The dumbest, most dishonest argument for Covid jabs yet
A computer model claims they prevented 3 million American deaths and almost 19 million hospitalizations. Imagine what they would have done if they actually WORKED against Omicron.
Yesterday, the Commonwealth Fund released a paper purporting to prove Covid jabs had saved almost 3.3 million lives and prevented 18.6 million hospitalizations - in the United States alone.
I didn’t plan to write about it. The figures are absurd on their face. The hospitalization number is particularly stupid, implying that almost 6 percent of Americans would have been hospitalized for Covid without the vaccines.
Yet the usual suspects in the media are writing about this study as if it is something other than a joke. In fact, they’re using it in a desperate effort to prop up the faltering campaigns for Covid boosters and shots for kids.
CNN: Covid-19 vaccines have saved more than 3 million lives in US, study says, but the fight isn’t over
The Hill: Covid vaccines saved 3.2 million U.S. lives, researchers say
So, in the interests of science - as opposed to The Science - I will demolish this absurdity in three minutes or less.
Set aside the obvious problem that the researchers did not provide the specific inputs that they used to calculate these figures - what Covid infection fatality rate did they use, what hospitalization rate, et cetera?
Here’s all you need to know. The study Commonwealth released yesterday makes estimates through November 30, 2022. But is actually an update of an earlier paper that made the same calculations through March 31, 2022.
The earlier figures are below. As you can see, in the earlier work, the Commonwealth Fund claimed that as of the end of March, the vaccines had saved 2.26 million lives (and stopped 66 million infections).
Thus the updated paper is claiming that the mRNA jabs prevented an additional 1 million Covid deaths and 54 million infections in the last eight months.
THIS IS A JOKE.
First, no one even bothers to argue anymore that the vaccines stop infection with the Omicron variant. At best, they are marginally effective for a few weeks or months, and their effectiveness goes to zero - if not below - afterwards. Don’t take it from me, take it from The New England Journal of Medicine:
The effectiveness of vaccination [against Omicron] with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible…
Second, let’s pretend for argument’s sake that the paper’s claim that the vaccines stopped 54 million Covid infections between April and November 2022 is correct, rather than absurd.
Fine. The paper then claims that avoiding those 54 million infections prevented 1 million deaths.
In other words, Commonwealth is estimating an infection fatality rate from Omicron almost 2 percent (1 million deaths out of 54 million infections).
That estimate is at least 20 times the actual infection fatality rate for the Omicron variant - and not because of vaccines. In 2020, before vaccines existed, the original Sars-Cov-2 had an infection fatality rate in the range of 0.3 percent - and Omicron is significantly less lethal than the original.
Claiming Omicron has a death rate of 2 percent is worse than a joke.
It’s dishonest, and the only reason to do it is to produce numbers that friendly reporters can paste into headlines and post on Twitter. One last point: Omicron has killed fewer than 500,000 people WORLDWIDE since April, even though most of the world does not use the mRNA jabs. How could it have killed 1 million Americans in the last eight months under any circumstances?
This paper is an embarrassment, and so is anyone who repeats what it says without checking it.
Which won’t stop CNN.
Computer models for public policy are ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. I'm a computer scientist by trade and I've worked in software for 26 years professionally (and programmed for many more). I've worked on games where you can cast magic spells or fire plasma guns. Does that mean you can do it in real life?
The simple rule with computer simulations is: garbage in, garbage out.
For example, lets take the climate grift. Ignoring the obvious incentive of climate scientists to NOT solve the problem (i.e. where does my funding come from when there's no histrionics over the weather) did you know that NO computer simulation has been able to accurately predict our measured yearly temperatures?
If I were to write a climate model in software and test for accuracy what I would do is start at the base-line where we started recording temperatures and then, attempt to predict the temperatures for each year (within a small tolerance) from said base line. If I got the temperatures accurate within a small tolerance then, my model is good. If not, it's garbage.
Guess how many climate simulations can predict the measured temperatures. ZERO. Guess how many climate models are garbage? ALL OF THEM.
A lot of people don't understand computer programming so they just assume that it's right. I presume (given the mid-wits I've worked with in my career) any professional field suffers from the same (Looking at you, medical doctors).
This is the Alex I pay for! Get 'em! This paper was such a joke, as is just about everything that makes it onto the mainstream media these days (and we know why, don't we?)