Lol, the bit about unvaccinated possibly having to avoid public transit is particularly ironic. It's like they tell unvaccinated people, "You're scum. Go roll around in the mud with the pigs." Then they do a study that finds unvaccinated people are filthy. They cause us harm, and then blame us for the harm they have caused us as well as themselves. This has really escalated to the level of actual hatred IMO.
It is so bad and silly, one wonders if it is actually an exercise in trolling the "science" journals, like Peter Boghossian et al did back in the day for the social sciences? Either way, it reveals the terminal decline in "scientific" and medical journals.
Thanks for the neat summary. From memory the paper made passing mention of insurance premiums needing to be higher for unvaccinated people. That seemed to me to be a likely outcome if enough of these bogus studies can make it to print to justify the discrimination.
What this ridiculously unscientific study actually does is begin to set the stage for a Minority Report type discrimination against a section of society which is perceived to be non-compliant, therefore reckless (i.e. mentally abnormal, suffering from a 'superman complex'), therefore guilty of 'crimes' of recklessness before they even happen, who thus should be punished for those social crimes via increased insurance premiums. It's insidious. Next they will be claiming that petrol-head climate deniers are far more likely to be involved in car crashes because of their reckless disregard for the lives of future generations and the health of the planet and so they too should pay higher road tax and increased insurance premiums. The end result of all this is that free and independent thinkers, who are in fact the very lifeblood of a healthy society, are permanently labelled as a risk to society.
Brutal take-down! Turning the analysis of numbers into an art form! Bravo!
It would help me if you would use brighter and sharper colours to illustrate some of the black type on huge expanses of white background! (I use a magnifying glass")
The only thing worse than these University of Toronto Covid studies (this one and Fisman study) are psychology "misinformation and conspiracy studies"!!!!
Great video, thank you! I would ask if, please, you could remove the background musack. As a musician I find it impossible to focus on what you are saying as by brain tries to work out the rate at which the music is looping. Thank you for all you do.
"Feeling overwhelmed by the news? You’re not alone. There’s a lot of information out there, and it’s hard to break it all down and digest it properly. That’s why I, Bill Gates, invented Liquifact — an easy-to-absorb formula that ensures you’re getting all the right facts."
I fully agree the study does not make sense and that a wrong estimate of full population vaccination rates could explain most of the differences. But then all risks should have a similar major increase. So that does not explain the difference in risk ratios between drivers and pedestrians? And why do we not see increased risk in the other control factors in table 3. For example no increased risk of falling, constipation and appendicitis?
Regarding the Forest Plot Clare show's - if this systematic bias is caused by underestimation of the number of unvaccinated, can we work backwords to remove this bias so the line then lies along the equal risk axis, and work out how much the underestimate of unvaccinated actually is?
Lol, the bit about unvaccinated possibly having to avoid public transit is particularly ironic. It's like they tell unvaccinated people, "You're scum. Go roll around in the mud with the pigs." Then they do a study that finds unvaccinated people are filthy. They cause us harm, and then blame us for the harm they have caused us as well as themselves. This has really escalated to the level of actual hatred IMO.
The year is 2022 and hatred is not okay.
It is so bad and silly, one wonders if it is actually an exercise in trolling the "science" journals, like Peter Boghossian et al did back in the day for the social sciences? Either way, it reveals the terminal decline in "scientific" and medical journals.
Thanks for the neat summary. From memory the paper made passing mention of insurance premiums needing to be higher for unvaccinated people. That seemed to me to be a likely outcome if enough of these bogus studies can make it to print to justify the discrimination.
What this ridiculously unscientific study actually does is begin to set the stage for a Minority Report type discrimination against a section of society which is perceived to be non-compliant, therefore reckless (i.e. mentally abnormal, suffering from a 'superman complex'), therefore guilty of 'crimes' of recklessness before they even happen, who thus should be punished for those social crimes via increased insurance premiums. It's insidious. Next they will be claiming that petrol-head climate deniers are far more likely to be involved in car crashes because of their reckless disregard for the lives of future generations and the health of the planet and so they too should pay higher road tax and increased insurance premiums. The end result of all this is that free and independent thinkers, who are in fact the very lifeblood of a healthy society, are permanently labelled as a risk to society.
Brutal take-down! Turning the analysis of numbers into an art form! Bravo!
It would help me if you would use brighter and sharper colours to illustrate some of the black type on huge expanses of white background! (I use a magnifying glass")
Onwards!
Magnificent video. Love the presentation, the stats, and the inclusion of others' data, people whom we recognize as real trusted sources..
Thank you. 🙏❤
Ps. The music and your voice are relaxing and add to the beauty of the video
Thank you!!!
The only thing worse than these University of Toronto Covid studies (this one and Fisman study) are psychology "misinformation and conspiracy studies"!!!!
Great video, thank you! I would ask if, please, you could remove the background musack. As a musician I find it impossible to focus on what you are saying as by brain tries to work out the rate at which the music is looping. Thank you for all you do.
Of all the silly arse things you could be studying right now, did they also do a dip check for misogyny and racism whilst they were at it?
"Feeling overwhelmed by the news? You’re not alone. There’s a lot of information out there, and it’s hard to break it all down and digest it properly. That’s why I, Bill Gates, invented Liquifact — an easy-to-absorb formula that ensures you’re getting all the right facts."
https://newworldhumor.substack.com/p/liquifact-daily-facts-in-a-bottle
Watch Carl Vernon's recent video on this very study....
I fully agree the study does not make sense and that a wrong estimate of full population vaccination rates could explain most of the differences. But then all risks should have a similar major increase. So that does not explain the difference in risk ratios between drivers and pedestrians? And why do we not see increased risk in the other control factors in table 3. For example no increased risk of falling, constipation and appendicitis?
Regarding the Forest Plot Clare show's - if this systematic bias is caused by underestimation of the number of unvaccinated, can we work backwords to remove this bias so the line then lies along the equal risk axis, and work out how much the underestimate of unvaccinated actually is?