1/
In Florida 99.9% of 65+ are vaxed w/1 dose

Yet, 65+ makes up 63% of deaths (6536) from 7/22-9/9/21.

FL has ~4.4 M 65+. 0.1% unvaxed ~ 4400

If this were a pandemic of the unvaxed, that would mean 150% of them are now dead. Pre-7/22, ~30K FL Cv19 65+ deaths (of 4.4M) or 0.6% Image
2/
It's important to remember the CDC counts anyone as un-vaxed if they are <14days post second vax.

Definitions matter, and the CDC is using this one to paint a false picture of what's happening.

h/t @MisterCommodity @AllenCo66273228
mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-co…
3/
This applies to hospitalizations, too. And one must also remember than in May, the CDC told hospitals to stop testing fully-vaxed people, unless there explicitly FOR COVID.
4/
This is even more true for cases. In Mass ~40% of cases are now in fully-vaxed.

But remember:

1) This DOESn'T include ANYONE <14 days post 2nd dose
2) Routine testing exempts fully-vaxed
3) Fully-vaxed ⬇️likely to be symptomatic so ⬇️ likely to test

masslive.com/coronavirus/20… Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Emily Burns😊 #SmilesMatter DM’s OK

Emily Burns😊 #SmilesMatter DM’s OK Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Emily_Burns_V

1 Sep
1/
The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”

Technically true...

But even this finding is questionable. Let's explore.

poverty-action.org/sites/default/… Image
2/2/
What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting. Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken. Image
3/ Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe? Image
Read 16 tweets
8 Jul
1/
Trying to mask the abject failure of blue state COVID responses, a new success metric has been rolled out: Vax levels. But whole pop. vax levels, mask much lower variance in at-risk groups. What's more, deaths in 65+ from Jan-Jun are NOT linked to vax levels.
2/
Some will say that the vaccination level of the population is important b/c those other vaccinations are shielding the at-risk further. But excess deaths since January are NOT tied to higher levels of whole population vaccination.
4/
The push to vax well beyond the at-risk represents another installment of “following the science” where sadly, fealty to “the science” does not produce any measurable result. This new metric—whole pop. Vax—is designed to wash away all the other failures
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Read 12 tweets
30 Jun
1/
The proof (long-suspected) that the mRNA (like AZ DNA) vaxes do not offer sterilizing immunity is now being used to push wider vaccination among kids to acquire “herd immunity.” This makes no sense—it should be the opposite.
wsj.com/articles/vacci…
2/
AZ is the only manufacturer that did weekly testing of trial participants to evaluate the efficacy of vaccines in stopping infection—not just disease. These results showed that the AZ standard dose had no impact on reducing asymptomatic infection.

thelancet.com/action/showPdf…
3/
Neither Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s trials did this. Pfizer’s recorded 170 infections (162 control v. 8 vax) However, data in the FDA’s review showed an additional 3410 suspected cases—1816 control/1594 vax. This would reduce efficacy from 95% to 19%.
blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04…
Read 24 tweets
16 Jun
1/
FL parents send 6 masks to a lab...
- 100% of masks contaminated.
- 50% w/pathogens, including multiple strains of pneumonia- and meningitis-causing bacteria.
- 1/3 with antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
- 2 masks w/more than 70 strains of bacteria.

rationalground.com/dangerous-path…
2/
"Masks work" has become such a powerful mantra for public health, it has stifled not only research showing it doesn't, but also the ability to even question if it might cause harm.
3/
This is a testament to the power of children's immune systems. Every one of these pathogens is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children than SARS-CoV2. Yet they have been exposed over, and over, and over again.

(note, no SARS-CoV2 was found on the mask, because... )
Read 9 tweets
15 Jun
1/
More than a year into the pandemic, we can start to evaluate the overall efficacy of our COVID responses. The U.S. provides a unique opportunity to evaluate different policy responses.

TL DR: Heavy-handed approaches don't look good.

Source data: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
2/
The graphic below ranks states by their overall COVID policy score: This score takes into account COVID deaths/million, access to education, and increased unemployment ABOVE Feb 2020. All numbers are over the course of the entire year.

Source data: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
3/
In order not to overly penalize or reward “outliers,” the score is based on rank relative to other states. Raw data is linked below, to create your own scorecard.

No matter how you slice it, doesn't look good for heavy-handed approaches

Source:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Read 14 tweets
11 Jun
1/
In today’s installment of “how to lie with science” a nature article purporting to show that even w/gaps, surgical masks 70%+ effective.

Let’s take it apart.

First, look at the experimental set-up & how the air would actually flow (cigarette smoke)

nature.com/articles/s4159…
2/
Comparing the jets of cigarette smoke, in truth, the exhalation would be rocketing past the apparatus. This is reflected in the incredibly low particle numbers—10/sec @ max. The actual # is 1000 - 10K particles/sec--which excludes <0.5 micron.
pnas.org/content/117/22…
3/
The study notes that it does not include particles under 0.5 microns—the vast majority of aerosols, as seen below. Though it is clear from the measured particles/second, that the apparatus is missing 99.9% to 99.99% of the particles emitted.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(