Using the same dataset Alex linked to above, you can click the "per 100,000" button to get the rates. Not sure if we can say for certain yet that the virus preferentially targets vaccinated people - Rate per 100,000 still shows unvaxed higher than vaxed. 24.3 per 100,000 unvaxed vs. 17.2 per 100,000 for fully vaxed. So 1.4 unvaxed cases …
Using the same dataset Alex linked to above, you can click the "per 100,000" button to get the rates. Not sure if we can say for certain yet that the virus preferentially targets vaccinated people - Rate per 100,000 still shows unvaxed higher than vaxed. 24.3 per 100,000 unvaxed vs. 17.2 per 100,000 for fully vaxed. So 1.4 unvaxed cases for every 1 vaxed case.
However, they're converging.
Back in September, per the same data set, the unvaxed/vaxed ratio was 6!
At the end of November it was 4!
Now, it's 1.4.
Certainly we can say the vaccine protection has eroded to the point of near parity with unvaccinated. We should watch to see if we hit negative efficacy - where rate per 100,000 of fully vaxed is higher than unvaxed. THAT is the true inflection point.
Ontario also has a very high vaccination rate across the entire population. They are probably reaching a point where the unvaccinated are less susceptible due to prior immunity due to exposure.
Some argue the vax impairs natural immunity response going forward. It will be very interesting to follow the data on reinfection for the vaxxed then infected, infected then vaxxed, vs. natural immunity no vax.
If only we had a public health system that wants to collect and share this data.
It does. We have data on this-- there are SO many books that have done research on the health between unvaccinated and vaccinated-- focusing on children. (check out Vaccine Coalition Canada, Childrens Health Defense)
The data seems clear that natural infection is much better protection than getting vaxxed. Calling vaxxed infections breakthroughs is ridiculous. For claimed breakthroughs on natural immunity, I would question the PCR threshold on the supposed two infections.
The data I want to learn about is reinfection for the vaxxed. I am guessing unlikely since we probably would have seen it in heavily vaxxed old age homes.
The coach of the NFL New Orleans Saints was diagnosed with Covid in March 2020. Despite my efforts, I was unable to determine if he was a "case" or had symptomatic Covid. But he tested positive last week (the NFL stupidly was testing asymptomatic vaccinated). If he had actual Covid in 2020 (not just a positive test), then was vaccinated, and then tests positive, which conclusion is most likely: (1) the tests are useless, (2) vaccination after previous infection destroys natural immunity, (3) the vaccines fail to protect against infections, or (4) all of the above.
My son in law got a positive test 9 months after the whole family got it. He was sick for 2 days tops then fine. Daughter and kids never got a positive test. My daughter had to stay out of work for 14 days as a close contact. I questioned PCR cycles myself. But they don't tell you what it was.
My SIL got it from a vexed boosted person. So my personal evidence of this being a pandemic of the vaccinated
PCR thresholds were changed. But there was also a period in 2020 where some locations weren't even testing to count a case. The assumption was if you exhibited symptoms in a high spread area, you were counted as a case. I think this was mainly during the initial infection spike of 2020.
I'm not sure what was going on when the flu magically disappeared during the next winter spike. I have heard some say the tests confuse covid and flu, which seems odd.
That kind of info is all over the place-- adding to what I suggested in an earlier post check also the Weston Price Foundation. Del Bigtrees site etc.-- TONS Of stuff (if you use duck Duck Go 😊)
Problem being all the charts and numbers being put out are from the very same entities that have lied to us from the beginning. You trust a chart or numbers from any of them to be factual? Not me. Figures lie and liars figure🤔 if someone gets A vax then gets the very virus they were vaxxed against--thats an Epic Fail in my book
Or more likely, the unvaxxed dont get sick because they have strong innate and adaptive immune system. Every jab your immune system weakens. Its like wiring a lamp wrong-- it will work but not as well.
That's the primary reason I went for the J&J option. A single, less immunogenic shot was less likely to trigger OAS, ADS, or autoimmune issues. It's also why the boosters are stupid even if you can make a case for the original vaccination being beneficial.
Well this is nice to hear because this is exactly what I did. I plan to be on a pro-autophagy diet for about 5 years anyway. I just had a nasty cold but cleared it quickly so I seem to not have damaged the native plumbing
Alex Berenson had a post suggesting the J&J as the least likely to cause harm. Also, I used to work for J&J. While the company isn't as altruistic as it likes to pretend internally, it isn't as actively malicious as Pfizer.
More like standard corporate behavior vs actively sabotaging science. Part of J&J's corporate culture is based on a story about doing the right thing by recalling defective/poisoned Tylenol in the early 80's. Pfizer's corporate culture is about buyouts and boner pills.
You're oversimplifying. So am I. 🤓 OAS can happen with natural immunity, too. The main indictments against the mRNA injections are: they induce production of only one type of antibody, against "Classic Wuhan" original virus, presumably long gone from the wild. They produce a huge burst of antibodies that quickly fades (few months), hence the urging for boosters after just few months*; also the unproven and increasingly dubious long-term safety of the jab. Natural infection produces a broader immune response, the body doesn't go ape shit producing just the one type of antibody. In general, the natural immunity should be many times better as it will be more "up to date" (more recent viruses), multiple immune responses, not just one, and expected to better respond to similar future viruses.
*Absent other immune system issues, an apparent problem with repeated mRNA doses is that with repeated applications, the immune system mounts a weaker response. This is claimed to have been a problem with the early mRNA research; it was thought that a better application would be for "vaccines." So perhaps it should be no surprise that the immunity fades quickly, and thus the need for boosters. Well if the fade issue holds, then each additional booster will produce a flaccid response, yet one more problem for the vaxx cheerleaders.
Alex mentions this issue in his book, but apparently doesn't provide a cite for the source(s).
Prof Byram Bridle (find him on Rumble) a Canadian virologist banned from his own lab at the University of Guelph for refusing the vaccine has said that he has information from many sources that are seeing an exponential rise in soft tissue cancers in recent months. This is in line with Dr Ryan Cole who has said the same. Byram is one of the bravest scientists in North America and has had death threats and all sorts of intimidation thrown at him. His original rejection of the vaxxes came back in May when he said "we made a big mistake with the spike protein manufacture, that it is actually toxic". He had access to Pfizer data from trials in Japan that showed the biodistribution of the vaccine went all through the body - it did not stay in the shoulder muscle.
This creates a curious situation. Giving them the benefit of doubt, the Gov is pushing vaccines/boosters because they are therapeutic and thus reduce the severity of infection. If, however, the vaccines are NOT immunizing, then by pushing vaccines they are postponing herd immunity. This appears to be case given that we are 2 years into this. What we really need is a thorough study of breakthrough cases to see if these folks have lasting immunity comparable to those infected prior to vaccination.
I'd love to know on what basis anyone can assert that the gene therapy "vaccines" reduce hospitalizations. They are not sterilizing as you said. It's like saying that because I wore two tee shirts on a cold day I didn't get as sick as I might have if I only wore one. How would you know what didn't happen? It's entirely subjective.
Sorry why are you giving them a benefit of a doubt at this point? Didn't a lot of Americans do that before they were hoodwinked into going into Iraq-- how long does it take to see these "authoriites" for what they are criminal organizations.
Setting Ontario aside for a minute, take a look at Ireland where apparently they have vaxxed over 90% of the population and are now in a partial lockdown. The vaccines are designed to fail. This is not about a virus or a vaccine.
Another problem comparing to a small group (only 14% unvaxxed) is small group bias (term made up by me). For example, in a group of only 2, if 1 gets sick, that's a 50% rate but you can't extrapolate that to a larger group.
There is a very real problem with comparing unvaxxed to vaxxed populations with no controls. These groups can look very different. For instance, the unvaxxed population likely has a few people who are very committed to natural, healthy lifestyles but also some who are already very sick with other ailments that make it inadvisable to get the vaccine.
Quite the opposite can happen too. Alex cites in his book this possibility. Especially in the very highly vaxxed nations, it was usually the most at-risk (the elderly) who received the vaxx. Since the virus does its worst on the most frail and usually the very old, that of necessity means that many of the "unvaccinated" the press so disdainfully reports as being in hospital or dead were precisely the people who COULDN'T BE VAXXED because they were too frail already! The media lie about damned near everything. In the case of bemoaning all the ill or dying unvaxxed, then, they are basically blaming the victim, people who simply could not be vaxxed.
Yes, without knowing the underlying rate of infection in both populations, this is a serious confounding variable.
I also know that the campaign has pushed hard to get people to take the vaccine even if they had covid. We'd need to know if the prior infected are disproportionately among the unvaccinated. I'd say that it's likely to skew in the direction of the unvaccinated, but by how much is hard to say.
We will never get that info. VAR's are being covered up and passed off as "coincidence" and so will the vaxx failures. And the labs in Ontario still run the CT above 35. Most of the "cases" are no worse than a normal cold or mild flu. People are just crazy here, getting tested. I know at least 50 people who have been tested positive in the last 2 weeks and I was sicker than all of them with what was no more than a normal heavy cold. I'm leaning heavily towards the "Unbekoming" view point that this is all a massive Ponzi scheme to make money for Big Pharma.
I've thought that for some time but I kept trying to take off my tinfoil hat, then events just seemed to continue to confirm my original thinking. Then I listened to Sukharit Bakdhi who now says the vaxxes were designed to fail. Then I read that Trudeau's family trust is heavily invested in Acuitas who make the LNP's. Then I read that the Shermans were murdered because they knew this was coming and had stockpiled HCQ for the Canadian government then threatened to blow the whistle that the virus was actually developed in the Winnipeg lab. How far down the rabbit hole do we go?
Sorry? what? Where are you getting that Ontario has a "very high vaccination rate across the entire population"? Love to see your sources. What do you mean where the unvaccinated are less susceptible " due to prior immunity due to exposure". Do you mean a natural immunity reaction. The one that has kicked in every year of that persons life for whatever virus comes their way. ?
Based on the linked data, the unvaccinated over 5 years of age is only 14%. That is a very high vaccination rate and skews the results as the unvaccinated aren't going to be generally representative of the population. They are also likely to be people who have either been infected or trust their immune systems. So yes, I mean people with good immune systems.
Be careful what you define as "unvaxxed". Ontario doesn't count you as vaxxed until 14 days after the 2nd shot. So anyone up to and including day 14 is classified as unvaxxed. Also Trudeau's "one shot summer" is now coming into play. Majority of vaxxed did not get their second shot until the Sept/Oct period. They waited up to 12 weeks after the first shot. Then he said it was a good idea (based on nothing) to mix and match. This PM used to be drama teacher so he knows as much as a chipmunk about epidemiology. Anyway - say October + 4 months = February based on what happened in Ireland in terms of waning efficacy. Hence the massive push for 3rd and even 4th shots now. Omicron is a diversionary tactic to explain away the useless vaccines.
Also our PM has a 17% stake in a UofBC developed Pharma company that was involved in the creation of the nano-lipid protein cover which permits the mRNA to enter the blood system easily and then of course spread ALL through the body including permeating the blood brain barrier. A big no no in medicine.
Notice that the case counts give you a choice of current or 7 day rolling average, the surge has happened entirely in the last week, but the rate display only gives you a 7 day average - it's lagged and we will have to wait a week to see the rate display catch up.
Nice catch. If you look at the daily data for 12/20, the unvaxed case rate per 100,000 is 26.29 and the vaxed is 24.6. Single dose is 20.31 and has been trending lower than two dose for days.
It should be noted that these all seem like too low of numbers of infections to really get any information and they haven't updated the data per age group which is important to know. All it would take is spread in a long term care facility to really screw up the numbers.
Rate per 100k may be the best metric that we have but a very flawed metric. As someone gives as an example: in a population of 10 (7 vaxxed/ 3 unvaxxed) with 3 vaxxed and 3 unvaxxed cases, the rates would be 42% & 100% which would lead you to believe significant protection for the vaxxed component. The smaller the unvaxxed group is (and it is shrinking), the less relevant the rates per 100k are and the more relevant actual case numbers begin to be.- JMO
The original Phase 3 tests (Pfizer? Moderna? Both?) even though each arm (vaccine, placebo) had about 20,000 people each, the claimed success rates for efficacy were based on not much larger numbers! Talk about making grandiose extrapolations from tiny samples!.
They should give the numbers since time of vaccination. Since its known vaccine wanes with time this would show how long it takes for the protection to turn negative.
Yes! @Golden_Pup is doing amazing work to make the data easy to read.
The most galling aspect of Ontario's stats is the daily "unknown" vax status when it comes to hospitalizations and icu admittance. Many figure it is a way to sweep vax injuries out of the vaxxed column, but we don't know because they never explain it, so everyone speculates.
Either way, it doesn't look good on the government's ability to track anything.
Boosters create uncertainty about how the body deals with accumulating spike proteins as well as uncertainty on immune system adaptation to repeated innoculation.
It's horrifying to think nobody knows how this is going to play out while forcing it on populations globally.
And yet the people running it claim The Science supports forcing it even onto children at close to no risk to covid, with a leaky shot that doesn't prevent spread.
Define short-term protection. Define Efficacy. High zone tolerance?? 🤣 If you define them as I do (medical definitions) then there is no protection and therefore there is no efficacy. Negative efficacy?do you mean side effects of vaccines-- if so there is a many page bio of books I can send you that have shown just that-- that there are damaging immune system impacts done by vaccines and I don't mean the gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine (that redefinition CDC, WHO etc)
You seem knowledgeable about these things whereas I am a construction guy. What do you know about the Novavax that Canada is supposed to get? Is it more of the same crap or does it actually work?
If the booster is required to be fully vaccinated - they are they not just moving the goal post - ergo everyone double jabbed get reclassified as the unvaccinated?
Actually, it has already occurred in the UK and in Sweden. Probably has also in other countries but most steadfastly refuse to give infection rates since time of vaccinated. They’ll give it up to 6 months where efficacy has dropped to null, but not after that.
Using the same dataset Alex linked to above, you can click the "per 100,000" button to get the rates. Not sure if we can say for certain yet that the virus preferentially targets vaccinated people - Rate per 100,000 still shows unvaxed higher than vaxed. 24.3 per 100,000 unvaxed vs. 17.2 per 100,000 for fully vaxed. So 1.4 unvaxed cases for every 1 vaxed case.
However, they're converging.
Back in September, per the same data set, the unvaxed/vaxed ratio was 6!
At the end of November it was 4!
Now, it's 1.4.
Certainly we can say the vaccine protection has eroded to the point of near parity with unvaccinated. We should watch to see if we hit negative efficacy - where rate per 100,000 of fully vaxed is higher than unvaxed. THAT is the true inflection point.
Ontario also has a very high vaccination rate across the entire population. They are probably reaching a point where the unvaccinated are less susceptible due to prior immunity due to exposure.
Some argue the vax impairs natural immunity response going forward. It will be very interesting to follow the data on reinfection for the vaxxed then infected, infected then vaxxed, vs. natural immunity no vax.
If only we had a public health system that wants to collect and share this data.
That would require honest hospital personnel.
And honest public health spokespeople, honest government bureaucrats, honest politicians, honest scientists, etc. Probably too much to hope for.
One of the problems in this is hospital administrators dependent on government money.
Yes and means being brave and telling the truth no matter what, because you cannot be a slave to two masters
It does. We have data on this-- there are SO many books that have done research on the health between unvaccinated and vaccinated-- focusing on children. (check out Vaccine Coalition Canada, Childrens Health Defense)
That info exists but I can't find it now. The vaxxed then infected were more likely to be infected then the infected then vaxxed. If I remember correctly, it was a pretty small sample size with some pretty large confidence intervals that made it inconclusive. I couldn't find the original post, but I think it was related to this study from Denmark https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/15/danish-study-confirms-that-natural-immunity-protects-better-against-infection-than-the-vaccines/.
The data seems clear that natural infection is much better protection than getting vaxxed. Calling vaxxed infections breakthroughs is ridiculous. For claimed breakthroughs on natural immunity, I would question the PCR threshold on the supposed two infections.
The data I want to learn about is reinfection for the vaxxed. I am guessing unlikely since we probably would have seen it in heavily vaxxed old age homes.
The coach of the NFL New Orleans Saints was diagnosed with Covid in March 2020. Despite my efforts, I was unable to determine if he was a "case" or had symptomatic Covid. But he tested positive last week (the NFL stupidly was testing asymptomatic vaccinated). If he had actual Covid in 2020 (not just a positive test), then was vaccinated, and then tests positive, which conclusion is most likely: (1) the tests are useless, (2) vaccination after previous infection destroys natural immunity, (3) the vaccines fail to protect against infections, or (4) all of the above.
Not seems clear--is clear.
My son in law got a positive test 9 months after the whole family got it. He was sick for 2 days tops then fine. Daughter and kids never got a positive test. My daughter had to stay out of work for 14 days as a close contact. I questioned PCR cycles myself. But they don't tell you what it was.
My SIL got it from a vexed boosted person. So my personal evidence of this being a pandemic of the vaccinated
A VA long-term care facility near me is having significant ‘break through’ infections. Visitors not allowed so staff is pinned as the source.
PCR thresholds were changed. But there was also a period in 2020 where some locations weren't even testing to count a case. The assumption was if you exhibited symptoms in a high spread area, you were counted as a case. I think this was mainly during the initial infection spike of 2020.
I'm not sure what was going on when the flu magically disappeared during the next winter spike. I have heard some say the tests confuse covid and flu, which seems odd.
I Heard the same thing that the test can't tell the difference between the flu and covid.
That kind of info is all over the place-- adding to what I suggested in an earlier post check also the Weston Price Foundation. Del Bigtrees site etc.-- TONS Of stuff (if you use duck Duck Go 😊)
If only !
Problem being all the charts and numbers being put out are from the very same entities that have lied to us from the beginning. You trust a chart or numbers from any of them to be factual? Not me. Figures lie and liars figure🤔 if someone gets A vax then gets the very virus they were vaxxed against--thats an Epic Fail in my book
This is one of the scenarios we have to look out for -- the unvaxxed will get sick once, the vaxxed keep catching Covid due to OAS.
I'm terribly worried about this. It's why my kids will never get vaxed.
Great move, they will be the ones left with a brain and energy to help the rest of the sorry lot to get on with their lives.
Or more likely, the unvaxxed dont get sick because they have strong innate and adaptive immune system. Every jab your immune system weakens. Its like wiring a lamp wrong-- it will work but not as well.
very cool way of putting it
That's the primary reason I went for the J&J option. A single, less immunogenic shot was less likely to trigger OAS, ADS, or autoimmune issues. It's also why the boosters are stupid even if you can make a case for the original vaccination being beneficial.
Well this is nice to hear because this is exactly what I did. I plan to be on a pro-autophagy diet for about 5 years anyway. I just had a nasty cold but cleared it quickly so I seem to not have damaged the native plumbing
Alex Berenson had a post suggesting the J&J as the least likely to cause harm. Also, I used to work for J&J. While the company isn't as altruistic as it likes to pretend internally, it isn't as actively malicious as Pfizer.
So just a second level Bond villain type behaviour?
More like standard corporate behavior vs actively sabotaging science. Part of J&J's corporate culture is based on a story about doing the right thing by recalling defective/poisoned Tylenol in the early 80's. Pfizer's corporate culture is about buyouts and boner pills.
I know a 42-year-old woman who had a brain hemorrhage after the J and J. She will never be well again.
Devastating!…sorry to hear this.
Yeah but new CEO, schooled in China.
You're oversimplifying. So am I. 🤓 OAS can happen with natural immunity, too. The main indictments against the mRNA injections are: they induce production of only one type of antibody, against "Classic Wuhan" original virus, presumably long gone from the wild. They produce a huge burst of antibodies that quickly fades (few months), hence the urging for boosters after just few months*; also the unproven and increasingly dubious long-term safety of the jab. Natural infection produces a broader immune response, the body doesn't go ape shit producing just the one type of antibody. In general, the natural immunity should be many times better as it will be more "up to date" (more recent viruses), multiple immune responses, not just one, and expected to better respond to similar future viruses.
*Absent other immune system issues, an apparent problem with repeated mRNA doses is that with repeated applications, the immune system mounts a weaker response. This is claimed to have been a problem with the early mRNA research; it was thought that a better application would be for "vaccines." So perhaps it should be no surprise that the immunity fades quickly, and thus the need for boosters. Well if the fade issue holds, then each additional booster will produce a flaccid response, yet one more problem for the vaxx cheerleaders.
Alex mentions this issue in his book, but apparently doesn't provide a cite for the source(s).
Prof Byram Bridle (find him on Rumble) a Canadian virologist banned from his own lab at the University of Guelph for refusing the vaccine has said that he has information from many sources that are seeing an exponential rise in soft tissue cancers in recent months. This is in line with Dr Ryan Cole who has said the same. Byram is one of the bravest scientists in North America and has had death threats and all sorts of intimidation thrown at him. His original rejection of the vaxxes came back in May when he said "we made a big mistake with the spike protein manufacture, that it is actually toxic". He had access to Pfizer data from trials in Japan that showed the biodistribution of the vaccine went all through the body - it did not stay in the shoulder muscle.
This creates a curious situation. Giving them the benefit of doubt, the Gov is pushing vaccines/boosters because they are therapeutic and thus reduce the severity of infection. If, however, the vaccines are NOT immunizing, then by pushing vaccines they are postponing herd immunity. This appears to be case given that we are 2 years into this. What we really need is a thorough study of breakthrough cases to see if these folks have lasting immunity comparable to those infected prior to vaccination.
I'd love to know on what basis anyone can assert that the gene therapy "vaccines" reduce hospitalizations. They are not sterilizing as you said. It's like saying that because I wore two tee shirts on a cold day I didn't get as sick as I might have if I only wore one. How would you know what didn't happen? It's entirely subjective.
🛎 🛎 🛎 ding ding ding !!!
Sorry why are you giving them a benefit of a doubt at this point? Didn't a lot of Americans do that before they were hoodwinked into going into Iraq-- how long does it take to see these "authoriites" for what they are criminal organizations.
Only a true Canuck would start a sentence with "Sorry". :))
but they won't
Setting Ontario aside for a minute, take a look at Ireland where apparently they have vaxxed over 90% of the population and are now in a partial lockdown. The vaccines are designed to fail. This is not about a virus or a vaccine.
How furious must these people be…buying into and being vaxxed
…then still succumbing to the ‘ro and then lockdowns, to boot !
Another problem comparing to a small group (only 14% unvaxxed) is small group bias (term made up by me). For example, in a group of only 2, if 1 gets sick, that's a 50% rate but you can't extrapolate that to a larger group.
There is a very real problem with comparing unvaxxed to vaxxed populations with no controls. These groups can look very different. For instance, the unvaxxed population likely has a few people who are very committed to natural, healthy lifestyles but also some who are already very sick with other ailments that make it inadvisable to get the vaccine.
Quite the opposite can happen too. Alex cites in his book this possibility. Especially in the very highly vaxxed nations, it was usually the most at-risk (the elderly) who received the vaxx. Since the virus does its worst on the most frail and usually the very old, that of necessity means that many of the "unvaccinated" the press so disdainfully reports as being in hospital or dead were precisely the people who COULDN'T BE VAXXED because they were too frail already! The media lie about damned near everything. In the case of bemoaning all the ill or dying unvaxxed, then, they are basically blaming the victim, people who simply could not be vaxxed.
🎯🎯🎯
Yes, without knowing the underlying rate of infection in both populations, this is a serious confounding variable.
I also know that the campaign has pushed hard to get people to take the vaccine even if they had covid. We'd need to know if the prior infected are disproportionately among the unvaccinated. I'd say that it's likely to skew in the direction of the unvaccinated, but by how much is hard to say.
We will never get that info. VAR's are being covered up and passed off as "coincidence" and so will the vaxx failures. And the labs in Ontario still run the CT above 35. Most of the "cases" are no worse than a normal cold or mild flu. People are just crazy here, getting tested. I know at least 50 people who have been tested positive in the last 2 weeks and I was sicker than all of them with what was no more than a normal heavy cold. I'm leaning heavily towards the "Unbekoming" view point that this is all a massive Ponzi scheme to make money for Big Pharma.
Also in Ontario. I guess because I am in the medical profession that I gasped at your last sentence. I am like REALLY you just figured that out now?
I've thought that for some time but I kept trying to take off my tinfoil hat, then events just seemed to continue to confirm my original thinking. Then I listened to Sukharit Bakdhi who now says the vaxxes were designed to fail. Then I read that Trudeau's family trust is heavily invested in Acuitas who make the LNP's. Then I read that the Shermans were murdered because they knew this was coming and had stockpiled HCQ for the Canadian government then threatened to blow the whistle that the virus was actually developed in the Winnipeg lab. How far down the rabbit hole do we go?
I venture to say the rabbit hole has turned into a rat tunnel
Sorry? what? Where are you getting that Ontario has a "very high vaccination rate across the entire population"? Love to see your sources. What do you mean where the unvaccinated are less susceptible " due to prior immunity due to exposure". Do you mean a natural immunity reaction. The one that has kicked in every year of that persons life for whatever virus comes their way. ?
Based on the linked data, the unvaccinated over 5 years of age is only 14%. That is a very high vaccination rate and skews the results as the unvaccinated aren't going to be generally representative of the population. They are also likely to be people who have either been infected or trust their immune systems. So yes, I mean people with good immune systems.
Are they putting their thumb on the scales with higher PCR threshold for the unvaxxed? So many games that these people play with the stats.
Be careful what you define as "unvaxxed". Ontario doesn't count you as vaxxed until 14 days after the 2nd shot. So anyone up to and including day 14 is classified as unvaxxed. Also Trudeau's "one shot summer" is now coming into play. Majority of vaxxed did not get their second shot until the Sept/Oct period. They waited up to 12 weeks after the first shot. Then he said it was a good idea (based on nothing) to mix and match. This PM used to be drama teacher so he knows as much as a chipmunk about epidemiology. Anyway - say October + 4 months = February based on what happened in Ireland in terms of waning efficacy. Hence the massive push for 3rd and even 4th shots now. Omicron is a diversionary tactic to explain away the useless vaccines.
The mix and match recommendations with no data should be one of the highlights of the mass psychosis. Zero actual science.
Great point too on people with one shot potentially excluded from breakthrough cases. More juking the stats by design.
Also our PM has a 17% stake in a UofBC developed Pharma company that was involved in the creation of the nano-lipid protein cover which permits the mRNA to enter the blood system easily and then of course spread ALL through the body including permeating the blood brain barrier. A big no no in medicine.
Notice that the case counts give you a choice of current or 7 day rolling average, the surge has happened entirely in the last week, but the rate display only gives you a 7 day average - it's lagged and we will have to wait a week to see the rate display catch up.
Nice catch. If you look at the daily data for 12/20, the unvaxed case rate per 100,000 is 26.29 and the vaxed is 24.6. Single dose is 20.31 and has been trending lower than two dose for days.
It should be noted that these all seem like too low of numbers of infections to really get any information and they haven't updated the data per age group which is important to know. All it would take is spread in a long term care facility to really screw up the numbers.
Yeah good point.
The per-100,000 rate is a seven-day average, though, and the number of vaccinated cases has shot up only in the past few days.
If you compare the over 12 age group only then the vaxxed are more likely to get infected than the unvaxxed.
Can you age limit this data set? You're quite possibly right (previous infection counfounder still granted, though).
Rate per 100k may be the best metric that we have but a very flawed metric. As someone gives as an example: in a population of 10 (7 vaxxed/ 3 unvaxxed) with 3 vaxxed and 3 unvaxxed cases, the rates would be 42% & 100% which would lead you to believe significant protection for the vaxxed component. The smaller the unvaxxed group is (and it is shrinking), the less relevant the rates per 100k are and the more relevant actual case numbers begin to be.- JMO
The original Phase 3 tests (Pfizer? Moderna? Both?) even though each arm (vaccine, placebo) had about 20,000 people each, the claimed success rates for efficacy were based on not much larger numbers! Talk about making grandiose extrapolations from tiny samples!.
They should give the numbers since time of vaccination. Since its known vaccine wanes with time this would show how long it takes for the protection to turn negative.
Thanks for that. Poor form from Alex.
Thanks, great observations. When I went to the actual data set as you did, I didn't spot the difference right away.
Their push to vaccinate everyone with a vaccine that doesn't work isn't going to bode well.
Did you keep the data from September and end of November? I haven't been able to find historic data except for the raw data.
Wish I could post screenshots :-)
On the website he links, you can change past 30 days to past 90 days. You can see the time series there.
thanks for being so helpful! will try.
Some pretty good data for downloading here: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset?keywords_en=COVID-19 and here: https://covid-19.ontario.ca/covid-19-epidemiologic-summaries-public-health-ontario.
Also, follow @Golden_Pup on twitter. He is an Ontario guy who is all over this data daily.
Yes! @Golden_Pup is doing amazing work to make the data easy to read.
The most galling aspect of Ontario's stats is the daily "unknown" vax status when it comes to hospitalizations and icu admittance. Many figure it is a way to sweep vax injuries out of the vaxxed column, but we don't know because they never explain it, so everyone speculates.
Either way, it doesn't look good on the government's ability to track anything.
Boosters create uncertainty about how the body deals with accumulating spike proteins as well as uncertainty on immune system adaptation to repeated innoculation.
It's horrifying to think nobody knows how this is going to play out while forcing it on populations globally.
And yet the people running it claim The Science supports forcing it even onto children at close to no risk to covid, with a leaky shot that doesn't prevent spread.
Janti….your last 2 sentences show wisdom beyond stats and anecdotes…big picture !
Define short-term protection. Define Efficacy. High zone tolerance?? 🤣 If you define them as I do (medical definitions) then there is no protection and therefore there is no efficacy. Negative efficacy?do you mean side effects of vaccines-- if so there is a many page bio of books I can send you that have shown just that-- that there are damaging immune system impacts done by vaccines and I don't mean the gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine (that redefinition CDC, WHO etc)
You seem knowledgeable about these things whereas I am a construction guy. What do you know about the Novavax that Canada is supposed to get? Is it more of the same crap or does it actually work?
Bingo!! the boosters are to avoid negative efficacy.
If the booster is required to be fully vaccinated - they are they not just moving the goal post - ergo everyone double jabbed get reclassified as the unvaccinated?
Well there's only one way to find out.. Boost away!!
Sure!…what could go wrong?
(Sarc on)
Or how many shots until your odds of a serious AE become 1.0?
Actually, it has already occurred in the UK and in Sweden. Probably has also in other countries but most steadfastly refuse to give infection rates since time of vaccinated. They’ll give it up to 6 months where efficacy has dropped to null, but not after that.