This is data collected and interpreted by CDC so I wouldnt pay too much attention to this. Looking at this data, they seem to count "Fully vaccinated" vs "Not fully vaccinated". This is the big trick - not fully vaccinated includes people who took both does within 14 days after the second dose. So even if 100% of the "not fully vaccinated" were with double jabs, we wouldn't know.
I know normies jump on this, so the best way to refute it is to show data from UK (63% hospitalized were vaccinated) Israel (it was much higher, dont know the exact number), in Australia (80% hospitalized were vaccinated) and in Victoria 6 out of 7 dead were vaccinated. Im India, 3 out of 5 top most vaccinated states (Kerala, Goa and Uttarkhand) had still increasing case numbers, while most of the country was reducing.
There is no test for the "Delta Variant" for starters.
They do not account for the "grace period" of 15 days after 2nd dose that they statistically don't track as fully vaccinated, so the folks with the most immediate and severe reactions (also the most likely to be life threatening) will all count towards the not-fully vaccinated numbers.
They do not account for improper treatment and out dated protocols that are causing the deaths and instead attribute the death solely to not being fully vaccinated.
“To ascertain COVID-19... Four jurisdictions reported hospitalizations only where COVID-19 was the cause, and seven reported COVID-19 cases in persons hospitalized for any cause.”
Data was based on interpretations of case information which could be subject to bias. Keep in mind the volume of over reporting, and keep in mind that whomever recorded the data could interpret died with COVID as died from COVID.
There are other bodies of work conflicting with this study...which ‘muddies’ the water. Just need to look at multiple sources and always be keen on the methodology.
Update to include below anons statement that data seems to be fully vaccinated (2 shots >14 days) vs not fully vaccinated.
"cases among persons who were not fully vaccinated compared with those among fully vaccinated persons"
Read yourself carefully but this research seem to label partially vaccinated as unvaccinated or bunching up partially vaccinated with unvaccinated.
I do not see the stats of non-vaccinated with vaccinated (partially or fully = both). I might be wrong but this seem to be the case. You have to remember that now vaccinated means the one who received two vaccines + 14 days.
It is difficult to believe any stats about the supposed pandemic because they changed the definitions of pandemic and vaccine. The test is not a test. We should not be testing asymptomatic people and we should not be vaccinating during a pandemic.
All that said, because we are "vaccinating" during a pandemic, the virus is encouraged to mutate and when it does so under such circumstances it becomes more infectious and less serious. So, the jab will increase the infections but reduce the severity of the virus. However, that "less serious" infection will apply equally to vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
It is a subtle difference but an important one. I am sure the propaganda machine will have no problem conflating the two ideas.
OP here following up - the data collection does seem to be all over the place. Does this line from the article basically mean they're admitting there's no difference?
"The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, combining unvaccinated and partially vaccinated persons resulted in lower IRR and VE estimates. Second, variable linkage of case surveillance, vaccination, hospitalization, and mortality data might have resulted in misclassifications that could influence IRR estimates; no substantial differences in ascertainment of outcomes by vaccination status were noted in jurisdictions that were able to assess this."
Anytime there's a merging of huge databases, many cases cannot be linked by identifiers. As the article notes, all the cases not cleanly identified as fully vaccinated were not thrown out of the analysis, but added into the "unvaccinated" category.
All participating jurisdictions had established processes for linking case surveillance and vaccination data from state/local immunization registries; this method usually assumes that cases among persons not matched to the registry are among unvaccinated persons. >
The key is understanding how they define vaccinated. This is the basis of misleading information. Tell people something and let them assume the meaning. It can be applied.to the rest of the report with the same scrutiny. Any word.or phrase they use is undefined and peoplereading it are assuming use of the word or.phrase.to mean what tbey tbink it means.
Alex Berenson has a name for this: He calls it the "happy valley" of vaccination. Basically, the vax does work pretty well starting about 30 days after the 2nd jab and works pretty well for a few months. After that, it's efficacy falls dramatically. The vax also worked pretty well (other than horrible adverse events) on the Alpha variant. Once Delta came along, not so much. This study uses data from before the Delta became prevalent and shortly after most people were vaccinated. https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/so-you-understand-whats-happening-in-denmark/
This is data collected and interpreted by CDC so I wouldnt pay too much attention to this. Looking at this data, they seem to count "Fully vaccinated" vs "Not fully vaccinated". This is the big trick - not fully vaccinated includes people who took both does within 14 days after the second dose. So even if 100% of the "not fully vaccinated" were with double jabs, we wouldn't know.
I know normies jump on this, so the best way to refute it is to show data from UK (63% hospitalized were vaccinated) Israel (it was much higher, dont know the exact number), in Australia (80% hospitalized were vaccinated) and in Victoria 6 out of 7 dead were vaccinated. Im India, 3 out of 5 top most vaccinated states (Kerala, Goa and Uttarkhand) had still increasing case numbers, while most of the country was reducing.
There is no test for the "Delta Variant" for starters.
They do not account for the "grace period" of 15 days after 2nd dose that they statistically don't track as fully vaccinated, so the folks with the most immediate and severe reactions (also the most likely to be life threatening) will all count towards the not-fully vaccinated numbers.
They do not account for improper treatment and out dated protocols that are causing the deaths and instead attribute the death solely to not being fully vaccinated.
The CDC is corrupt. The FDA is corrupt. The WHO is corrupt its that simple.
“To ascertain COVID-19... Four jurisdictions reported hospitalizations only where COVID-19 was the cause, and seven reported COVID-19 cases in persons hospitalized for any cause.”
Data was based on interpretations of case information which could be subject to bias. Keep in mind the volume of over reporting, and keep in mind that whomever recorded the data could interpret died with COVID as died from COVID.
There are other bodies of work conflicting with this study...which ‘muddies’ the water. Just need to look at multiple sources and always be keen on the methodology.
Update to include below anons statement that data seems to be fully vaccinated (2 shots >14 days) vs not fully vaccinated.
"cases among persons who were not fully vaccinated compared with those among fully vaccinated persons" Read yourself carefully but this research seem to label partially vaccinated as unvaccinated or bunching up partially vaccinated with unvaccinated. I do not see the stats of non-vaccinated with vaccinated (partially or fully = both). I might be wrong but this seem to be the case. You have to remember that now vaccinated means the one who received two vaccines + 14 days.
It is difficult to believe any stats about the supposed pandemic because they changed the definitions of pandemic and vaccine. The test is not a test. We should not be testing asymptomatic people and we should not be vaccinating during a pandemic.
All that said, because we are "vaccinating" during a pandemic, the virus is encouraged to mutate and when it does so under such circumstances it becomes more infectious and less serious. So, the jab will increase the infections but reduce the severity of the virus. However, that "less serious" infection will apply equally to vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
It is a subtle difference but an important one. I am sure the propaganda machine will have no problem conflating the two ideas.
OP here following up - the data collection does seem to be all over the place. Does this line from the article basically mean they're admitting there's no difference?
"The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, combining unvaccinated and partially vaccinated persons resulted in lower IRR and VE estimates. Second, variable linkage of case surveillance, vaccination, hospitalization, and mortality data might have resulted in misclassifications that could influence IRR estimates; no substantial differences in ascertainment of outcomes by vaccination status were noted in jurisdictions that were able to assess this."
Or am I not understanding correctly?
Anytime there's a merging of huge databases, many cases cannot be linked by identifiers. As the article notes, all the cases not cleanly identified as fully vaccinated were not thrown out of the analysis, but added into the "unvaccinated" category.
Typical ploy of CDC in dealing with missing data.
The key is understanding how they define vaccinated. This is the basis of misleading information. Tell people something and let them assume the meaning. It can be applied.to the rest of the report with the same scrutiny. Any word.or phrase they use is undefined and peoplereading it are assuming use of the word or.phrase.to mean what tbey tbink it means.
Alex Berenson has a name for this: He calls it the "happy valley" of vaccination. Basically, the vax does work pretty well starting about 30 days after the 2nd jab and works pretty well for a few months. After that, it's efficacy falls dramatically. The vax also worked pretty well (other than horrible adverse events) on the Alpha variant. Once Delta came along, not so much. This study uses data from before the Delta became prevalent and shortly after most people were vaccinated. https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/so-you-understand-whats-happening-in-denmark/
Cross-reference what's happening in Israel versus Uttar Prudesh.
Also this:
WHO adverse event database. Search term "covid-19 vaccine" http://vigiaccess.org/