Posted On: Thursday - February 10th 2022 9:57PM MST
In Topics:   Websites  Kung Flu Stupidity
(I remember un pequito Espanol from 1985 - he's The Bad Cat)
Peak Stupidity has never gotten deep into the numbers regarding the risk/benefit of the experimental Kung Flu vaccines. Our position is based on principle and based on our perspective, as obtained from years of being simply alive and aware. I'll quickly re- or re-re-state these two, in order.
1) I have been against the vaccine for myself simply based on the unConstitutional government edicts that have tried to make the shots mandatory. I've used the phrase "this is not the Black Death 2.0" before*, and even if it were the Black Death, we would not NEED the vaccine to be mandatory. Were I seeing 1 out of 25 people of my age expiring of this thing, even 1 in 50, I might be headed down to get the jab early in the morning to beat the line. It'd depend on MY calculations or feelings about risk vs. benefit. It'd be MY call.
2) Over the last 6 months, after seeing and hearing of multiple problems that people I know have had, I don't want the vaccine for that reason additionally.
I have not paid attention to all the stats and details simply due to my being very sure I will not be getting this experimental "treatment". However, if we're going to cover the last, but important piece of Totalitarianism that "our leaders" have extracted from this PanicFest, it's time to comment on this new revelation to me about more of the Establishment's lying with stats.
Peak Stupidity has been neglectful in not following up on too many of our (and iSteve's) commenters' suggestions for research on the numbers regarding the nasty and often deadly side effects and the efficacy, risk/benefit, respectively, of the vaccines. I thank Dieter Kief and others for all his suggestions. Mr. Kief has got me finally looking into to a great simple explanation about the quite important errors (likely purposefully) introduced in the data regarding whether the people behind the numbers are vaxxed or not for 2 weeks AFTER getting a shot. It's this comment by Hypnotoad666, right out in front of me as I read that iSteve comment thread, that got me finally over to Mr. Kief's recommended Bad Cat Substack blog.
This is a simple point that I'm sure many of us who suspect those healthcare "authorities" and the Lyin' Press of trying to scam gullible Americans via statistics have thought of. However El Gato Malo presents some simple numerical examples to show the
It's already obvious that counting those 2 weeks after vaccination as non-vaccinated, due to some lag time, is going to cause errors on the side of more non-vaccinated cases (and beyond cases, when it comes to that). Oh, I suppose this 2-week period is the norm used for this type of statistics, but as the Bad Cat notes, that's a problem when you don't have any true control group in an honest experiment.
The Bad Cat's examples are nothing but simple arithmetic based on an example of getting the Kung Flu at the same rate whether vaxxed or not. Why? That is, he wants to demonstrate the fake good efficacy rates that come purely out of the shift of the sample during that 2 week period.
For good numbers on vaccinated vs. un-vaccinated problems (cases, hospitalizations, and deaths), moving people from an actually vaccinated category to an official non-vaccinated one is a problem that is worse when you aren't talking about a 2 year study, but just a few months, as is the real case - El Gato uses only a 1 month period to show a near worst-case example of bogus numbers. The discrepancies would not be nearly so extreme were the data calculated over one year with that 2 week mis-attribution. (See the way the sample calculations are done in the examples to understand this.) However, Senor Gato's examples are pretty good based on the fact that the efficacy numbers for the vaccinations HAVE been determined only over a pretty short span. Well, they tell us you need a new one after a short while anyway, as you've got a new strain coming along, and the current vaccine can't handle the new one.
Now, one could name some variables, one each for the average rate of the vaxxed getting the virus and one for the unvaxxed. Another would be the time period of the determination of effectiveness, or lack thereof. Then, the percentage of people being vaccinated per time period would be another. You could plug and chug and see the effect of these. Great, but these are not really known and not constant over time either. That takes us to another even bigger factor.
How does one separate covid-style ill health effects from the vaccination itself vs. those that would happen to from an infection of the virus? What if those effects are the most intense during those first 2 weeks?
El Gato Malo shows us that even if these vaccines were completely ineffective, this 2-week-after-vaccination un-vaccinated status scam can make them look pretty effective. Worse yet, for 2 weeks, maybe the most important weeks, the ill health effects of the vaccines are being shifted to being the ill health effects of NOT taking them.
This is a statistical scam. But, they'll just say that Peak Stupidity also has a bad cattitude. Thank you, Senor Gato Malo, for elucidating this scam with your examples.
* Covidiots like the iSteve commenter "HA" have said this is a straw man. Nobody said it was the Black Death 2.0. Personally, I like to use the strong language, but let me put it this way: This Kung Flu "pandemic" is not the big scare to me that these commenters and writers have kept saying it should be either. How about that?