If 100% of the population were vaccinated, then 100% of the hospitalizations would be of vaccinated people.
The number that must be observed is how much are vaccination RATES growing among the most vulnerable population vs how much are the hospitalization RATES of those vaccinated vulnerable groups.
Example, there are 100 people, of those 40 are elderly. Of the elderly, 10 are vaccinated. Then you go to a hospital and check on the elderly patients: if you get a lower than 25% number of hospitalizations of vaccinated people then the vaccine (kind of) works. If you draw a number higher than than 25% then the vaccine is actually harming that population.
Now to the case at hand: 60% to 70% seems okayish. The UK claims to have vaccinated over 30M people, on a population of ~70M. So a blind draw would see about ~45% of hospitalized patients being vaccinated if the vaccine efficacy was nil, and smaller than that if the vaccine actually had any efficacy (the claimed 50% efficacy would see the number of expected vaccinated hospitalizations at bare minimum 20%). This holds if the vaccination were random.
But the vaccination priority rule was not blind/random.
If we assume that vaccination priority was set to vulnerable people first then we would expect a majority of patients to be vaccinated (because those experimental vaccines are utter crap anyways). The actual math need data they don't give us.
What this MEANS qualitatively, more interestingly, about the vaccine is that: 1) it hardly works, if you're vulnerable you're still sort of vulnerable with it, if you are not vulnerable then you don't need it and 2) the elderly are the ones keeping the disease alive, just like the Yellowstone fire story: humans are outliving the years they should perish and this provides "platforms" of weak immune systems for the virus to remain afloat, which defeats the logic of lockdowns for healthy people.
Well yeah. It causes the body to have an overreaction to any introduction of the virus in the "Corona" family so even a common cold virus, no matter the size of the viral load, will cause the immune system to basically go Ape-Shit.
p18 mental gymnastics:
Thanks for sharing this. Your mental gymnastics are on pg. 18, btw.
Whoops! Thanks :)
If 100% of the population were vaccinated, then 100% of the hospitalizations would be of vaccinated people.
The number that must be observed is how much are vaccination RATES growing among the most vulnerable population vs how much are the hospitalization RATES of those vaccinated vulnerable groups.
Example, there are 100 people, of those 40 are elderly. Of the elderly, 10 are vaccinated. Then you go to a hospital and check on the elderly patients: if you get a lower than 25% number of hospitalizations of vaccinated people then the vaccine (kind of) works. If you draw a number higher than than 25% then the vaccine is actually harming that population.
Now to the case at hand: 60% to 70% seems okayish. The UK claims to have vaccinated over 30M people, on a population of ~70M. So a blind draw would see about ~45% of hospitalized patients being vaccinated if the vaccine efficacy was nil, and smaller than that if the vaccine actually had any efficacy (the claimed 50% efficacy would see the number of expected vaccinated hospitalizations at bare minimum 20%). This holds if the vaccination were random.
But the vaccination priority rule was not blind/random.
If we assume that vaccination priority was set to vulnerable people first then we would expect a majority of patients to be vaccinated (because those experimental vaccines are utter crap anyways). The actual math need data they don't give us.
What this MEANS qualitatively, more interestingly, about the vaccine is that: 1) it hardly works, if you're vulnerable you're still sort of vulnerable with it, if you are not vulnerable then you don't need it and 2) the elderly are the ones keeping the disease alive, just like the Yellowstone fire story: humans are outliving the years they should perish and this provides "platforms" of weak immune systems for the virus to remain afloat, which defeats the logic of lockdowns for healthy people.
Well yeah. It causes the body to have an overreaction to any introduction of the virus in the "Corona" family so even a common cold virus, no matter the size of the viral load, will cause the immune system to basically go Ape-Shit.