Negative effectiveness is a huge topic within a topic when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines. If the effectiveness of the jabs turns out to be less than 0%, negative, there is no possibility that the benefits outweigh the risks, because there wouldn’t be any benefits - what is supposed to be a benefit is itself a risk. The jabs would obviously be harmful. Case closed. We keep seeing evidence of this phenomenon over time, with more evidence indicating
・Unknown vaccination status (pg. 10 states "Vaccination data: Electronic medical records (EMR), state and city registries, and self-report" and there is no mention of how they handled vaccinated cases that didn't self-report or if they even bothered to look.)
・Bivalent booster, 0-6 days earlier (←Gosh I hope they didn't lump these in with the unvaccinated. They'd never do something like that would they?)
・Bivalent booster, 180+ days earlier (←With the trend showing negative efficacy over time, you'd expect this group to have even worse numbers. Now, they wouldn't cut this data out to make things look not quite so bad for their industry friends, would they? Note: bivalent authorized 8/31/2022)
Page 7 bizarrely reduces the bivalent data even further to:
・Bivalent booster, 7-89 days earlier
・Bivalent booster, ≥90 days earlier (←They use the "≥" symbol here, but actually capped it at 115 days.)
Thank you, made 2 small edits as a result. Case counting window bias looks a go, and great point that this doesn't show data from 180+ days. We all can see which way it is trending...
There are some more problems with the CDC data from what I can tell. Most of the slides refer to the following 5 cohorts:
・Unvaccinated
・Monovalent doses only
・Bivalent booster, 7-59 days earlier 1,627 144 (9) 33 (19-46) 27 (9-41)
・Bivalent booster, 60-119 days earlier 1,862 144 (8) 88 (74-104) 39 (24-51)
・Bivalent booster, 120-179 days earlier
That leaves 3 cohorts conspicuously missing:
・Unknown vaccination status (pg. 10 states "Vaccination data: Electronic medical records (EMR), state and city registries, and self-report" and there is no mention of how they handled vaccinated cases that didn't self-report or if they even bothered to look.)
・Bivalent booster, 0-6 days earlier (←Gosh I hope they didn't lump these in with the unvaccinated. They'd never do something like that would they?)
・Bivalent booster, 180+ days earlier (←With the trend showing negative efficacy over time, you'd expect this group to have even worse numbers. Now, they wouldn't cut this data out to make things look not quite so bad for their industry friends, would they? Note: bivalent authorized 8/31/2022)
Page 7 bizarrely reduces the bivalent data even further to:
・Bivalent booster, 7-89 days earlier
・Bivalent booster, ≥90 days earlier (←They use the "≥" symbol here, but actually capped it at 115 days.)
Very confidence inspiring.
Thank you, made 2 small edits as a result. Case counting window bias looks a go, and great point that this doesn't show data from 180+ days. We all can see which way it is trending...
Can I email you some data to get your opinion on something?