5/26/2023 0 Comments Criticism of unherd![]() ![]() But if there is little to haggle about in terms of content, the arrows are often aimed at the messenger or at the presentation. You can discuss or even demonstrate a wrong trend line. Not everyone has to agree with that interpretation all the time. But it has to be said: we've seen quite a few manipulated graphs in recent years, so vigilance is required.Ĭharts are no more than presentation- and means of communication to facilitate interpretation and discussion of figures. After all, not everyone sees patterns or trends easily. Contrary to what Keulemans claims, there is nothing against correctly calculated trend lines. We have neatly shown the RIVM-CBS graph, met Margins and without added trend lines. For substantiation: Virusvaria article from two weeks ago. The mysterious excess mortality has cost more lives to 65-year-olds last year alone than the entire corona epidemic in this age group has taken away., including the first and second wave. The conclusion based on CBS and RIVM figures is: It was even about 65-year-olds, an even younger group than 80-year-olds. I've heard that misconception before and I've recently delved into it. Maarten is under the impression that excess mortality is only at 80+. See more extensively the previous article https:/cbs-en-rivm-zien-ook-negatieve-vaccin-effectiviteit-in-zelfrapportage/ 2. This should be sufficient for this point. Risk of death after 2nd dose of basic series Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 mortality A quarter of the double vaccinated are NOT boosted: that is about ca. The graphs give the impression that every double-vaccinated person is boosted one group automatically merges into another group. The green booster balls are no reason to remove the blue ones. That value could therefore in reality be lower than shown.Īt 70-89 years, it is not shown how the double-vaccinated who have not been vaccinated are doing, hence my question mark. “ Onzekerheidslijntjes weglaten” it's called I think. It may not be so noticeable but in the circles the margin of uncertainty is down (a dash) dropped. Negative VE is clearly visible in the graphs in one of the PDF attachments to this excess mortality report. It is even mentioned repeatedly and that is always accompanied by comments that reflect the prevailing bias: there is probably another cause, it's unlikely to really come through the vaccinations. Negative Effectiveness against death in double-vaccinated persons is mentioned in the CBS-RIVM Excess mortality report. Maarten probably means to say that there is no Negative Vaccine Effectiveness with the COVID vaccines. Zo’ n nonsensical statement we have to interpret differently because we attribute a certain reasonableness to the writer. Omit uncertainty margins, add trend lines. Show only the group 12-49 (while excess mortality is at 80+) ![]() Dat er zoiets is als ' negatieve vaccineffectiviteit' (not) I predict that Schetters will be at here's what's going to say: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |