I’m sure there is a joint ownership somewhere but I despise the news these days especially the fake story about gunshot victims waiting outside a hospital in line in Oklahoma. They didn’t even think brightly about the picture they posted in the article. Folks in line with jackets on.. in the middle of summer.. in Oklahoma. Dumb as rocks. Also how would gunshot victims wait in line without blood from their wounds. Fake news

 

Country AND western

 

So that makes the story completely false? I’ll be honest I haven’t looked to verify, and there’s probably some bias, but that doesn’t make the story not real.

On the other hand, Rachel Mad Cow can use a fake story in Oklahoma proven 100% false by the hospital itself… and now the whole country thinks it’s real.

 

They don't go through their method to determine 17x more likely to be hospitalized, but it is cumulative and given the vaccinated rates of those populations, it appears that they are using any form (1 dose, 2 dose less than 14 days and full course > 14 days) as being vaccinated. By that convention, in Jun patients unvaccinated patients were 15x more likely to be hospitalized, while a fully vaccinated patient is 23x less likely to be hospitalized. That's just Jun.

The alarmist articles about Israel rely on the the readers not understanding this basic part of probability that is shown in Jun in the study that you referenced. That is extreme in the Israel case. The article does the probability for you:

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...are-vaccinated

Probably the best advertisement for vaccination boosters.

 

SIGH….

https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%...m%252F9DC8XM-1


Go back to Rumble for more fuel…

 

Yes the story is completely false. Someone threw up a garbage link and it was easily debunked. It’s a common theme on this thread.

 

Im having a hard time following their math. It looks like they’re trying to do calculus IV to prove the vaccines work. In their own chart it shows that age 50 and over unvaxxed has a severe case of 171 per 100k. It shows vaxxed at 290 per 100k. Then it claims the vaccine effectiveness is 85% in that age group. I’m having a hard time understanding how the rate per 100k is higher in vaccinated individuals but then they claim the vaccines are 85% effective. Even if they got the numbers backwards that doesn’t make any sense to me. And then on a later chart they break it down even more by age group, but if you add up all the 50 and over severe cases in that chart it’s over 5 times higher than the severe cases cases they claim in the previous chart. So either there’s a typo or they’re hoping someone won’t pay that much attention to it.

It isn’t the alarmists that are reporting the vaccines are only 39% effective in Israel. It’s the Israeli health officials claiming that. That’s far off from the 93% and 85% this report is showing. Even the Mayo Clinic now says it’s only 42% effective. When 90% of the older population and 73% of the younger population is vaccinated…. If the vaccines were actually 85% effective there shouldn’t be anywhere near a majority of hospitalizations being vaccinated no matter the age break down. In one of the charts on your article it even says the vaccinated are hospitalized at a higher number per 100k in that particular age group.

The 85% is close to what was originally advertised. If that was still the case and you really were 19x more likely to be hospitalized then why would we need boosters at all? We shouldn’t need them. Yet, Israel wants a 4th round. We need boosters even though under 60 unvaxxed has a survival rate of 99.98 and if your article is correct (even though it has contradictory numbers) then the new survival rate will be what? Like 99.998? That doesn’t justify boosters to me. When the Israeli health officials and the Mayo Clinic are claiming 40% that jives a lot more with the current conditions than the 85% this article reports.

 

The article is correct--the effectiveness measurements you are referring to by the MoH (or whatever it is called there) and the mayo clinic are referring to the vaccine's ability to prevent either symptomatic infection or infection period, not hospitalizations/severe illness which is what the U Penn article is discussing. So the vaccines have been great in preventing someone from being in the hospital, from getting the sniffles, only so-so.

 

The article can’t be 100% correct. Even if you take the effectiveness argument out of the equation… it has 2 different charts that completely contradict each other in reference to total numbers in the over 50 age group. And that was the only category I looked at. I didn’t even bother to look at the rest once I noticed that.

 

I’m not on any social media, but I’d trust rumble over a censored Twitter any day of the week. A whack job from both sides can post on rumble. On Twitter, FB, etc, only leftists looney toons allowed.