While the percentage is higher is it really an incentive to get an experimental vaccine to guard against a hospitalization rate of .00000285%?
The hospitalization rate isn't the hospitalized divided by the population, it's the hospitalized divided by the number infected with covid.
They only publish , not who was vaccinated. 678 tested positive from the 17th to the 23rd. We don't know the vaxxed rate of the 678. If we use the reported percentage, the vaxxed rate of hospitalization is 6/508 =.011% and unvaxxed is 1/81 = .012%. Only a .001% difference.
You can't work backwards like that. When you assume the reported percentages of hospitalized apply to the infection rate, what you're really doing is just assuming the hospitalization rates are equal. In other words, you're making an assumption about the dependent variable, which ruins your analysis.
What I was demonstrating was that the original arrticle making the claim that unvaxxed are more likely to end up in hospital based on a sample rate of 8 people hospitalized in New Zealand which has a population of 5 million and an infected population of 678 is complete bullshit. The professor even admitted that the sample rate was too small for a reasonable analysis and he applied the same assumption, but they ran with the article anyway. The vaccine is not benign. It is injuring people. We have no informed consent because the agencies task with public health refuse to provide statistics on the risk of taking the vaccine versus the risk of dying. Looking at the VAERS data, it appears that it is far riskier for a healthy person to take the vaccine.
(post is archived)