A few of my associates live in sunny Santa Clara County, California. They always send me links to Santa Clara County case rates by vaccination status, that prove that “vaccination works”. I actually keep a spreadsheet for breakthrough rates, with a part dedicated to Santa Clara County data, just to keep an eye on it.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they have already started counting people who haven’t had the booster as unvaccinated for the 11/17 vs 11/19 count. SCC is pushing the third shot hard. It’s crazy here.
It is possible that they count CASES from double-vaccinated due for booster, as "unvaccinated cases", while using the "completely unvaxxed people count" as the denominator for case rate per 100,000.
It could explain some things.
But it also cannot explain why they change August 2021 data now in November.
Perhaps already back calculating to call those 6 months post 2nd dose unvaccinated for when the definition changes?? Or just making up data to get more people vaccinated. I clearly don’t trust our health department. I’m glad you are keeping an eye on them.
Yes, it is harder to figure out what is the "correct answer" and how exactly they are faking their numbers. When their intent is to deceive us, they may lie in so manyh creative ways.
My job is to catch them, not to do their homework/
So then, why would obvious vaccine inefficacy prompt such conniving and fudging to hide the fact? I'm not saying people in charge in SCC aren't capable of massaging data, but I'm having trouble understanding why they would do it.
Perhaps they are only recording the NUMBER (not rate) of unvaccinated cases back in August (or whatever), but then incorrectly dividing them by the CURRENT number of unvaccinated people, which presumably continues to decrease, thus making the past numbers larger?
From the vaxxed case rate, unvaxxed case rate, and overall case rate, I can calculate implied vaccination rate, and I do that in my spreadsheet. Indeed, on Nov 19, the implied vaccination rate did jump indeed.
My first guess is that it is "something else", because vaccination rates were changing, but some case rate values did not change much between Oct 15 and Nov 17.
I think there is something wrong with the Marin data- I'm not mathematician, but the numbers don't seem to add up. I'm from Marin, and my dad still lives there (I live in Santa Clara County now, and I can tell you many people have been watching those numbers closely throughout 2020 and 2021, and are just as annoyed as you- they've been changing the data every single week, or hiding how they count cases) In Sept my dad sent me the main landing page for the Marin County covid site, to show me how bad it is. It's filled with many graphs, all showing scary things, but they each had a link to the data that the graphs used to populate. For transparency I imagine. According to their chart for deaths in Marin due to covid, they listed the death rate for 35-49 year olds as 2% total for the pandemic in September. I thought that was extremely high, (especially since studies show an extremely high survival rate for that age range) So I clicked the link to the actual data. Out of 3,510 patients in that age group (mine), only 4 had died at that time. Total, since the pandemic began. I'm not mathematician, those death numbers don't add up to 2 percent death rate- could they be adjusting and just not explaining why? I just went back to the website, and it's still not right. They've added a percent because two more people in that age range have died- the total cases now come to 3841, with 6 deaths. Perhaps they are adjusting...something.....? IDK but to a layman it seems very wonky. Thoughts?
Hi. You do not need to be a mathematician to divide one number by another or calculate relative risks etc. All you need is to be basically versed in arithmetic and basic algebra.
I am not a mathematician and my education (among other) is computer science.
You can try to write your best case explaining what is wrong with Marin County data. Even if you make some mistakes, or fail to find even worse problems, some smart analyst may notice your post, start looking, and do an even better job. But do try to triple-check yourself with maximum skepticism you can afford to yourself, so that you avoid accidental mistakes.
This was, kind of, the point of me pointing out problems with SCC graphs -- not to provide the most complete and authoritative analysis, but to just say, hey, let's look there!
santa clara/silicon valley is dominated nowadays (sadly, like my own san francisco these days) by a weird kind of woke yuppie type. Chock full of self-righteous 'progressive' self-regard thinly masking intense self-centered materialism. It's both weird and a huge disappointment. Hard to figure pout, exactly, but their covid fanaticism is related in some way to their immense narcisism.
This also keeps they way behind the curve in actually moving past Covid. Huge swaths of our country have a large percentage of population who had Covid already. Those have moved past the pandemic. The areas trying to hide from Covid are still full-on stuck with no way out.
When I was young, I played on a soccer team with a couple of star, a couple of donkeys, and a bunch of oddballs somewhere in between. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost, but always we generated rich, deep positive experiences on the field and in the pub afterwards. Now it feels like ‘teams’ are collections of interchangeable parts - all about the same, and all scurrying off to do their own thing once the final whistle blows.
Yeah, my only guess would be that they're recalculating the data as the definition of "fully vaxed" changes, but I am not a numbers person. Something is motivating the local authorities, maybe a structured bonus for good results. Only hospitalizations are even semi-useful, the PCR results just being noise, with a false positive (often at a rate of <90%) counted as an infection, different cycle counts for the vaxed, and multiple tests on the same people.
I don't know if “Powerbigov” would work here, but you can make multiple archives on demand at https://archive.fo/
Thanks. I hope that they clarify the situation. Someone I trust (but unrelated to the county) suggested that they changed the way they estimate unvaxxed population. When overwhelming majority is vaxxed, estimating unvaxxed becomes sensitive. And why does it produce nonsensical results disagreeing with neighboring counties? Good estimates matter.
Don't forget to check out archive.fo, if you're looking for an easy way to provide proof you're not manipulating the dates, it's easy to take 'snapshots' and link to them.
Euggypius has a good article today about a German state newsreader blaming the unvaccinated and calling for forced vaxxing measures against them. How will people respond to such open attacks on them that threaten their very lives? Dark times.
It is very disturbing having people in such positions - MSM newsreader - pointing the finger of blame at the unjabbed. It not only denies the science but it feeds into the fear and hysteria. We all know what is going on. A group of people are being made the scrapegoats - again and again it starts in Germany and Austria.
I agree, BUT do not just point at Germany. Here in the US, our "president" Joe Biden said about same things about how "we were patient, but our patience is wearing thin", similarly raising comparable nasty emotions.
Thank you so much for following and exposing these Criminals.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they have already started counting people who haven’t had the booster as unvaccinated for the 11/17 vs 11/19 count. SCC is pushing the third shot hard. It’s crazy here.
It is possible that they count CASES from double-vaccinated due for booster, as "unvaccinated cases", while using the "completely unvaxxed people count" as the denominator for case rate per 100,000.
It could explain some things.
But it also cannot explain why they change August 2021 data now in November.
Perhaps already back calculating to call those 6 months post 2nd dose unvaccinated for when the definition changes?? Or just making up data to get more people vaccinated. I clearly don’t trust our health department. I’m glad you are keeping an eye on them.
Yes, it is harder to figure out what is the "correct answer" and how exactly they are faking their numbers. When their intent is to deceive us, they may lie in so manyh creative ways.
My job is to catch them, not to do their homework/
if they do that, then its pretty solid evidence against vaccine efficacy ;-)
At this point only the blind do not see what is going on
So then, why would obvious vaccine inefficacy prompt such conniving and fudging to hide the fact? I'm not saying people in charge in SCC aren't capable of massaging data, but I'm having trouble understanding why they would do it.
I live in Contra Costa county...I've similar anomalies but didn't archive.
Start taking pictures perhaps? Just keep them just in case? Worst case you waste a few megabytes
As with NOAA weather data, so with SCC “Covid” data; it’s a peculiar statistical effect known as Lysenkosis.
Yeah, fake science and persecution of real scientists... Totalitarians always keep repeating the same patterns...
awesome! thanks - maybe this would help? they have a few snapshots of the website. matching your screenshots with their will provide extra credibility if ever needed. its the webarchive at : https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-case-rates-vaccination-status
Perhaps they are only recording the NUMBER (not rate) of unvaccinated cases back in August (or whatever), but then incorrectly dividing them by the CURRENT number of unvaccinated people, which presumably continues to decrease, thus making the past numbers larger?
It is possible. Who knows.
From the vaxxed case rate, unvaxxed case rate, and overall case rate, I can calculate implied vaccination rate, and I do that in my spreadsheet. Indeed, on Nov 19, the implied vaccination rate did jump indeed.
My first guess is that it is "something else", because vaccination rates were changing, but some case rate values did not change much between Oct 15 and Nov 17.
I think there is something wrong with the Marin data- I'm not mathematician, but the numbers don't seem to add up. I'm from Marin, and my dad still lives there (I live in Santa Clara County now, and I can tell you many people have been watching those numbers closely throughout 2020 and 2021, and are just as annoyed as you- they've been changing the data every single week, or hiding how they count cases) In Sept my dad sent me the main landing page for the Marin County covid site, to show me how bad it is. It's filled with many graphs, all showing scary things, but they each had a link to the data that the graphs used to populate. For transparency I imagine. According to their chart for deaths in Marin due to covid, they listed the death rate for 35-49 year olds as 2% total for the pandemic in September. I thought that was extremely high, (especially since studies show an extremely high survival rate for that age range) So I clicked the link to the actual data. Out of 3,510 patients in that age group (mine), only 4 had died at that time. Total, since the pandemic began. I'm not mathematician, those death numbers don't add up to 2 percent death rate- could they be adjusting and just not explaining why? I just went back to the website, and it's still not right. They've added a percent because two more people in that age range have died- the total cases now come to 3841, with 6 deaths. Perhaps they are adjusting...something.....? IDK but to a layman it seems very wonky. Thoughts?
Hi. You do not need to be a mathematician to divide one number by another or calculate relative risks etc. All you need is to be basically versed in arithmetic and basic algebra.
I am not a mathematician and my education (among other) is computer science.
You can try to write your best case explaining what is wrong with Marin County data. Even if you make some mistakes, or fail to find even worse problems, some smart analyst may notice your post, start looking, and do an even better job. But do try to triple-check yourself with maximum skepticism you can afford to yourself, so that you avoid accidental mistakes.
This was, kind of, the point of me pointing out problems with SCC graphs -- not to provide the most complete and authoritative analysis, but to just say, hey, let's look there!
santa clara/silicon valley is dominated nowadays (sadly, like my own san francisco these days) by a weird kind of woke yuppie type. Chock full of self-righteous 'progressive' self-regard thinly masking intense self-centered materialism. It's both weird and a huge disappointment. Hard to figure pout, exactly, but their covid fanaticism is related in some way to their immense narcisism.
This also keeps they way behind the curve in actually moving past Covid. Huge swaths of our country have a large percentage of population who had Covid already. Those have moved past the pandemic. The areas trying to hide from Covid are still full-on stuck with no way out.
I don’t think the type I’m thinking of want a way out; they like this antiseptic lifestyle
I am pretty sure I know what you are thinking about!
When I was young, I played on a soccer team with a couple of star, a couple of donkeys, and a bunch of oddballs somewhere in between. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost, but always we generated rich, deep positive experiences on the field and in the pub afterwards. Now it feels like ‘teams’ are collections of interchangeable parts - all about the same, and all scurrying off to do their own thing once the final whistle blows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8mduTEvnU0
Yeah, my only guess would be that they're recalculating the data as the definition of "fully vaxed" changes, but I am not a numbers person. Something is motivating the local authorities, maybe a structured bonus for good results. Only hospitalizations are even semi-useful, the PCR results just being noise, with a false positive (often at a rate of <90%) counted as an infection, different cycle counts for the vaxed, and multiple tests on the same people.
I don't know if “Powerbigov” would work here, but you can make multiple archives on demand at https://archive.fo/
Thanks. I hope that they clarify the situation. Someone I trust (but unrelated to the county) suggested that they changed the way they estimate unvaxxed population. When overwhelming majority is vaxxed, estimating unvaxxed becomes sensitive. And why does it produce nonsensical results disagreeing with neighboring counties? Good estimates matter.
Don't forget to check out archive.fo, if you're looking for an easy way to provide proof you're not manipulating the dates, it's easy to take 'snapshots' and link to them.
Euggypius has a good article today about a German state newsreader blaming the unvaccinated and calling for forced vaxxing measures against them. How will people respond to such open attacks on them that threaten their very lives? Dark times.
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/in-angry-rant-state-media-anchor
Yeah, I saw that one. I would not call that article "good" because it is about a nasty woman, but it is certainly pertinent and mobilizing.
All these attacks MUST have fake statistics making the underlying "reason" for these attacks. My article is one example highlighting that.
It is very disturbing having people in such positions - MSM newsreader - pointing the finger of blame at the unjabbed. It not only denies the science but it feeds into the fear and hysteria. We all know what is going on. A group of people are being made the scrapegoats - again and again it starts in Germany and Austria.
I agree, BUT do not just point at Germany. Here in the US, our "president" Joe Biden said about same things about how "we were patient, but our patience is wearing thin", similarly raising comparable nasty emotions.
So, did you get an answer? If so, please share it with us.
Friend, perhaps you should get on fiverr and hire a food-taster and car-starter. They will not enjoy your diligence, even though we will. Thanks-