After tomorrow's federal election, many mandates will likely return, even though only 1 in 5 admissions is due to Covid, and of those who are admitted, virtually all who test positive are injected
"The state financially rewarding media which publishes information the state deemes correct and true, in proportion to how correct and true the state judges the published material? What could possibly go wrong?"
the original of the text "kein (ausreichender) Impfschutz." translated as "not sufficiently vaccinated."
now what would be wrong with the translation?
the words themselves are adequately translated.
but what happened to the ( and )?
lost in translation?
or omitted on purpose?
and do the ( and ) matter?
well yes, they do so very much.
for if you leave them out the conclusion : "admission for ‘symptomatic Covid-19’: 19 + 57 + 1 + 19 = 97% of admissions are among injected individuals", is correct.
but if you keep them in, the conclusion is incorrect and the 97% immediately drops to 78%.
the 19% is made up of those that have had one injection, together with those that have had no injection at all.
for that is what "not ( sufficiently) vaccinated ", the correct translation, means.
so the conclusion should have been that AT LEAST 78% and UP TO 99% etc.
but then again 99% sounds a lot more convincing than 78% does, now isn't it?
can i look forward to a correction?
besides that: the most interesting part of the graph has gone unnoticed.
let's see if anyone notices?
a hint: compare the first row and second row, especially the red and the blue percentages and tell me how effective the fourth injection is.....
As a brief reply: I acknowledge the issue you take with respect to the parentheses.
However, given the above data (whatever it is worth), I think any discussion of what remains of 'vaccine efficacy' is, kinda, irrelevant--may I remind you about the '95% effectiveness' of yesteryear that turned into 'a booster jab will restore protection' of last autumn, which is now…'tell me how effective the fourth injection is'?
So, in short: I don't think that my statement is incorrect or factually wrong.
I would even add that I highlighted the most important conclusion: irrespective of whether we're talking 'breakthrough' infections or (insufficient) 'vaccine protection', or 'Impfschutz', the data indicates that virtually all of those who are hospitalised because 'of' or 'with' Covid-19 have had at least one injection, which would also include the 14-day 'grace' (gaslighting) period after the first injection.
So, how many people who are admitted to an Austrian hospital are actually 'unvaccinated'? Official data, whatever it is worth, indicates somewhere between 1-3%, which is way less than the 'unvaccinated' share of the population.
That said, I'm of course happy to discuss 'vaccine effectiveness' at any time.
this is about wrongly translating an official statement to be able to reach a wanted conclusion.
this is about falsification of evidence.
this is what we claim the other side is guilty of....
this is handing the opposing party the means to simply discredit the claim you made, even more to discredit all of your claims entirely, in short discredit you.
I enjoy your insights into the Austrian political scene. It always amazes me how scummy politicians can be (all over the world) but these scumbag chickenhawks really take the cake
Austria seems to be an outlier in COVID matters. It has been throughout the mess, but as far as I can tell, it is even more of an outlier now. Most other European countries have just about forgotten about COVID.
However, it should be kept in mind that we're likely to see substantial excess mortality this winter, due to low indoor temperatures. Oh, sure, most people will be uncomfortable-but-fine if they're forced to live in rooms heated to 18-19C. But guess what, "most people" are uncomfortable-but-fine when infected with da virus. We will, however, see more sickness, especially among the young (infants/toddlers), old, and otherwise infirm. More sickness leads to more death. (If you have spare cash lying around and are looking for something to invest in, why, may I suggest funeral homes. Business should be good at least for a few more years.) It'll be "interesting" to see how they explain it. When they blame Putin or will they blame the uninjected? (I assume that blaming themselves is out of the question.)
Look at Britain. The Naked Emperor had an articl about how british authorities seems to be trying to blame excess mortality on hot summer weather, except for 2021.
Since the heat and the excess deaths doesn't match.
So my money is on it being blamed on climate change.
There's also other things to blame: Putin (of course), now, with autumn arriving in force, there is also 'being out irresponsibly' (to do, say, some protesting against inflation, high energy prices, and the like), which also means you're 'spreading da virus' (it's an almost perfect setup).
BTW, I just googled "what percentage of children catch pneumonia," and here's what I found:
"Pneumonia is more common in babies younger than one year and in toddlers than in school children or teenagers. 35 out of 10,000 children aged below the age of six years develop pneumonia each year, and only 15 out of 10,000 older children do."
Presumably, this is for rich countries. Interesting. I'd say pneumonia was a heck of a lot more common than that among my classmates (this was in Serbia). One kid per class (= 30 kids) every couple of years. So, 1% (i.e. 100 per 10,000) or more per year seems like a good estimate. Now, might this be related to the fact that we had inadequate heating throughout the 1990s? And might we see something similar this winter (and next, and the one after that) across Europe?
Add to that notion the issue of 'preventative measures', such as keeping indoors during winter--it's a super-driver of Vit D deficiency, which will turbocharge other illnesses, too.
This kind of madness is either bought or ideological (or a little of both). Why is Austria such an outlier, even in European context? I will have to add Karl Kraus to my to read list. Thanks.
"The state financially rewarding media which publishes information the state deemes correct and true, in proportion to how correct and true the state judges the published material? What could possibly go wrong?"
It's like asking a dog if it's hungry.
Funny you mention this--I suspect we also ask 'what would be going right'?
how about exposing some gaslighting?
the original of the text "kein (ausreichender) Impfschutz." translated as "not sufficiently vaccinated."
now what would be wrong with the translation?
the words themselves are adequately translated.
but what happened to the ( and )?
lost in translation?
or omitted on purpose?
and do the ( and ) matter?
well yes, they do so very much.
for if you leave them out the conclusion : "admission for ‘symptomatic Covid-19’: 19 + 57 + 1 + 19 = 97% of admissions are among injected individuals", is correct.
but if you keep them in, the conclusion is incorrect and the 97% immediately drops to 78%.
the 19% is made up of those that have had one injection, together with those that have had no injection at all.
for that is what "not ( sufficiently) vaccinated ", the correct translation, means.
so the conclusion should have been that AT LEAST 78% and UP TO 99% etc.
but then again 99% sounds a lot more convincing than 78% does, now isn't it?
can i look forward to a correction?
besides that: the most interesting part of the graph has gone unnoticed.
let's see if anyone notices?
a hint: compare the first row and second row, especially the red and the blue percentages and tell me how effective the fourth injection is.....
As a brief reply: I acknowledge the issue you take with respect to the parentheses.
However, given the above data (whatever it is worth), I think any discussion of what remains of 'vaccine efficacy' is, kinda, irrelevant--may I remind you about the '95% effectiveness' of yesteryear that turned into 'a booster jab will restore protection' of last autumn, which is now…'tell me how effective the fourth injection is'?
So, in short: I don't think that my statement is incorrect or factually wrong.
I would even add that I highlighted the most important conclusion: irrespective of whether we're talking 'breakthrough' infections or (insufficient) 'vaccine protection', or 'Impfschutz', the data indicates that virtually all of those who are hospitalised because 'of' or 'with' Covid-19 have had at least one injection, which would also include the 14-day 'grace' (gaslighting) period after the first injection.
So, how many people who are admitted to an Austrian hospital are actually 'unvaccinated'? Official data, whatever it is worth, indicates somewhere between 1-3%, which is way less than the 'unvaccinated' share of the population.
That said, I'm of course happy to discuss 'vaccine effectiveness' at any time.
this is not about efficacy.
this is about wrongly translating an official statement to be able to reach a wanted conclusion.
this is about falsification of evidence.
this is what we claim the other side is guilty of....
this is handing the opposing party the means to simply discredit the claim you made, even more to discredit all of your claims entirely, in short discredit you.
all we write has to be Hieb und Stichfest!
Jan, I re-read your comment--what do you think about the above 'addition' (edit)?
it will do nicely...
I enjoy your insights into the Austrian political scene. It always amazes me how scummy politicians can be (all over the world) but these scumbag chickenhawks really take the cake
Austria seems to be an outlier in COVID matters. It has been throughout the mess, but as far as I can tell, it is even more of an outlier now. Most other European countries have just about forgotten about COVID.
However, it should be kept in mind that we're likely to see substantial excess mortality this winter, due to low indoor temperatures. Oh, sure, most people will be uncomfortable-but-fine if they're forced to live in rooms heated to 18-19C. But guess what, "most people" are uncomfortable-but-fine when infected with da virus. We will, however, see more sickness, especially among the young (infants/toddlers), old, and otherwise infirm. More sickness leads to more death. (If you have spare cash lying around and are looking for something to invest in, why, may I suggest funeral homes. Business should be good at least for a few more years.) It'll be "interesting" to see how they explain it. When they blame Putin or will they blame the uninjected? (I assume that blaming themselves is out of the question.)
Look at Britain. The Naked Emperor had an articl about how british authorities seems to be trying to blame excess mortality on hot summer weather, except for 2021.
Since the heat and the excess deaths doesn't match.
So my money is on it being blamed on climate change.
There's also other things to blame: Putin (of course), now, with autumn arriving in force, there is also 'being out irresponsibly' (to do, say, some protesting against inflation, high energy prices, and the like), which also means you're 'spreading da virus' (it's an almost perfect setup).
BTW, I just googled "what percentage of children catch pneumonia," and here's what I found:
"Pneumonia is more common in babies younger than one year and in toddlers than in school children or teenagers. 35 out of 10,000 children aged below the age of six years develop pneumonia each year, and only 15 out of 10,000 older children do."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525772/
Presumably, this is for rich countries. Interesting. I'd say pneumonia was a heck of a lot more common than that among my classmates (this was in Serbia). One kid per class (= 30 kids) every couple of years. So, 1% (i.e. 100 per 10,000) or more per year seems like a good estimate. Now, might this be related to the fact that we had inadequate heating throughout the 1990s? And might we see something similar this winter (and next, and the one after that) across Europe?
I wouldn't be surprised.
Add to that notion the issue of 'preventative measures', such as keeping indoors during winter--it's a super-driver of Vit D deficiency, which will turbocharge other illnesses, too.
This kind of madness is either bought or ideological (or a little of both). Why is Austria such an outlier, even in European context? I will have to add Karl Kraus to my to read list. Thanks.
It's a good question--without an obvious answer.
I'd opt for incompetence coupled with an inferiority complex (vs. the 'big brother', Germany).
It's pathetic.
OT: in an earlier post you indicated an interest in nordic alternative media sources so maybe this one is to your liking:
document.no
It's a norwegian online paper reporting on all things non-PC.