>>14095114>Random distribution of what? Of deaths over the entire period of VAERS reporting?
Yes>You're not making any sense
Looks like I did since you repeated back what I was saying >Dying within two days of some event which differs for each person is not comparable to how many die over a certain timeframe.
It's not about total number over the whole time.
Each person has a chance of dying within the timeframe and they all SHOULD amount to 8k deaths(from historic data) randomly distributed among the population per day and a certain fraction of those deaths will have had the shot 48 hours before. If the shot does not cause deaths, the number will be on thing, if the shot does cause deaths, the number will be something else and also higher.
It's possible to identify how many shots we expect to coincidentally happen within 48 hours leading to natural death. It's just averages and random death. There is nothing controversial about that and you should be able to figure it out if you are not a math brainlet.
However, if it's higher than what we expect, then we conclude the shot is causing excess deaths. >But they didn't, moron. That's the point.
Of course they didn't It's a hypothetical example to illustrate the methodology behind the point. >So is 32K < 6K? Gee that's tough.
6k doesn't apply in the hypothetical. In the hypothetical all shots are condensed to 2 days.
If it was 33K deaths within 48 hours in the hypothetical scenario then it's 1000 more deaths than expected from random distribution of natural deaths. We expect 32k deaths to happen within 48 hours. Do you get it now?>Wow, integrals! That explains everything.
Fair enough. You didn't understand the first part so integrals won't make sense yet, not I expect you to understand integral either. >I await your proof. This should be good.
You're too stupid to understand the methodology. I'll get to the proof if you can demonstrate you are not a mouth breather by showing understanding.