Karl Denninger runs the numbers and reaches a firm conclusion about the statistical results. Keep in mind that this does not take any adverse effects into account, it’s merely about the relationship between the vaccines and Covid itself:
If you were infected and recovered your risk of a severe outcome, if you got infected, was 0.18% under 39, 1.1% if 40-59 and 7.8% if you were over 60. This doesn’t sound very good for the old people, does it?
Ah, but if you were vaccinated and boosted (best case, right?) what were the odds if you got infected?
0.1% if under 39 (too few events for good statistical power; there was only one), 0.6% if 40-59 (looks pretty good) but 6.2% if over 60. In other words even if boosted the infection rate that went sour on you if you’re old means the jabs are basically worthless compared against prior infection.
And if just vaccinated but not boosted? Comparatively you’re ****ed, right? Or are you?
Uh, for 16-39 your risk there was 0.05% (!!!), for 40-59 it was 0.6% (!!) and for 60+ it was 8.1%.
In other words among infections that matter being boosted had negative or no efficiency when it comes to severe outcomes for everyone under 60!
What if you got jabbed after being infected? This is data I’ve been looking for, and while the data points are thin and thus I’m not happy with the lack of statistical power, well, read it for yourself. Under 40 the risk of severe reinfection was 0.2%, from 40-59 it was 2.4% and for 60+ it was a stunning 10%.
IN OTHER WORDS BEING JABBED AFTER RECOVERING INCREASES YOUR RISK OF A SEVERE OUTCOME.
For the other way around, where you got jabbed and then got infected, there were too few events except in one cohort, 60+, to draw good conclusions as there were lots of zeros — but small infection counts. However, the news there isn’t good either in that in the 60+ cohort the severe risk if you got infected was 12.5% (!!!)
Ok, ok you say, but being vaccinated drops the infection risk. Indeed. But it drops it less, except in the 0-2 months since jabbed, than being recovered does. Indeed the loss of immunity from vaccination is nearly linear while for those infected the loss appears to taper significantly after the first six months and residual protection may be of very long duration or even permanent.
Indeed, someone who has been infected (but not jabbed) has a lower person-day risk of reinfection by more than half at one year post-event than someone who has been vaccinated has at four to six months.
The bad news does not end here. While being jabbed after recovery is claimed to produce “superior” results (“hybrid immunity”) the data says that’s flat-out bull****. At 4-6 and 6-8 months the error bands for vaccination after recovery and pure recovery without it cross; there is no statistical evidence that being jabbed after recovery helps and evidence it HARMS BY AS MUCH AS A DOUBLE in terms of the risk of severe outcome.
The other way around is even worse; the evidence is that if you get infected after being jabbed you do not get the same protection as natural infection in that your immunity wanes faster; at 6-8 months you have a LOWER risk of infection if you were not vaccinated before the infection as opposed to being vaccinated and then infected.
In other words this data provides direct evidence of VEI.
It’s official. A study with a sample size much larger than any of the pre-approval studies has clearly demonstrated that the Covid vaccines are officially worse than useless. True, it’s not a proper double-blind study, but then, neither were the pre-approval studies that were tainted by the vaccination of the control group.