4 ms·

Have you not updated your priors given the difference in infection rate and severity between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations? It seems odd to be so fixa

• breck 3y ago
  > difference in infection rate and severity between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations? I have never seen a trustworthy dataset that showed this. I was the Senior Software Engineer at Our World in Data who built the Covid Data Explorer so it was literally my job for a year to work with Covid data. A big reason I was so upset that they killed the control group was because this was finally going to be the trustworthy dataset where we could see the true danger of Covid, which was grossly exaggerated (10x or more), by government and the media. I was really focused on that study, and it was showing very little mortality from Covid. And then they killed the control group. Looking back it was a smoking gun that this was a "Scamdemic". Sure, a bad virus, and 2x-4x worse than the typical flu. But not even close to the Doomsday scenario it was made out to be. The real pandemic was fear. > for ethical reasons I 100% dispute this. I do not see how you can make the case that it is ethical to abandon the scientific process and risk the health and safety of hundreds of millions, and destroy any slam dunk evidence that could put blame on the vaccine makers. It was extremely unethical to cancel that control group. They said they did it to "save lives", and yet, at the time they did it, all the data showed zero lives saved from the vaccine. "It hasn't saved any lives yet, but trust us it will, we have a hunch". That is not scientific. That is not ethical.