After correcting for all the shenanigans talked about in the post, you should also do some sort of correction for the fact that positive tests within two weeks of receiving the shot are considered unvaccinated. Even if the shot did not temporarily suppress immunity (which it does) this creates a two-week period where infections among those who got the shot are counted as unvaccinated but there is no corresponding two-week period where infections in those who did not get the shot are counted as vaccinated. And it's not like they are taking age-matched groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated and following them and testing them regularly. If they did that, they could compare the infections in the two weeks after the shot is given and attribute any excess infections in the vaccinated group to the suppressed immunity caused by the vaccines. But they don't do that. Hmm......., I wonder why? In fact, there are so many straightforward comparisons and studies that you would think would be done by any serious investigators that just aren't done. Again, I wonder why. And they wonder why they aren't trusted.
On top of this, is the possibility raised by Chris Masterjohn's recent posts, that it may just be the case that the vaccine allows you to get Covid-19 but then test negative on a PCR test. After accounting for all of this, the overall value of the vaccines is probably negative. I do think that the super-normal (even compared to an infected person) high level of antibodies that the vaccine gives a person from about two weeks after the shot until about 3 months after the shot does confer some protection from infection and severe disease. But that is it. And it doesn't look like T-Cell immunity from the vaccines is very effective. It seems like all the protection comes from the super-normal antibody levels from weeks 3-12 after injection. Some may also come from some degree of tolerance that is acquired to the spike protein. It's not totally clear. But whatever it is, the numbers we are fed are ridiculous overestimates of the reductions in infections/hospitalizations/deaths.
Is there a way to have this info indexed "per 100,000", or whatever the number should be? As it is, the increases seen in vaxed cases could simply be a "sampling bias" as more and more people get vaxed. If all people are vaxed, all cases will necessarily also be vaxed.
This is a great post, I am amazed how CDC gets away with so much lying.
Other coast: https://drflurmgooglybean.substack.com/p/seeking-kernels-of-truth?r=r6d2x&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
After correcting for all the shenanigans talked about in the post, you should also do some sort of correction for the fact that positive tests within two weeks of receiving the shot are considered unvaccinated. Even if the shot did not temporarily suppress immunity (which it does) this creates a two-week period where infections among those who got the shot are counted as unvaccinated but there is no corresponding two-week period where infections in those who did not get the shot are counted as vaccinated. And it's not like they are taking age-matched groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated and following them and testing them regularly. If they did that, they could compare the infections in the two weeks after the shot is given and attribute any excess infections in the vaccinated group to the suppressed immunity caused by the vaccines. But they don't do that. Hmm......., I wonder why? In fact, there are so many straightforward comparisons and studies that you would think would be done by any serious investigators that just aren't done. Again, I wonder why. And they wonder why they aren't trusted.
On top of this, is the possibility raised by Chris Masterjohn's recent posts, that it may just be the case that the vaccine allows you to get Covid-19 but then test negative on a PCR test. After accounting for all of this, the overall value of the vaccines is probably negative. I do think that the super-normal (even compared to an infected person) high level of antibodies that the vaccine gives a person from about two weeks after the shot until about 3 months after the shot does confer some protection from infection and severe disease. But that is it. And it doesn't look like T-Cell immunity from the vaccines is very effective. It seems like all the protection comes from the super-normal antibody levels from weeks 3-12 after injection. Some may also come from some degree of tolerance that is acquired to the spike protein. It's not totally clear. But whatever it is, the numbers we are fed are ridiculous overestimates of the reductions in infections/hospitalizations/deaths.
Is there a way to have this info indexed "per 100,000", or whatever the number should be? As it is, the increases seen in vaxed cases could simply be a "sampling bias" as more and more people get vaxed. If all people are vaxed, all cases will necessarily also be vaxed.
I don't have differences in testing per cohort, but I do have pop-adjusted rates in this Twitter thread for Cases, Hosps, and Deaths. https://twitter.com/Hold2LLC/status/1497037465131130882?s=20&t=q6zqGu9-bmhkYg7nxnA27w