I've never heard the phrase "neighborhood deprivation" used. I know of depreciation, but I guess using such a word would make the evidence too obvious (those in lower socioeconomic areas are more likely to have poorer outcomes in general). I also don't provide these people with any charity in their abilities to completely butcher studies for whatever narrative they want to push forward.
And thanks for covering the statistics. I absolutely hate statistics and I just gloss over so much of that in papers.
I consider The Cat to be mostly a muckraker (although I'm not positive that's the word I'm looking for). I've caught a few things where he misrepresents (or leaves out key information) on a subject or an event in order to agitate. But it does get lots of comments and it does keep readers agitated so - success! 😜
Thanks for pointing out the flaw in Gato's post. How did he possibly make that mistake???
It makes me worry about him a little.
What matters in this kind of analysis is the comparison between the pre booster rate (double vax) and the post-booster-pre-effect rate ("early prebooster"), which in this case are basically the same rate. So there's really no effect here. Who knows what's going on in the other days they excluded, that is a little fishy, but it's unlikely to be so bad as to make the shots ineffective... perhaps less effective though.
A fair way to calculate this would probably add the raw count of excess pre-boster events, that are over and above the pre-existing doublevax rate, to the raw booster counts, and use the original denominator for boosted days. That we we only put the extra events on boosting's tab.
A few people in his comments section also called this out.
I hope he retracts it, he retracted another post recently, although I didn't actually see a problem with it (I didn't look too hard though).
Thank You for this important post! Didn't Pfizer mention in their own first trial studies of their genetically modifying cocncoction, for the pregnant women to not even get close to the injected?? It is called shedding. I knew personally only one pregnant woman, and she lost her baby after being exposed to all injected grandparents! Here from a TOP lawyer about catastrophic consequences of the injections among the military personnel:
I've never heard the phrase "neighborhood deprivation" used. I know of depreciation, but I guess using such a word would make the evidence too obvious (those in lower socioeconomic areas are more likely to have poorer outcomes in general). I also don't provide these people with any charity in their abilities to completely butcher studies for whatever narrative they want to push forward.
And thanks for covering the statistics. I absolutely hate statistics and I just gloss over so much of that in papers.
Thank you! I'm so glad when you all check each other's work and point out the weaknesses. We are all better for it. 👍🏽💕
I consider The Cat to be mostly a muckraker (although I'm not positive that's the word I'm looking for). I've caught a few things where he misrepresents (or leaves out key information) on a subject or an event in order to agitate. But it does get lots of comments and it does keep readers agitated so - success! 😜
Thanks for pointing out the flaw in Gato's post. How did he possibly make that mistake???
It makes me worry about him a little.
What matters in this kind of analysis is the comparison between the pre booster rate (double vax) and the post-booster-pre-effect rate ("early prebooster"), which in this case are basically the same rate. So there's really no effect here. Who knows what's going on in the other days they excluded, that is a little fishy, but it's unlikely to be so bad as to make the shots ineffective... perhaps less effective though.
A fair way to calculate this would probably add the raw count of excess pre-boster events, that are over and above the pre-existing doublevax rate, to the raw booster counts, and use the original denominator for boosted days. That we we only put the extra events on boosting's tab.
A few people in his comments section also called this out.
I hope he retracts it, he retracted another post recently, although I didn't actually see a problem with it (I didn't look too hard though).
Thank You for this important post! Didn't Pfizer mention in their own first trial studies of their genetically modifying cocncoction, for the pregnant women to not even get close to the injected?? It is called shedding. I knew personally only one pregnant woman, and she lost her baby after being exposed to all injected grandparents! Here from a TOP lawyer about catastrophic consequences of the injections among the military personnel:
https://www.brighteon.com/4dc4855b-b650-4c66-9c77-2d9a0273ed94
Military deaths and AIDS vaccines -- Muertes militares y vacunas de SIDA