The excuse you will hear is that the unvaccinated are the smallest percentage of the population which is why we see numbers where they report lower.
Although it does not fare well that the 70% of the population that are vaxd cover 90% of the cases. Riddle me how that works - clown world.
Yes, that is why I would like to see stats that don't compare with absolute numbers, but do so with relative numbers, within each group. It is too easy to "attack" these numbers by stating that there are many more vaxxed than unvaxed.
These data aren't considering absolute numbers at all: they're "positivity rates", meaning that the size of the group measured does not matter. So yes, not vaccinated individuals have the lowest incident RATE of COVID-19 positivity among all groups from 4/14 through 4/20. If you look at 100 people or 1,000,000 people, the rate stays true: the not vaccinated showed the fewest % of people who had a positive COVID-19 result.
On page 5 is the following note, and I'm not sure I understand exactly what it is they're saying, but it seems like they're trying to wriggle away from what the graph seems to be showing:
Date Notes
11/03/2022 All results, including the positivity rates by vaccination status graph, are unadjusted. The team has observed that the positivity rates among unvaccinated individuals seen on the bar graph appear to be lower in comparison to vaccinated individuals. Furthermore, repeat testing among those who were previously positive in the last 90 days appear to confound the results. The team conducted additional analyses examining characteristics of the patient population by vaccination status and the impact of excluding recent COVID-19 cases (5.0% of total tests). Findings show that the unvaccinated group are typically younger and healthier, less symptomatic and less likely to report direct COVID-19 exposure or recent travel compared to vaccinated groups. Controlling for recent COVID-19 cases,results show that the unvaccinated group has a 17.1% higher positivity rate compared to the 3-dose group. Controlling for additional factors leads to a larger difference between groups.
The excuse you will hear is that the unvaccinated are the smallest percentage of the population which is why we see numbers where they report lower. Although it does not fare well that the 70% of the population that are vaxd cover 90% of the cases. Riddle me how that works - clown world.
Yes, that is why I would like to see stats that don't compare with absolute numbers, but do so with relative numbers, within each group. It is too easy to "attack" these numbers by stating that there are many more vaxxed than unvaxed.
These data aren't considering absolute numbers at all: they're "positivity rates", meaning that the size of the group measured does not matter. So yes, not vaccinated individuals have the lowest incident RATE of COVID-19 positivity among all groups from 4/14 through 4/20. If you look at 100 people or 1,000,000 people, the rate stays true: the not vaccinated showed the fewest % of people who had a positive COVID-19 result.
Truth. Remember figures don’t lie...but liars do figure!
People refusing the "vaxx" are probably also not dumb enough to get tested...
Some of them are, and they're represented in the Walgreen data.
And some people humor their children and get tested just so they can see their grandkids, etc.
People with only 1 dose at this point in time are actually the smallest percentage of the population, which is logical.
Isn't Nature wonderful? The importance of the immune system is everything.
It's the same reason that most Amish don't vaccinate and their children are far less sickly and more healthy than vaccinated children.
Good red-pill chart - Posted this on facebook - Before I get hated for posting on Facebook, I use it to troll family members with shit like this :-)
That's some really positive news for everyone who got the jab!
Source: https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp (page 3).
On page 5 is the following note, and I'm not sure I understand exactly what it is they're saying, but it seems like they're trying to wriggle away from what the graph seems to be showing:
17%, you say?