1) The CDC report is very well done and properly normalized. No further calculations are needed. All is done and ready.
2) The German report is poor. No normalization by doses, nor by sex. In General the report is of a very low quality.
4/ So for the German PEI report, some calculations and estimations were needed. The administered dose per age group are also not published and need to be estimated.
Approach: use German 2019 population pyramid and multiply by vaccination rate (estimated). Here the result.
5/ Remarks. Germany hasn't given a general recommendation for vaccinating children below 18.
Thanks to the #STIKO, they didn’t follow the unethical example of CDC.
That’s why the German curve begins at 18 only. The data below 18 is fortunately not available.
6/ The general quality of the German PEI reports are of low quality (lacking dose/age normalization etc.).
The comparison with the high quality report by CDC shows this very clearly. But judge for yourself.
9/ Bonus round: why vaccinating children is unethical:
Using the same type of normalization as decribed above, I estimated the age dependant vaccine CFR from the German PEI report and compared it with the C19 IFR for healthy. IFR source below here:
10/ All safety features have fallen. This here is unprecedented. Politics make medical decisions now and ignore #STIKO. The kids must be vaccinated at all costs it looks like. And rumors say that STIKO will change it’s recommendation. Based on new data? No.
Clearly CDC US and PEI DE have an underreporting issue while Canada and Israel show similar (higher) numbers.
What about @Lareb_NL ? Nothing to report? Silence?
14/ The potential root cause for the age curve has been discussed by @bringsmileback here: a combination of testosteron and stronger Th1 inflammatory response in young boys compared to older men:
Imagine claiming the trial was correct, deploying it to 95% in NZ/AUT, and then—boom!—the incidence explodes instead of the virus being eliminated which should already happen at ~70% rate, and was calculated mathematically to happen based on that very promise. False. Study ➡️🚮
Moreover, mortality rises instead of falling. Who are these people still lying about its mortality effectiveness? It’s a failure, and rightfully, Pfizer's stock is plummeting. Keep grieving; won’t help. We want the money back. Those who wanted it can still buy it with own money.
They think that they will get out of this? Desperation. Or did he just admit that everybody (including the CEO Fauci CDC…) were involved in deceptive advertising claims? I doubt that it is going to have a better outcome. Keep digging the hole 👍
1/ Important. ERA5 is a weather model, not a measurement. This summer field tests revealed: rural areas suffer heat bias due to urban heat pollution, making models/interpolations heat biased.
Here a demo that ERA5 is wrong on the tested location.
2/ This implies that all temperature aggregations in climate aggregations incorporate the heat bias prevalent in rural areas. This outcome is hardly surprising given that the majority of weather stations are situated in urban or airport environments.
2/Context: When aiming to determine the Age-Standardized Mortality Rate (ASMR) rather than Life Expectancy (LE), we employ a straightforward relationship:
ASMR = 90 - LE
(valid for ESP2013 population)
However, for those who find it more relevant, we can maintain the LE-CO2
3/ It's important to mention that money is an abstraction of promised future work (energy future). This is why the US dollar is linked to oil; US have grasped this concept.
Rather than $ inflation adjustments, you can express your wealth / income as tons CO2 (or MWh) instead.
1/ Thanks to the Simpson’s paradox (alle age vaxx rates + all age excess) + spurious correlation (ecological fallacy), the Professor is resurfacing the manipulative fallacy from 2021.
Let’s demonstrate on pre-vaxx year 2020.
@MartinKulldorff
2/ Just to highlight further: the vaccination rate in the age group 65+ where 99% of mortality comes from, is equivalent in almost all European countries and higher than 90%.
3/ He’s furthermore using the ecological fallacy, which we can use to make a time machine (called spurious correlation) and have the vaccine given 2021 working in 2019 or earlier.