True... idiocy upon idiocy. What we don't know, though, is how sick (with whatever) any of these people were such that they felt the need to get tested.
I have the same question. It would be interesting to see the incidence of ALL diseases based on vaccine status. I suspect the jabbed are experiencing antibody-dependent enhancement(ADE) and are increasingly susceptible to all diseases. I think the DMED report leaked a couple months back shows this.
Link: https://greatawakening.win/p/141YDyNIEb/dmed-report/c/
That’s what I thought, but Walgreens breaks out the tests given by vax status as well and 27% were unvaxxed so I suspect the unvaxxed are over-represented in this data.
Besides, this is “rates of positivity” so it’s automatically adjusted for differing numbers of people per cohort.
You might argue that vaxxed are more likely to get tested when feeling sick, but then you have to wonder why did 90% of the unvaxxed go get tested?
I think this data is pretty clear: the vaxxed are getting sick more readily than the unvaxxed. This is ADE or negative efficacy (same thing).
Yes, you understand that correctly; however, it is a limited window, representing only Walgreen customers and not the general population. Still, though, it's quite an amazing picture of that limited data subset.
To me the term Positivity Rate means the following.
For each group, they calculate the percentage of people that take the test that end up with a positive result.
The number of people in the group isn't important, because it is a percentage of the total for that group.
In which case, if the vaccine were saline, every group should theoretically have the same positivity rate.
However, there could be some effects such as the vaccine causing false-positives, or the unvaccinated testing without symptoms or more frequently.
All that aside, however, this plainly shows that the vaccines are ineffective. I think it also strongly suggests that the vaccines make you more likely to be infected, although doesn't prove it.
The only issue that I see with the data is this: The data SHOULD be larger for the vaccinated group as more people get vaccinated. AKA, if 10% of people are vaccinated, then the case rate amongst all groups would probably be proportionally small for vaccinated.
As the vaccine has been swindled into people's lives, the number of folks that remain unvaxxed entirely is shrinking. Still a large number, but I think it's safe to say that we're in the minority. So I would expect that the percent of the case-rate to be proportionally smaller.
Now, with that said, I also believe that VAIDS is becoming more and more likely, so it would be interesting to see this data as time goes on... if anything, it shows that the vaccine doesn't do shit for prevention, but we've known that for a while. Now onto showing the number of adverse deaths between vax and unvaxxed.
It's possible that vaccinated folk did indeed acquire some limited immunity for a period of time, and fewer people caught COVID than otherwise. The effectiveness of that limited artificial immunity is now falling off in time, and those people are catching COVID anyway, just later than they otherwise would have. Unvaccinated folk just got sick earlier and built up more robust immunity to the actual virus, rather than immunity to spike proteins shotgun blasted into their own cells.
Probably triggered the immune system into overdrive which went through and sterilized the body of anything and everything but gets weakened. Kinda like a set of troops that has to defend against attack after attack. Some troops die or resources are not replenished. Each attack sees less resistance.
If the vaccine was just saline, we'd expect all the bars to be the same height, right?
Only if each cohort took the faulty tests at the same rate also... The differing levels could be nothing more that a reflection of the propensity to use the faulty worthless test, and it's probably reasonable to speculate the 3 dose cohort are the least well informed/most risk averse therefore most likely to trust the test (which is not a test nor is it even exclusively calibrated to the mythical covid-19)
If I understand it correctly, the unvaccinated group has the lowest positivity rate.
If the vaccine was just saline, we'd expect all the bars to be the same height, right?
So it appears from this that the vaccine makes you more likely to test positive?
Or more likely to take a faulty test.
Showing its a mental illness...
True... idiocy upon idiocy. What we don't know, though, is how sick (with whatever) any of these people were such that they felt the need to get tested.
I have the same question. It would be interesting to see the incidence of ALL diseases based on vaccine status. I suspect the jabbed are experiencing antibody-dependent enhancement(ADE) and are increasingly susceptible to all diseases. I think the DMED report leaked a couple months back shows this. Link: https://greatawakening.win/p/141YDyNIEb/dmed-report/c/
Great insight. And thanks for the link!
Now check the timeline for the increases in cases compared to when the FDA approved a fourth booster for the old and chronically ill.
You’ll see it started about two weeks after the announcement.
They are prolonging this shit with the boosters.
That’s what I thought, but Walgreens breaks out the tests given by vax status as well and 27% were unvaxxed so I suspect the unvaxxed are over-represented in this data.
Besides, this is “rates of positivity” so it’s automatically adjusted for differing numbers of people per cohort.
You might argue that vaxxed are more likely to get tested when feeling sick, but then you have to wonder why did 90% of the unvaxxed go get tested?
I think this data is pretty clear: the vaxxed are getting sick more readily than the unvaxxed. This is ADE or negative efficacy (same thing).
Perhaps the vaccine was designed to also prolong the pandemic by having people who took it test positive?
Now we're conspiracying! Good thought.
They are producing the spike proteins of the virus
Yes, you understand that correctly; however, it is a limited window, representing only Walgreen customers and not the general population. Still, though, it's quite an amazing picture of that limited data subset.
If DC politicians and Hollywood types hadn't been isolated from this list, it would've been so much worse.
Better than polling data.
This graphic also shows that over time, the positive results become more likely for those with more jabs.
3 doses more than 5 months ago being the worst at 21.6%.
Troubling is that we are still in the early days. What will this graphic look like in a year or 5 years?
there'd probably be some minor discrepancy, nothing's ever 1:1, but they'd all be about level, yes...
There's a piece of the puzzle missing, so this doesn't tell us much. We need to know what percentage of the population falls into those categories.
If 9.6% of the population is vaccine free, 14.5% had one dose, etc, then it would be the same as saline.
To me the term Positivity Rate means the following.
For each group, they calculate the percentage of people that take the test that end up with a positive result.
The number of people in the group isn't important, because it is a percentage of the total for that group.
In which case, if the vaccine were saline, every group should theoretically have the same positivity rate.
However, there could be some effects such as the vaccine causing false-positives, or the unvaccinated testing without symptoms or more frequently.
All that aside, however, this plainly shows that the vaccines are ineffective. I think it also strongly suggests that the vaccines make you more likely to be infected, although doesn't prove it.
The only issue that I see with the data is this: The data SHOULD be larger for the vaccinated group as more people get vaccinated. AKA, if 10% of people are vaccinated, then the case rate amongst all groups would probably be proportionally small for vaccinated.
As the vaccine has been swindled into people's lives, the number of folks that remain unvaxxed entirely is shrinking. Still a large number, but I think it's safe to say that we're in the minority. So I would expect that the percent of the case-rate to be proportionally smaller.
Now, with that said, I also believe that VAIDS is becoming more and more likely, so it would be interesting to see this data as time goes on... if anything, it shows that the vaccine doesn't do shit for prevention, but we've known that for a while. Now onto showing the number of adverse deaths between vax and unvaxxed.
yes there are some stats/studies/etc showing a negative efficacy.
Yup.
https://files.catbox.moe/ovn0fh.jpg
Well, also most natural people around me don't get tested for the sniffles.aybe the data is also a reflection of who gets tested more...
I assume the number is the percentage of positives vs the number of people in that group that got tested. It shouldn't matter what the group size is.
If one group of people only got tested when they were very sick, that should yield a higher result, not a lower one.
It's possible that vaccinated folk did indeed acquire some limited immunity for a period of time, and fewer people caught COVID than otherwise. The effectiveness of that limited artificial immunity is now falling off in time, and those people are catching COVID anyway, just later than they otherwise would have. Unvaccinated folk just got sick earlier and built up more robust immunity to the actual virus, rather than immunity to spike proteins shotgun blasted into their own cells.
Probably triggered the immune system into overdrive which went through and sterilized the body of anything and everything but gets weakened. Kinda like a set of troops that has to defend against attack after attack. Some troops die or resources are not replenished. Each attack sees less resistance.
I had actually thought of that also, that the effectiveness of the vaccine is not constant over time, and this could also effect the results.
Only if each cohort took the faulty tests at the same rate also... The differing levels could be nothing more that a reflection of the propensity to use the faulty worthless test, and it's probably reasonable to speculate the 3 dose cohort are the least well informed/most risk averse therefore most likely to trust the test (which is not a test nor is it even exclusively calibrated to the mythical covid-19)
Yes, and yet the unvaxxed participate in testing MORE than the vaxxed LOL