Duck Duck Go provides the most slanted curation on this. My search terms were "Unvaccinated deaths." The primary source is the CDC.
Some questions we need answered for this research:
What date parameters are used for determining the death tally? Does it include dates from before vaccines were available?
How are the "unvaccinated" determined? Do those with two shots count? Or those who got jabbed within two weeks prior to death?
Sources will be necessary. I'm currently in a group email debate with friends about the vaccine. I can prove the mRNA drugs are killing people, but I also need to prove there's little to no efficacy. Pro vax claims like "99% of deaths were unvaccinated " sounds a lot like "99% of voters voted for candidate X," meaning these stats are impossible and likely fraudulent.
I haven't got the links to hand, but I got the data from the ons.gov.uk website and it was covid hospitalisations/deaths vax/no vax on a weekly basis, but each dataset covered the previous 4 weeks (eg report A=wk 37-41, report B=wk 38-42 etc.).
The data was embedded tables in a pdf and I had to manually transpose them to a spreadsheet because they made the data really hard to analyse.
Just remember, figures don't like,
but liars do figure.
Data manipulation is how they lie to the sheep.
If they don't like the data, and they can't manipulate it enough, then they change the definition of words. For instance, a person is no longer considered vaccinated if he hasn't the proper number of boosters.
The infection argument is easy to prove. The problem here is the fatality rate. The claim by the CDC and MSM is that 90% to 99% of deaths are among the unvaccinated, while the vaccinated catch Covid, survive, and waltz out of the hospital with a super immunity. It's utter nonsense, but I have to prove it.
It does. It's not including the partially vaccinated, and it's also "unadjusted," whatever that means. Of course comparing rates to absolute values is tricky. Even though I don't trust how those rates were calculated, it does make sense that a lot more folks in the UK are vaxxed in week 49 than are unvaxxed. Will need to go through the fine print...
Some good material here, but I'll still need sources. https://flybynews.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/shockingly-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated/
Perhaps they are paying hospitals to give different treatments to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. Remdesivir for the unvaccinated etc.
Good theory.
Duck Duck Go provides the most slanted curation on this. My search terms were "Unvaccinated deaths." The primary source is the CDC.
Some questions we need answered for this research:
What date parameters are used for determining the death tally? Does it include dates from before vaccines were available?
How are the "unvaccinated" determined? Do those with two shots count? Or those who got jabbed within two weeks prior to death?
Sources will be necessary. I'm currently in a group email debate with friends about the vaccine. I can prove the mRNA drugs are killing people, but I also need to prove there's little to no efficacy. Pro vax claims like "99% of deaths were unvaccinated " sounds a lot like "99% of voters voted for candidate X," meaning these stats are impossible and likely fraudulent.
I used the weekly ONS figures in the UK to show a trend that vaccinated in every age group were dying at a rate of +1% per week.
I stopped working the data a couple of months ago because it was just too scary.
tldr; even with fudged figures you can track trends which can elicit real data.
Can you link the database you used? Wondering if the same approach can be used for US stats.
I haven't got the links to hand, but I got the data from the ons.gov.uk website and it was covid hospitalisations/deaths vax/no vax on a weekly basis, but each dataset covered the previous 4 weeks (eg report A=wk 37-41, report B=wk 38-42 etc.).
The data was embedded tables in a pdf and I had to manually transpose them to a spreadsheet because they made the data really hard to analyse.
Just remember, figures don't like, but liars do figure.
Data manipulation is how they lie to the sheep. If they don't like the data, and they can't manipulate it enough, then they change the definition of words. For instance, a person is no longer considered vaccinated if he hasn't the proper number of boosters.
quite, which is why it's useful to track trends, because week to week they were using the same benchmarks.
After 90 days, the vaccines make you more vulnerable to infection than unvaccinated people.
https://files.catbox.moe/a44cmf.jpg
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2.full.pdf
The infection argument is easy to prove. The problem here is the fatality rate. The claim by the CDC and MSM is that 90% to 99% of deaths are among the unvaccinated, while the vaccinated catch Covid, survive, and waltz out of the hospital with a super immunity. It's utter nonsense, but I have to prove it.
CDC doesn't seem to track this information in a publicly accessible form. UK Health however, does. See this report for instance: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf (skip down to page 37).
Page 39 shows the rates per 100,000.
It appears to show that the vaccinated have a lower death rate.
It does. It's not including the partially vaccinated, and it's also "unadjusted," whatever that means. Of course comparing rates to absolute values is tricky. Even though I don't trust how those rates were calculated, it does make sense that a lot more folks in the UK are vaxxed in week 49 than are unvaxxed. Will need to go through the fine print...