Exactly. The question is not how many ppl have to go to the hospital. The question is, how many people who are going to the hospital because of unusual serious conditions that MSM are saying are just coincidences have been vaxxed.
But they are saying 75% are vaccinated so does that mean more than 75% of vaccinated people are taking up the hospitals. And what type of Vaccine is this when 75% hospitalized have the vaccine
Not only this. BC recently acknowledged that most people are hospitalized with - not because of - C19. In other words, they were in the hospital for some other reason, and while they were there, they tested positive for C19.
As I understand it, the vaxxed don't have to get C19 testing to go in the hospital but the unvaxxed do.
So just on the surface without drilling down into it, if the numbers in the hospital are representative of the numbers in the general population between vaxxed and unvaxxed, then the vaxxines have made absolutely no difference in the rates of hospitalization. Enough said.
It could be even worse than those figures suggest:
"Five hospitalizations involved partially vaccinated residents and 32 hospitalized patients were either unvaccinated or received their first dose within less than 14 days."
In fact, everyone of those 160 people could have had at least one jab. So you could argue that they had all been "vaccinated". All we can deduce from the numbers is that somewhere between 75% and 100% of the patients had been jabbed.
Exactly why they have no category for truly unvaccinated. By including the 1 dose less then 15 days you can only assume it is because completely un jabbed may be zero.
WHY are the vaxd having to go to the hosp? Hmmmmm?
Exactly. The question is not how many ppl have to go to the hospital. The question is, how many people who are going to the hospital because of unusual serious conditions that MSM are saying are just coincidences have been vaxxed.
Exactly. Why don't they question this rather then trying to convince the people the vaccine is still safe and effective
This is correct. What matters is hospitalization rate rather than hospitalization number.
Problem is they're fudging the data on what counts as vaxxed and unvaxxed.
But they are saying 75% are vaccinated so does that mean more than 75% of vaccinated people are taking up the hospitals. And what type of Vaccine is this when 75% hospitalized have the vaccine
Not only this. BC recently acknowledged that most people are hospitalized with - not because of - C19. In other words, they were in the hospital for some other reason, and while they were there, they tested positive for C19.
As I understand it, the vaxxed don't have to get C19 testing to go in the hospital but the unvaxxed do.
Do the math on that.
So just on the surface without drilling down into it, if the numbers in the hospital are representative of the numbers in the general population between vaxxed and unvaxxed, then the vaxxines have made absolutely no difference in the rates of hospitalization. Enough said.
It could be even worse than those figures suggest:
In fact, everyone of those 160 people could have had at least one jab. So you could argue that they had all been "vaccinated". All we can deduce from the numbers is that somewhere between 75% and 100% of the patients had been jabbed.
Exactly why they have no category for truly unvaccinated. By including the 1 dose less then 15 days you can only assume it is because completely un jabbed may be zero.