Taking on the headline alone: the virus is what propels a surge. The virus has no idea whether the people it infects have been vaccinated. It also reads as if the headline writer's ignorant about how the vaccines don't have much impact on infection or transmission volumes.
It boggles the mind. Theoretically, lack of trust is a problem. Surely the best way to rebuild that trust is to STOP LYING TO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. My goodness.
This is from my extremely left wing local tv station. https://wr.al/1LsYk “Unvaccinated people in NC are 25 times more likely to die of COVID-19…
Unvaccinated North Carolinians were also five times — or more than 500% — more likely to get coronavirus when compared to those who are vaccinated last week.”
My question is how are they defining vaccinated? Or it is it all lying with statistics?
The "500%" is almost certainly the same kind of testing-driven lie as I describe above. "Likely to die" it's harder to know, death statistics have been ambiguous almost from the beginning via the "with?" or "because of?" confusion. You'd have to examine the data in detail, and of course local TV station is never going to do that, especially if it might make the vaccines look less relatively effectively. I would very much doubt that "25x" number though, very much doubt it.
Taking on the headline alone: the virus is what propels a surge. The virus has no idea whether the people it infects have been vaccinated. It also reads as if the headline writer's ignorant about how the vaccines don't have much impact on infection or transmission volumes.
It boggles the mind. Theoretically, lack of trust is a problem. Surely the best way to rebuild that trust is to STOP LYING TO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. My goodness.
This is from my extremely left wing local tv station. https://wr.al/1LsYk “Unvaccinated people in NC are 25 times more likely to die of COVID-19…
Unvaccinated North Carolinians were also five times — or more than 500% — more likely to get coronavirus when compared to those who are vaccinated last week.”
My question is how are they defining vaccinated? Or it is it all lying with statistics?
The "500%" is almost certainly the same kind of testing-driven lie as I describe above. "Likely to die" it's harder to know, death statistics have been ambiguous almost from the beginning via the "with?" or "because of?" confusion. You'd have to examine the data in detail, and of course local TV station is never going to do that, especially if it might make the vaccines look less relatively effectively. I would very much doubt that "25x" number though, very much doubt it.