You can always trust the data, right? The data never lies, right? It depends who is presenting you with the data, or so-called data. Because as those familiar with statistics know, you can use statistics to justify any position you want, pretty much.
So when it comes to government "data" and what they say that data says, you need to be suspicious. You need to be cautious. You need to doubt. Because they are probably not telling you the truth about what that data means if it favors an agenda they want to push.
That's why we have to be curious and go seek out information ourselves to verify their claims. Not simply believe the authority. I simply believe the government. Not simply believe one or more scientists. Not simply believe or trust in "the science".
As can be seen in this excellent article on substack, the CDC has been using statistical wizardry to make false claims about what the data is saying regarding protection the novel coronavirus with respect to those who are "fully vaccinated". It's really a great read and isn't that long so you should read it all. But here are some significant things to make note of.
On October 29th, 2021, the CDC released a study through which it was proclaimed that fully vaccinated persons enjoyed 5.49 times greater protection from Covid than persons who enjoyed natural immunity due to recovery from a previous Covid infection.
Obviously the whole purpose of this was to urge people to get vaccinated. Their conclusion was solely based on confirming the narrative of how safe and effective these injections are.
“all eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
The study looked at patients in hospitals who had "Covid like symptoms". They mentioned how many people they found who were vaccinated and how many people had natural immunity.
But here's the deception. The restricted the analysis to only include patients who were fully vaccinated or had a previous infection 90 to 180 days prior. But if you remove this time limit you get a different result.
When the 90-179 day time restriction is removed, the original pool of 7,348 patients is expanded to 20,482 patients. Of these 20,482 hospitalized patients, 18,397 were fully vaccinated while 2,085 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity. Also, of these 20,482 hospitalized patients, 672 of them tested positive for Covid. Of these 672 patients who tested positive for Covid, 542 were fully vaccinated while 130 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity.
According to this breakdown based on Delta variant predominance, of 7,348 hospitalized patients, 5,402 patients were hospitalized between June through September of 2021 (the time frame aligned with Delta variant predominance). Of the 5,402 patients hospitalized during “Delta variant predominance”, 5,213 were fully vaccinated while 189 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity. Of the total of 325 patients who tested positive for Covid during Delta variant predominance, 306 were fully vaccinated while only 19 were unvaccinated but enjoyed natural immunity.
In all of these different breakdowns it is evident that fully vaccinated patients were hospitalized and infected at higher rates than their unvaccinated counterparts who enjoyed natural immunity.
So how did they calculate fully vaccinated patients have 5.49 times greater protection than those who have natural immunity?
They don't show the calculations, but when you look at the data itself it's pretty clear that their conclusion wasn't motivated by facts in reality, i.e. truth. What you do find from looking at the data is natural immunity is more protective than vaccination.