Much has already been written about the VE. What was the protection that the vaccines would have data. We look specifically at the protection against death. The government has long assumed the pharmacy of 90-95% and RIVM has also established that percentage in their own research. For example itVasco research. Those studies always take place under controlled circumstances and the question is how representative they are.
February 23, 2024
My followers have often seen that date. It is the date on which itCBS has published weekly figuresAbout the death of COVID-19. We are now going to look in particular at the moment that the vaccine could have prove its usefulness: the Deltagolf at the end of 2021. In the week of November 29, 2021, the Deltagolf reached its peak with 1080 deaths to COVID-19. Statistics Netherlands reports that 765 of them had been vaccinated. For that week, the RIVM reports a vaccination rate of 91% for ages above 65 years (the most vulnerable group). Then we will consult grok what the mrna vaccine has given us for protection.
Grock speaking
We have presented the combined key figures from RIVM and CBS (we assume those figures are undisputed) to Grok through the following question:
Make a calculation of the VE during the Delta golf. In week 48, 1080 inhabitants of COVID-19, of which according to the CBS 765 were vaccinated. It is known that there was a substantial registration arrears in CIMS, which rose to 60% of the total number of vaccinations in May. Assume 15% plus 7% of the vaccinates who have refused to register the vaccination. The actual vaccination rate for 65+ was 91%, of which 22% are not registered in CIMS. In addition, there is the HVE. Make yourself an estimate how much that is.
What is special is that Grok made the same calculation error as NIVEL: the correction on registration behind was settled with the number of unvaccinated people, while of course that must be on the total number. After I have pointed out grug on this, Grok corrected the calculations:
Grok's complete analysis is a long story that you can read yourself via the link toThe conversation with Grok. The conclusion will be shocking for most:
A negative protection so if we take the HVE into account. Note drawing is of course that the actual data is actually a big mess. HvE can only estimate grock and what ultimately the actual registration behind is also uncertain. But that 15% is close to us from other analyzes. Grok concludes that a negative VE is not realistic, but certainly not impossible given the knowledge that is now available.
And for those who claim that the "backlog has been walked in", a disappointing announcement: that is prohibited by law when it comes to deceased persons and these calculations are about that.
What did RIVM say again?
The difference with the findings of the RIVM is huge. If we keep it careful, you will come up with marginal protection, while RIVM keeps it at 90-95%. We realize that the calculations are for most readers Abacadabra, but you can go a long way purely by feeling. If you realize that, according to the CBS, more than 70% of the deaths were vaccinated (765 out of 1080) and more than 20% vaccinates were missing in CIMS, then that is more than 90% together, so vaccination made no difference. So simply based on their own figures. If your own research does get up to 95%, then something is completely wrong.
What did Nivel say again?
Nivel came to the conclusion in her investigation that shortly after vaccination the mortality among unvaccinals was up to 10 times as high as with vaccinates. We already see in these calculations that the vaccines did not give any significant protection against the death of COVID-19, but the researchers thought a 20% lower chance of dying from "something else". That is that 22% missing registration, but Nivel refuses to take that with you. The conclusion is certain if we can believe Nivel, although they acknowledge that the calculations are not flawless. So this dilemma also presented to grok:
In her own research, NIVEL believes that it is the unsaved parties who die up to 10 times as often as vaccinates. What do you think is going on?
Here too, Grok comes with a destructive judgment:
Read itconversation with grok here(The conversation about Nivel starts in the second half).
Well, the 90-95%... ..
I remember that at the start of vaccination there was a lot written about RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) versus Arr (absolute risk reduction). Suppose 10 people would be infected there and in the vaccinated arm there are 5 sick, then you have an Arr of 50%. But the RRR comes to 95%, since only 5 out of 100 people have fallen ill. The other 90% did not get sick at all. That is a realistic scenario in case of infection airway. Can also be 15%, but it doesn't matter for the principle. The pharmacists use the RRR (of course) because that sells much better. It is slightly more complex than this, but the RRR is actually a scam (if you don't mention the arrest).
I know you are talking about deaths, and not about infections, but a death of Covid will be preceded by an infection, so still relevant. Most people have accepted those 95% indiscriminately, but it is actually farmer's fraud.
I do not believe in the deadliness of Covid-19, but that is another story.
Totally agree. Let's keep it that according to pharmacy your chance to suffer from COVID-19 is reduced from 1% (!!!) to 0.1%. However, the actual figures are from 0.1% to 0.09% or something.
Health is only a detail in what citizens are confronted with.
It depends on a person's condition whether one becomes sensitive to an external attack (whether it is a virus, bacterium or whatever). For example, when a bacterium nestles in the intestines, it makes little sense to combat the bacterium. The bacterium is there because the milueu in the intestines is such that that bacterium feels comfortable there. The strategy then does not exist in removing the bacteria, but to improve the environment of the intestines (by omitting food that weakens the intestines) if the environment in the intestines improves, then cook that bacteria away by itself. Take control of your own health, then you obture the power not to be intimidated by any virus or bacteria
Left or right, it is and remains purely theoretical. No one in the world can ever prove that vaccines work. Or don't work. They work from -100% to +100%. Or not. It just can't be proven. Only to assume, and therefore to believe it works. Or does not work. And if vaccines would seem to work, there may still be side effects that will come to light later, and throw things up again. Vaccines are just magical syringes that have been sold damn well to the people. Chapeau for the lobbyists of the stuff manufacturers. But vaccines are in any case a direct entrance in the human body, and that is actually wrong. I don't believe in it myself, and I don't need them.
It is always important to take into account that grok and other AIs are hopelessly bad at mathematics. What to think of the household (healthy) vaccine effect? Comic by the way. I'm curious how grok has estimated that. Incidentally, Grok is gradually being brought up somewhat better regarding the coronavaccins and it also starts to see the negative effectiveness.
What surprises me is that grok mentions percentages that I have published myself. As if that is the familiar truth. For example, RIVM lowered the prognosis by 1.3%. That is now also the percentage that Grok now mentions. Or 22% data pollution. Something else comes out in a slightly different way. And yet ... ..