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.

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) is slim to none for such a small data set.

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.