Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
|User Info||Covid-19 -- A White Paper - To @RealDonaldTrump and @CDC; entered at 2020-12-03 09:09:05|
They report the "skew"; basically, the reduction.|
85/85 = 1.0, does nothing.
The problem is that this is a wildly-insufficient statistic to actually know anything for the following reasons:
1. "Infected" means "symptomatic and confirmed by PCR test." And? How many were ACTUALLY infected in each group? We do not know; they most-certainly DID NOT finger-stick everyone in the 44,000 test sample every 2 weeks to check for IgG antibodies! Yet you HAVE TO in order to know how many people ACTUALLY got infected. The problem with doing that is if you finger-stick EVERYONE you immediately violate the blinding, as EVERYONE in the shot group will be positive in 2-4 weeks. Now I know if I got the shot or placebo which alters my behavior and voids the rest of the test. This is why you cannot assess a Phase 3 study on titer; you ASSUME it works after Phase 1 and 2 studies demonstrate that in a very small number of people the expected antibody response is provoked. Incidentally this is yet another reason you can't buy an IgG antibody test OTC; if you could for $2 then anyone who was in the trial could un-blind it for themselves at nearly zero cost. Note also that given the wildly high false-positive PCR rates even symptomatic cases are not necessarily Covid unless confirmed by antibody presence 2 weeks later, and NOBODY is doing that either in these studies or the general population. So you may well have called many of these 170 infections "Covid" when they were a rhinovirus!
2. Were the infections in the vaccinated group a result of failure to produce antibodies in response to the jab or did they get infected irrespective of having them? That's quite-important information since if the "vaccinated" infections had antibodies prior the infection occurring then it STRONGLY SUGGESTS that the "match" between what the vaccine produces and what they were exposed to is insufficient. Note that the MMR vaccine is 97% effective against measles. For mumps it's only about 88% effective and there is evidence that one wears off too. The latter took decades to figure out. Beware people who tell you a vaccine is the answer to something based on a 3 month study; they are by definition full of crap.
3. 170 infections is statistically powerful enough to produce a few serious or even fatal outcomes in people over 70 (really, among those with serious underlying health issues.) But NONE of the most-at-risk were in the trials. Among healthy people it is expected to produce ZERO such outcomes. Therefore if there are ANY severe or fatal cases it strongly implicates that the vaccine is HARMFUL -- but does not prove so. That's a problem since nobody gives a wet shit if you run a fever for 24 hours and are PCR positive. They only care if you choke or die. But there is WILDLY insufficient power in the test protocol to detect that.
4. 170 infections is also wildly insufficient to demonstrate SAFETY, especially in heavily-at-risk people. To assess ADE for example you need viral exposure to a material percentage to the common viral agents people come in contact with among both the vaccinated and placebo cohorts. This will take several years before sufficient statistical power is generated. You MIGHT get a safety signal in a few months but you are virtually GUARANTEED not to get one that is statistically significant so you cannot make ANY statement about whether or not there is a problem in that regard. This, more than anything else, is why vaccine trials take years to complete.
5. Auto-immune problems are even worse; they tend to occur, WHEN they occur, in a fraction of a percent of the people vaccinated -- and nobody typically knows exactly why. It is likely that these happen via a process similar to leukemia, which we now believe has two components -- genetic susceptibility AND infection by some agent. The exception is Guillain-Barre, which WHEN it happens usually does quite quickly, typically within weeks. But frankly, these trials over this sort of a period of time are really only demonstrating that there is no specific and outsized risk of that syndrome. If we vaccinate tens of millions of people you can bet there WILL be cases that will occur. Some of them are mild but if you get hammered by it you're REALLY fucked, and frequently permanently so. This was why I refused to allow them to stick my kid with HPV vaccine; SHE can choose that but since contracting that bug is a function of either violence against her or lifestyle decisions she chooses as an adult because if you get stuck and get hammered your ordinary life is OVER, and that's simply NOT something that I, as a parent, have a right to do.
Last modified: 2020-12-03 09:14:07 by tickerguy