I've just finished reading the entire study, and have the following comments:
1. Vaccination status used in the study came from the COVaxON database, which followed Ontario definitions. This means a person was considered unvaxxed for the first 14 days after a shot (any shot). As the study period was only for 1 month, even a month that was preceded by a record number of injections, it is safe to conclude that a significant portion of the "unvaxxed" were actually "vaxxed." That is, they were people that followed public health advice. If only 602 of the 6682 casualties involved such misallocations, the difference in incidences of vaxxed vs unvaxxed crashes vanishes.
2. Based on Table 3 in the study, less than half of the injured were drivers. By the logic of the authors, an unvaxxed passenger is more likely to cause an accident than a vaxxed passenger. This is ludicrous and positively demonstrates the data is unreliable (see point 1 above).
3. By section S7 of the Appendix, all deaths that occurred at the scene of the accident were excluded. The authors estimate at least 42 deaths were excluded. Since only 8 deaths were included, that means they excluded 84% of the most serious crash outcome. Also, since the study involved only 550 people that were actually admitted to a hospital, excluding 42 deaths was a major oversight.
4. By excluding all deaths that occurred at the scene of the accident, they conveniently excluded all accidents resulting from a vaccine induced sudden death.
5. The source data is not available, so none of their work can be verified.
6. They admit that a weakness of their study is that they did not account for miles driven. They go on to claim that "a 100% increase in driving distance, however, is unlikely to explain the magnitude of traffic risks observed in this study." But here they are incorrect, for a doubling of the distance driven should double the risk of a crash, all things being equal. And even their study did not find the unvaxxed twice as likely to be involved in an accident.
7. While they blatantly say that those that resisted the covid shot were misinformed, they do have the honesty to admit that "the study does not test the reliability of COVID vaccination as a proxy for COVID vaccine hesitancy." In other words, the authors didn't bother to verify that many people refused the covid-death-shot, not because they were misinformed but because they saw that the so called vaccine was unreliable. By admitting that they didn't test for this critical factor they overthrow the whole basis of their paper: vaccine hesitancy is associated with reckless driving habits.
8. They testify: "We verify that traffic crashes disproportionately involve those in poverty."
But since poverty does not make people more reckless behind the wheel, this statement proves there are other factors involved (such as: older cars of inferior quality, driving further to work, driving to work even when the weather is bad, driving during rush hour, etc.). Thus, the whole premise of their study is unhinged.
9. The study expressly says what I suspected in an earlier post, for they say: "COVID vaccine status might be considered for regions that prioritize road safety, such as those that mandate physicians to warn risky drivers and report to vehicle licensing agencies." And, "The observed risks might also justify changes to driver insurance policies in the future." Such a conclusion is utterly reprehensible, since they themselves admit they have not prove causality between so called vaccine hesitancy and car crashes, and more so because they know the extra insurance costs will fall on the poorest people.
Let's face it, we need to prepare for a wave of dumb, unscientific, hysterical studies in the upcoming months. This is getting ridiculous, these people are desperate 😵💫 😵💫 😵💫
Hilarious! This is the "Ice cream causes murder" conclusion that any nitwit can make by correlating the higher rate of murders during the summer to the increase in people eating ice cream, and other such nonsensical "studies" with confounding variables.
There you go again Igor, using logic and reason. It’s so much easier if you’d just stick with the narrative. It’s safe and effective, don’t cha’ know. Even lowers the accident rate. Perhaps because you can no longer drive due to a neurological impairment?
Thanks, Igor. We also need to consider who is counted as “vaccinated.” For example, is one considered “vaccinated” right after the Covid jab is given? NO. I’m not sure of the case here, but in the U.S., you were considered “unvaccinated” until something like 2 weeks AFTER vaccination. There is so much chicanery going on with these numbers, just as the case for “climate change.” The gaslighting is severe... easy rule: IT IS ALL B.S. The contortions “science” is going through to promote these vaccines is laughable.
I have an essential business and I drive…..well I have fun. .. Sorry I do, and my current view of “law and order” is greatly diminished. So if you see a Subaru going like hell with CDN flags and fringe sticker….. Give a HONK!
But seriously I’ve not had a car accident in 20 years.
they first linked all possible reasons to heart attacks. Gardening, jogging, even sitting on your sofa. Now they start linking the other way, just to get out of the dark. That won't work either !
My girlfriend and I never missed a beat and we are both in our 70's. Screw covid and the fake pandemic, the media, the medical terrorists and the fake vaccines. We survived using common sense, not watching a minute of the mainstream media and ignoring all the nonsense.
Vaxxidents are in the vaxxed by definition. I've noticed it quite common these days to have the study data contredict the title and conclusions of the study. I call it fake news.
I assume they do this to justify fake headlines, against reality.
I think this fits right in with Covid Anomolies...
This “new” virus can only travel 6'. It is incapable of traveling 6'1" or greater. (Except in some European countries where it can only travel 1.5 meters = 4.9212598 Feet ) It can live on all surfaces except from anything that comes in the mail from Amazon, Ebay, Alibaba or anywhere else you buy online. It does not live in Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes or any grocery store. It's completely harmless during protests, riots and looting. It becomes alive at certain hours according the state you’re in and goes to sleep during certain hours. It is only deadly in bars, restaurants, gyms, small businesses and hair salons. It will attack you in a restaurant while you are standing but not while you are sitting. It is also deadly at the beach. AND it cannot live on your food as long as you get it to go. Oh, and if you’re from Arkansas, it doesn’t affect voters while voting, someone assisting voters, poll watchers or actively performing election administration duties. And in some states it only attacks groups of people of 10 or more, while in others it limits it’s aggression against groups of 20, 25 or 50 or more according to which state you live in.
If you use reason, logic and common sense...what conclusion do you come too? Seriously??
I've just finished reading the entire study, and have the following comments:
1. Vaccination status used in the study came from the COVaxON database, which followed Ontario definitions. This means a person was considered unvaxxed for the first 14 days after a shot (any shot). As the study period was only for 1 month, even a month that was preceded by a record number of injections, it is safe to conclude that a significant portion of the "unvaxxed" were actually "vaxxed." That is, they were people that followed public health advice. If only 602 of the 6682 casualties involved such misallocations, the difference in incidences of vaxxed vs unvaxxed crashes vanishes.
See:
https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON
https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/health-and-wellness/vaccine-information-for-primary-care.aspx#COVaxON-information
https://www.ontario.ca/page/proof-covid-19-vaccination
2. Based on Table 3 in the study, less than half of the injured were drivers. By the logic of the authors, an unvaxxed passenger is more likely to cause an accident than a vaxxed passenger. This is ludicrous and positively demonstrates the data is unreliable (see point 1 above).
3. By section S7 of the Appendix, all deaths that occurred at the scene of the accident were excluded. The authors estimate at least 42 deaths were excluded. Since only 8 deaths were included, that means they excluded 84% of the most serious crash outcome. Also, since the study involved only 550 people that were actually admitted to a hospital, excluding 42 deaths was a major oversight.
4. By excluding all deaths that occurred at the scene of the accident, they conveniently excluded all accidents resulting from a vaccine induced sudden death.
5. The source data is not available, so none of their work can be verified.
6. They admit that a weakness of their study is that they did not account for miles driven. They go on to claim that "a 100% increase in driving distance, however, is unlikely to explain the magnitude of traffic risks observed in this study." But here they are incorrect, for a doubling of the distance driven should double the risk of a crash, all things being equal. And even their study did not find the unvaxxed twice as likely to be involved in an accident.
7. While they blatantly say that those that resisted the covid shot were misinformed, they do have the honesty to admit that "the study does not test the reliability of COVID vaccination as a proxy for COVID vaccine hesitancy." In other words, the authors didn't bother to verify that many people refused the covid-death-shot, not because they were misinformed but because they saw that the so called vaccine was unreliable. By admitting that they didn't test for this critical factor they overthrow the whole basis of their paper: vaccine hesitancy is associated with reckless driving habits.
8. They testify: "We verify that traffic crashes disproportionately involve those in poverty."
But since poverty does not make people more reckless behind the wheel, this statement proves there are other factors involved (such as: older cars of inferior quality, driving further to work, driving to work even when the weather is bad, driving during rush hour, etc.). Thus, the whole premise of their study is unhinged.
9. The study expressly says what I suspected in an earlier post, for they say: "COVID vaccine status might be considered for regions that prioritize road safety, such as those that mandate physicians to warn risky drivers and report to vehicle licensing agencies." And, "The observed risks might also justify changes to driver insurance policies in the future." Such a conclusion is utterly reprehensible, since they themselves admit they have not prove causality between so called vaccine hesitancy and car crashes, and more so because they know the extra insurance costs will fall on the poorest people.
Unvaccinated have more sex because our hearts and junk still work. It's science.
This country is a joke 🤦🏻♂️
Let's face it, we need to prepare for a wave of dumb, unscientific, hysterical studies in the upcoming months. This is getting ridiculous, these people are desperate 😵💫 😵💫 😵💫
Hilarious! This is the "Ice cream causes murder" conclusion that any nitwit can make by correlating the higher rate of murders during the summer to the increase in people eating ice cream, and other such nonsensical "studies" with confounding variables.
Vaccines....Also great for hurricanes!
There you go again Igor, using logic and reason. It’s so much easier if you’d just stick with the narrative. It’s safe and effective, don’t cha’ know. Even lowers the accident rate. Perhaps because you can no longer drive due to a neurological impairment?
Thanks, Igor. We also need to consider who is counted as “vaccinated.” For example, is one considered “vaccinated” right after the Covid jab is given? NO. I’m not sure of the case here, but in the U.S., you were considered “unvaccinated” until something like 2 weeks AFTER vaccination. There is so much chicanery going on with these numbers, just as the case for “climate change.” The gaslighting is severe... easy rule: IT IS ALL B.S. The contortions “science” is going through to promote these vaccines is laughable.
I have an essential business and I drive…..well I have fun. .. Sorry I do, and my current view of “law and order” is greatly diminished. So if you see a Subaru going like hell with CDN flags and fringe sticker….. Give a HONK!
But seriously I’ve not had a car accident in 20 years.
they first linked all possible reasons to heart attacks. Gardening, jogging, even sitting on your sofa. Now they start linking the other way, just to get out of the dark. That won't work either !
My girlfriend and I never missed a beat and we are both in our 70's. Screw covid and the fake pandemic, the media, the medical terrorists and the fake vaccines. We survived using common sense, not watching a minute of the mainstream media and ignoring all the nonsense.
Vaxxidents are in the vaxxed by definition. I've noticed it quite common these days to have the study data contredict the title and conclusions of the study. I call it fake news.
I assume they do this to justify fake headlines, against reality.
Sad. SADS.
I think this fits right in with Covid Anomolies...
This “new” virus can only travel 6'. It is incapable of traveling 6'1" or greater. (Except in some European countries where it can only travel 1.5 meters = 4.9212598 Feet ) It can live on all surfaces except from anything that comes in the mail from Amazon, Ebay, Alibaba or anywhere else you buy online. It does not live in Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes or any grocery store. It's completely harmless during protests, riots and looting. It becomes alive at certain hours according the state you’re in and goes to sleep during certain hours. It is only deadly in bars, restaurants, gyms, small businesses and hair salons. It will attack you in a restaurant while you are standing but not while you are sitting. It is also deadly at the beach. AND it cannot live on your food as long as you get it to go. Oh, and if you’re from Arkansas, it doesn’t affect voters while voting, someone assisting voters, poll watchers or actively performing election administration duties. And in some states it only attacks groups of people of 10 or more, while in others it limits it’s aggression against groups of 20, 25 or 50 or more according to which state you live in.
If you use reason, logic and common sense...what conclusion do you come too? Seriously??
The latest sad propaganda to cover up for those people 'dying suddenly' at the wheel from 'sudden cardiac arrest'.
I wish we could say 'can't make this shit up'
But apparently you can
I knew someone like you would latch on to this bit of Babylon bee rip off reportage! Clown world! This gets my vote of most insane article of 2022.