The Implication of Bean Recounting: Imaginary CDC Statistics

The Vaccine Wars Part VII

Mathew Crawford

"The world will never discover a person who is hiding in the crowd." -Mardy Grothe

Anybody who doesn't know of people who have faked getting vaccinated (have fake vaccine documentation) either doesn't know very many people, none of those people trust their discretion, or has their head firmly planted in the sand. But that's just one way that we know how unreliable vaccine statistics are. There are more.

What would Ozymandias think?

---

Would Governments LIE to US?

This article by TuAnh Dam from less than two days ago shakes up a lot of narratives at once. Albert (welcometheeagle88) was all over it. The article references this Bloomberg article that likely did not intend to throw such a hand grenade into the narrative, but it did. 

Last weekend, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised a bellwether metric -- the share of people 65 and older with at least one shot. The agency reduced the proportion from 99.9%, where it had been capped for weeks, to 95%, without changing its raw shot totals.

Without changing raw shot totals?!

The move acknowledged a dynamic state officials have discovered: in collating reams of data on vaccinations, the U.S. has counted too many shots as first doses when they are instead second doses or booster shots. 

My first thought is that we're talking about the highest risk group for COVID-19: the elderly. In CDC statistics, there are now 50 times as many of them who are unvaccinated as there were before. If 80% of hospitalizations and more than 90% of mortality happens in that age group, then the entire risk profile of that age group just shot through the roof.

It may not seem like it, but the implications are enormous. If the CDC was properly risk-adjusting their statistics (that seems only responsible, right?), then this recounting of the beans is on the order of the difference between 

• "highly effective" and "not really worth cardiac and neurological roulette", or

• "not really worth cardiac and neurological roulette" and "no efficacy, just roulette".

I built a quick simple spreadsheet to relate the point. I did not dig up current risk-stratification to be fully precise, but if you've seen those charts, you know I'm not way off here. What we see is that the risk-profile of the unvaccinated cohort in this grand experiment just nearly doubled:

With more than 1,000 Americans dying per day with the highest risk group highly vaccinated, and suspiciously uncharacteristic deformation of seasonal respiratory virus patterns, maybe the CDC needs an escape route from the "maybe it's a pandemic prolonged by vaccination?" question, so as to muddy all waters (you know, for the twentieth time)? But this comes with the cost of appearing both completely incompetent and leaving behind forensic evidence looks a lot like fudging data to engineer the appearance of efficacy.

To this day the CDC refuses to share its data with public eyeballs, including any sensible explanation as to how they know what they say they know about the various vaccination statuses of those hospitalized with COVID-19. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that were this data open source, I would have caught this error long before now. I mean…in all likelihood…an error this huge…probably…probably a few thousand…okay, tens of thousands of people would have caught this. At least.

How can we trust any of the CDC's statistical assessments of the vaccinated with millions of doses shifting around columns this way? And what kind of asshole would stand back and allow incompetent or rigged data summaries to be used to coerce or even judge nudge decisions over participating in a mass human medical experiment?

It is interesting to note that I'm not the only one getting faint messages of "holy $#!%, this is all insane" from inside the CDC itself. Is that a signal of something? That's a signal, right? I'm going to put that in my ledger as a signal, but we'll revisit whether that's 99.9% of signals going the same direction or just 95% later…

I suspect that either the entire system we're living in is going to blow up, or that in a few years we will look back and find levels of fraud…never mind, everyone's too committed to the lies. It's just going to blow up.

Bloomberg's participation in this story is at least interesting insofar as how they've consistently driven fear and hate of the unvaccinated this year while consistently drawing on the CDC for commentary on statistics. Quoting again the Dam article:

What they're saying: James Garrow, a spokesperson for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, which has worked with the state to blend data sets for a more accurate view of vaccination trends, said "we don’t have any faith in the numbers on the CDC website, and we never refer to them."

Maybe we should be calling all this "a pandemic of fabricated statistics"?

• “The truth is, we have no idea,” said Clay Marsh, West Virginia’s COVID czar.

But, but, but: The miscount means more Americans have received booster shots than shown in official federal data, Bloomberg writes.

What's next: Other states, including Minnesota, Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina and Maine, have already submitted requests for revisions to the CDC for different reasons.

Let's understand that with the vast majority of nations showing signs of negative vaccine efficacy (here, here, here, and here), the mainstream media has consistently fed us data from the U.S. (which is clearly…unreliable), Israel (where both the raw data and research papers are hotly contended), and the UK (ahem), in order to make the case that the vaccines are effective (beyond self-reported trials with whistleblowers, lopsided exclusions and testing regimens that outsize the effects, and attempts to hide the data for 75 years).

Source: Rounding The Earth