older people then you're the one that's bullshitting people.
The statistical flaw is that the deaths and the boosters are not evenly distributed among all age groups. Both -- particularly deaths -- are highly skewed towards the aged. By including all ages in your analysis, you have stirred a lot of extraneous data into the mix.
The whole conversation is bullshit.
Deaths were never evenly distributed between ages. Almost zero people below 60 needed the jabs as they were never at any risk from COVID.
The conversation has been lead to a vax vs unvax instead of where it should have stayed in March 2020 ->who is at risk and how do we protect them.
40k deaths and people are still dying and you are arguing about vaccines?
What the fuck is wrong with you anyways?
Focus!
People are still dying. These are the same and only people who were ever at risk. The vaccines aren't working.
One hell of a lot more people would be dying if it weren't for the vaccines:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(22)00035-6/fulltext
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2582
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2022/02/08/good-news-full-vaccination-protects-against-omicron-hospitalization-and-death/?sh=1eba75ee7bb2
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/03/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection.html
Dive through mortality and excess mortality in this same age cohort and see if you still believe this. Killing them prior to their COVID infection saves them from COVID but you know what...they're still dead.
It leaves me with the choice of believing almost every peer-reviewed scientific study on these vaccines, or some guy on the internet that swears and insults a lot.
I'll give it some thought.
Your links are all funded by Pfizer lol. All corrupted just like our Governments.
I’m sure at one time Lancet, BMJ and Forbes were relevant. But not since Pharma has held the purse strings.
83.1% fully vaccinated and 73.1% boosted to save you the trouble of doing the math. That's without accounting for an aging population
Again
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=e&DGUIDList=2021A000011124&GENDERList=1&STATISTICList=1&HEADERList=0
The 97% number is incorrect. Keep in mind even since the last census the population over 70 has increased.
The thing is... That 97% number might be true if the population did not age in the last two years / the population growth models were correct. They are using the wrong population base to get to that 97% number and it significantly changes things. I would guess by about 10% across Canada.
https://jestre.substack.com/p/more-on-ontario-denominators-with?s=w
Yes, there is still a difference, but we are also loooing at edge cases. Ie., those few within the age bracket at most risk. I'm not saying the vaccine is entirely ineffective in that age group. I don't think the case is proven either way but it is less effective than we are being led to believe, that's for sure.