2/ For Austria and NL where 90% of the at risk group is vaccinated we expect 30%-50% of the ICU patients to be vaccinated if assuming a VE-ICU of ~90%.
3/ Let's show the results of the formula in 2D as function of
x) vaccination level
y) VE agains ICU
The resulting rate (calculation on right) of vaccinated in ICU is shown in the cell.
It can be used as look-up table to estimate (roughly) the VE.
4/ Example The Netherlands: With around 90% vaccinated we expect something between 15%-50% vaccinated in ICU depending on the VE-ICU.
RIVM reported around 15% (right). In order for this to work with 90% vaccinated, VE-ICU needs to be above 95%.
10/ Assuming March as the date where most elderly were fully vaccinated in NL, I compared the derived NL VE versus (time) with the Swedish study on waning efficiency.
1/ Let's revisit this result from AIRS satellite measurements over 17 years, showing a +0.36W increase in forcing alongside a 40 ppm rise in CO2 concentration.
Does this align with the "observed" (questionable) increase in global temperature anomaly (+0.6C)?
2/The IPCC reports a calculated CO2 forcing of +0.5W, as detailed on the NOAA AGGI page, which you can find here:
The SW calculation overestimates by 40% compared to the +0.36W derived by the AIRS satellite, marking the first significant discrepancy. gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
3/ Now we return to Happer's paper, showing that doubling CO2 from 400 --> 800 ppm results in +3W of forcing.
This is consistent with +3.5W reported by the NOAA AGGI (+3.5W).
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.