>>13578950>>13578823>Check the United States for what happens to a country where the majority aren’t vaccinated>Every one of those are sourced in the images. You can easily confirm them yourself.>Houston General>San Diego General>Lee health>UC DavisWhy would anyone be retarded enough to waste time verifying the source for 4 individual hospitals out of thousands that only published their own laughably small sample size data because it's a fluke that agrees with the narrative they want to push?
Do you have any clue what surivorship bias is?
I've seen plenty of low sample size 50/50 or even 60/40 splits of "vax" vs un"vax" but I don't bother to share them because it's dishonest shilling. Today I saw one for the whole state of wisconsin that was 33% "vax" 66 un"vaxed"in hospitals actually, that one might have been worth saving...a whole state is a pretty big sample size.
The reason we don't have survivorshipp bias fringe case examples of 95% "vax" to un"vax" is because people who don't get the jab are far more likely to go out to public events and get sick whereas "vax"ed are still scared to death and stay locked in their basements ordering uber eats like they have for the last 18 months. My relatives haven't had summer parties this year even though CDC says it's safe as an example that fits the general case.
There's always going to be more un-jabbed in hospitals on average for this very reason.
