That figure is based on a comparison of ratios between jabbed deaths and unjabbed deaths... the former based on 3 reported deaths but a drastically lower amount of “person-hours” so the ratio comes out much higher than the latter which has much more data, and much more deaths.
This is called “insufficient data.”
I’m not arguing that it’s not true, because it could be, but this is not evidence for it.
Can you please break that down for me a little more? I'm not seeing where it says 3 reported deaths. The chart seems to show more than that for various groups. Thanks in advance.
The end of the article where they get the “52x” ratio, is based on insufficient data for double-jabbed children. The sample size is too small.
Imagine you set out to prove the probability of rolling a one on a six-sided die, but you only roll it twelve times. The odds of your experiment resulting in the correct probability spread (1/6) are slim for such a small data set. You would need to roll much more to get a reliable spread, taking advantage of the law of large numbers / averages.
I don’t have it open and am on my phone at the moment, but if I recall the tables correctly from this morning, it was around 6,000 person hours and 3 deaths for double-jabbed children. The current data produces a comparatively large ratio but the available data is a fraction of what was available for unjabbed, so it’s extremely misleading to present this as evidence of 52x death rate for jabbed children.
This, by the way, while probably not intentionally misleading in this article, is a “technique” used intentionally by “climate studies” that purposefully chose very specific and very limited data sets to “prove” global warming — and allows them to abstract data sets of varying size into values that appear comparable, when they are not.
I believe former Pfizer exec, and whistelblower, Dr. Michael Yeadon believed the vaccine is 50 times more likely to kill kids than covid. I would like to see more details on that, but of course the "fact checkers" have bloated search results on that.
What we do appear to know, based on the Senator Johnson Covid 2nd Opinion Panel Is that adverse affects are sky high. I believe cancer rates have jumped 300% and neurological diseases 1,000% since the vaccine was rolled out.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why parents would want to take such potential adverse side effect risks to boost their kids survival rate from 99.997 to 99.998. Is that 0.001% worth heart issues, brain issues, reproductive issues, and potential death? It's crazy.
Thanks again for your insights and sharing your talents with numbers.
I completely agree with all of that. There is credible information pertaining to the dangers of the jab, especially for children, but my only point was that this isn’t it.
Umm.. you should read the whole article.
That figure is based on a comparison of ratios between jabbed deaths and unjabbed deaths... the former based on 3 reported deaths but a drastically lower amount of “person-hours” so the ratio comes out much higher than the latter which has much more data, and much more deaths.
This is called “insufficient data.”
I’m not arguing that it’s not true, because it could be, but this is not evidence for it.
Can you please break that down for me a little more? I'm not seeing where it says 3 reported deaths. The chart seems to show more than that for various groups. Thanks in advance.
The end of the article where they get the “52x” ratio, is based on insufficient data for double-jabbed children. The sample size is too small.
Imagine you set out to prove the probability of rolling a one on a six-sided die, but you only roll it twelve times. The odds of your experiment resulting in the correct probability spread (1/6) are slim for such a small data set. You would need to roll much more to get a reliable spread, taking advantage of the law of large numbers / averages.
I don’t have it open and am on my phone at the moment, but if I recall the tables correctly from this morning, it was around 6,000 person hours and 3 deaths for double-jabbed children. The current data produces a comparatively large ratio but the available data is a fraction of what was available for unjabbed, so it’s extremely misleading to present this as evidence of 52x death rate for jabbed children.
This, by the way, while probably not intentionally misleading in this article, is a “technique” used intentionally by “climate studies” that purposefully chose very specific and very limited data sets to “prove” global warming — and allows them to abstract data sets of varying size into values that appear comparable, when they are not.
Thank you for the thorough reply u/KeepForgetting_PW 👈🏻 Most appreciated.
I believe former Pfizer exec, and whistelblower, Dr. Michael Yeadon believed the vaccine is 50 times more likely to kill kids than covid. I would like to see more details on that, but of course the "fact checkers" have bloated search results on that.
What we do appear to know, based on the Senator Johnson Covid 2nd Opinion Panel Is that adverse affects are sky high. I believe cancer rates have jumped 300% and neurological diseases 1,000% since the vaccine was rolled out.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why parents would want to take such potential adverse side effect risks to boost their kids survival rate from 99.997 to 99.998. Is that 0.001% worth heart issues, brain issues, reproductive issues, and potential death? It's crazy.
Thanks again for your insights and sharing your talents with numbers.
I completely agree with all of that. There is credible information pertaining to the dangers of the jab, especially for children, but my only point was that this isn’t it.
👍🏻🤙🏻
Of course they hide it. It's all hidden.