Sign into an existing account

Something does seem off. It seems the author is adding more data than necessary and making too many calculations to get to the desired result. And it seem like some of the data just appears out of nowhere with no clear link to where it is gathered from.
I'm going to have to read the article again and redo my math, because what i got now (which might be wrong) is that 0.11% of the partially and fully vaxed died, vs. .18% of the unvaxed.

There is a link to that in the areticle.

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

I cant find the data the article refers to though. According to the charts on there, if you total up the partially to fully vaxxed and extra boosted, the unvaxxed appear to be more likely to die. Nothing in the source refers to AIDS. The devil is often in the details and I dont care to read the full report. All that data is provided by people that have been caught lying without repercussions in the past. But still their source material can be valuable if someone can point to something specifically shocking in their own data.

As it sits if you made the claim the title is making, then sent the source material to someone your trying to convince of something, youll look stupid pretty quickly, unless I missed something in the link.

Yes. They show you the data broken down by week. Every week tabulate the new cases, deaths, and hospitalizations that occurred vs the next week in each category (vax unvax 3vax 1vax). So week 1 to week 2 you see unvaxxed has 200 new cases, vaxxed had 230 (not real numbers just an example). They take a few weeks like this and chart the data.

Yes. They show you the data broken down by week. Every week tabulate the new cases, deaths, and hospitalizations that occurred vs the next week in each category (vax unvax 3vax 1vax). So week 1 to week 2 you see unvaxxed has 200 new cases, vaxxed had 230 (not real numbers just an example). They take a few weeks like this and chart the data.

Not really. The problem with the study linked in the article is that it is from the beginning of the vaccine campaign, so it unfairly skews the data compared to cases from recent dates. If two reports were compared the older data could be screened out.

Ask goatfuker in this thread