Seriously? On the off chance that you're not just trolling, I'll point out the glaring, obvious fact of most significance: if you are attempting to compare the effectiveness of a medical intervention via rates of death in the treated vs. the untreated, the denominators representing each entire cohort of participants need to be relevant with respect to the timing of the intervention.
Let's rerun Alastair's analysis via reductio ad absurdum on a hypothetical day shortly after the jab rollout as if only 1000 Canadians had received the jab today given one of the jabbed was hospitalized and none died:
| Total Cases | Unvaccinated | All Other | Ratio | | 2,187,949 | 2,186,949 | 1000 | | | Hospitalizations | 96,892 | 96,891 | 1 | | | Cases per 1000 | 44.28 | 44.30 | 1 | 44.30 | | Deaths | 18,787 | 18,787 | 0 | | | Cases per 1000 | 8.59 | 8.59 | 0 | Infinity
|
It appears that the non-jabbed have an over 4300% higher rate of hospitalization and an infinitely higher death rate. It should be obvious that this is not a meaningful conclusion from these data because the time periods are not comparable. The ratios as presented by Alastair are invalid for comparison for this reason, just to a different degree.
Would you accept this as the apparently fantastic results that it seems to present? If your answer is yes, you are extremely susceptible to being misled via base rate fallacy, and it explains how you believe Pfizer's fraudulent claim of 95% efficacy when in reality, even if you believed their fraudulently derived data, the absolute risk reduction their data represented was only 0.84%. And of course we now know that in real world data, the jabbed are currently two to three times as likely to be infected if double or triple-jabbed, and more likely to die in proportion to the number of jabs received, all at rates greater than the non-jabbed.
The only way to arrive at a relevant comparison of rates between the two cohorts over this large a time period with a delayed start to one cohort is if you could assign a mathematical function closely representing the change in percentage of the population that's jabbed and then performing an integral of the results over the time period. If you can't understand base rate fallacy, please don't ask me to explain mathematical integration.
That Graystone accepted this obvious misrepresentation as valid explains his many other naive misconceptions presented in this forum. |
