Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread

[BamaFan1137]

Still not over it yet but it feels like my body finally has the upper hand after taking horse paste invermectin. Shouldn't have waited 14 days to do that.

When I first heard of the Delta stuff I figured it was hype mostly but after what its doing to me I think its some pretty mean stuff. I am 52 with no health issues and a good body fat %. Lost 14 pounds so far. I guess its a wake up call not in my 30s anymore.

Glad you are feeling better.

I found out Friday that I do still have antibodies. I am seriously considering getting the vaccine on the 30th of this month. We will see.

I had a VERY mild fever today and a bit of headache. The fever is unusual but headaches, notsomuch. My temp runs a bit low anyway (98.1-ish) but today I got a few at 99.2 to 99.4.

My covid test came back as "inconclusive" which, if I understand it correctly, is probably a positive with a low viral load.

 

[jfegaly]

Glad you are feeling better.

I found out Friday that I do still have antibodies. I am seriously considering getting the vaccine on the 30th of this month. We will see.

I had a VERY mild fever today and a bit of headache. The fever is unusual but headaches, notsomuch. My temp runs a bit low anyway (98.1-ish) but today I got a few at 99.2 to 99.4.

My covid test came back as "inconclusive" which, if I understand it correctly, is probably a positive with a low viral load.

Best of luck brother

 

[gator1776]

Glad you are feeling better.

I found out Friday that I do still have antibodies. I am seriously considering getting the vaccine on the 30th of this month. We will see.

I had a VERY mild fever today and a bit of headache. The fever is unusual but headaches, notsomuch. My temp runs a bit low anyway (98.1-ish) but today I got a few at 99.2 to 99.4.

My covid test came back as "inconclusive" which, if I understand it correctly, is probably a positive with a low viral load.

Either that or you have nasal syphilis

 

[BamaFan1137]

Either that or you have nasal syphilis

Haha, I'm sure that I was exposed to that as well.

And I laughed at Mexico's nose masks. He who laughs last...

 

[jfegaly]

New over/under

How many people will doc mcstuffins tag for his ego tomorrow?

Also, say prayers for those kids getting those RSV vaccines from doc.

 

[jfegaly]

@gator1776 why do I always fall for the trap. Dude is calling me out because I said monocolonal antibody instead of regeneron not knowing all monocolonal antibodies have the same similes side effects such as anaphylaxis, bone marrow suppression etc. like how do we dumb things down so much on a message board but then have to show complex research analysis. How do I explain that when you get a monocolonal antibody, you have develop antibodies to that antibody and never be able to receive it again without your knowing, then the second time you get it, boom anaphylaxis. Or the basic concept of vaccine doesn’t stop from a respiratory virus test not being positive because it lives in your nares, but does prevent seed in lungs and persistent replication. Or why a governors life in very important so they thrown everything at him to prevent a death, even though it’s unnecessary. And the reason we don’t use regeneron in the hospital, is it needs to be used in the first 1-2 days of symptoms for it to work similar to tamiflu, and it has a small supply so not every hospital has it. Man it’s frustrating.

How do you explain to @gator1776 the difference between a monoclonal and a vaccine? Either he doesn’t understand the difference or was purposefully being deceitful back in post 102.

Just sayin.

FWIW. This cat already understood that regeneron is actually used for two things.

1. As a preventative for high risk patients
2. As early treatment

Your boy doc mcstuffins however, didn’t even know it was FDA authorized as a preventative until the last couple days. As for me? I have Been posting it on here for weeks. You make an awful lot of assumptions sir.

So y’all can pick up the mics and head back to the drawing board in hopes of a top 100 single. The last few bombed.

 

[gator1776]

TOTALS: 308 COVID19 positive inpatients
308/783 or 40% of our bed capacity taken up by Covid patients
256 unvaccinated 52 vaccinated (83% unvaccinated)
52 COVID19 ventilated patients, 50 unvaccinated and 2 vaccinated (96%)

Hospital 1 (Louisiana)

Census: 472 (ED Holds: 8)

Available Non-COVID Med/Surg Beds: 44

Available ICUs: 9

COVID Unit Census: 192

COVID Unit beds available: 14

ED visits: 120

FED visits: 96

Confirmed COVID positive inpatients: 198 (156 unvaccinated)



Hospital 2 (Alabama)

Census: 185 (4 Covid ICU holding in ED; 7 med-surg non-covid holding in ED)

Available Non-COVID Med/Surg Beds: 0

Available ICUs: 1

COVID Unit Census: 81

COVID Unit beds available: 0

ED visits: 60

FED visits: 61

Confirmed COVID positive inpatients: 86 (80 unvaccinated)



hospital 3 (Mississippi)


Census: 47 (5 patients boarding in ED)

Available Non-COVID beds: 1

Available ICU beds: 0

COVID Unit census: 15

COVID Unit beds available: 0

ED visits: 57

Confirmed COVID positive inpatients: 24 (20 unvaccinated)

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

TOTALS: 308 COVID19 positive inpatients
308/783 or 40% of our bed capacity taken up by Covid patients
256 unvaccinated 52 vaccinated (83% unvaccinated)
52 COVID19 ventilated patients, 50 unvaccinated and 2 vaccinated (96%)

Note again, there is no 'Shot status unknown' option.

So all 3 hospitals confirmed the shot status of over 300 patients, across 3 hospitals......or any that couldn't be confirmed were simply put down as not having taken the shot.

Speaking of stats classes, if @gator1776 presented these findings in class, one of the first things the instructor would do would be ask if he checked and verified the shot status of all patients.

If he said he put them down as not having the shot if their status was unknown, the instructor would tell him that all his data was contaminated as a result, and he would fail the project.

Thats first day stuff. And its there to prevent an intentional misrepresentation of data.

This is why I stopped paying attention to any of his stats. Without a number under 'shot status unknown', I assume all the data is dirty, and reject it all.

Which is what would happen in a real world setting.

 

[gator1776]

From another hospital system that I help out from time to time. They have three smaller hospitals, and one has 180 beds, one has 194 beds, and one has 80 beds of which 20 are psych beds.

Total 134 COVID19 hospitalized (90% unvaccinated)
30% of their total bed capacity taken up by coronavirus patients
35 on vents (91% unvaccinated)
54% of their ICU bed capacity taken up by coronavirus patients

For those scoring at home that’s:
-442 coronavirus patients in six hospitals with a total of 1,237 beds.

-That’s 36% hospital beds taken up by one disease, coronavirus.

-376/442 are unvaccinated or 85% unvaccinated

-87 coronavirus patients on life-support/ventilators (58% of the combined hospital systems ICU bed capacity)

-82/87 ventilated Patients or Unvaccinated (94%)

 

[Gator Fever]

Glad you are feeling better.

I found out Friday that I do still have antibodies. I am seriously considering getting the vaccine on the 30th of this month. We will see.

I had a VERY mild fever today and a bit of headache. The fever is unusual but headaches, notsomuch. My temp runs a bit low anyway (98.1-ish) but today I got a few at 99.2 to 99.4.

My covid test came back as "inconclusive" which, if I understand it correctly, is probably a positive with a low viral load.

I will never take that vaccine unless they get craftier by how they think they can force me. I should have some nice antibodies after this.

 

[gator1776]

I will never take that vaccine unless they get craftier by how they think they can force me. I should have some nice antibodies after this.

I’m truly glad you’re feeling better. I mean that, and you will have some antibodies anywhere from 3 to 6 months, damn shame he had to go through a serious infection where you felt like crap for two weeks to get there.

Of course to those of us who know you this reads:
I will never take the vaccine that’s been proven to prevent Covid in many and certainly reduce the symptoms In those that still get some infection, but I’ll damn sure take horse worm medication with no proven benefit.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[SORT14]

Note again, there is no 'Shot status unknown' option.

So all 3 hospitals confirmed the shot status of over 300 patients, across 3 hospitals......or any that couldn't be confirmed were simply put down as not having taken the shot.

Speaking of stats classes, if @gator1776 presented these findings in class, one of the first things the instructor would do would be ask if he checked and verified the shot status of all patients.

If he said he put them down as not having the shot if their status was unknown, the instructor would tell him that all his data was contaminated as a result, and he would fail the project.

Thats first day stuff. And its there to prevent an intentional misrepresentation of data.

This is why I stopped paying attention to any of his stats. Without a number under 'shot status unknown', I assume all the data is dirty, and reject it all.

Which is what would happen in a real world setting.

Do you have any data or know of data source regarding "shot status unknown"?
And to be fair, we aren't writing stats papers on this forum, however, if we were, then including a description of the data collected would be expected.
Reporting descriptive statistics as you receive them is not deceptive, so long as the pertinent factors are also described.
I wouldn't stop paying attention to stats on that basis, but that is your choice. I am curious about the "shot status unknown", and this can be estimated if those data are available.

 

[gator1776]

Do you have any data or know of data source regarding "shot status unknown"?
And to be fair, we aren't writing stats papers on this forum, however, if we were, then including a description of the data collected would be expected.
Reporting descriptive statistics as you receive them is not deceptive, so long as the pertinent factors are also described.
I wouldn't stop paying attention to stats on that basis, but that is your choice. I am curious about the "shot status unknown", and this can be estimated if those data are available.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

The reason there is no section for a shot status unknown is because there is no unknown in these numbers. The only real variable is whether the patient or family is lying to us, A form of statistical bias.

I didn’t know I needed to show my work on here, LOL, but we are basing the Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated numbers on the patient’s history. We ask each person on admission, or their family member if they’re already on the ventilator, were they vaccinated or unvaccinated. If anything people are going to lie towards the side of saying they’re vaccinated out of embarrassment so I think the numbers are pretty solid, but that’s where we get that information from for both Hospital systems for what it’s worth.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Do you have any data or know of data source regarding "shot status unknown"?
And to be fair, we aren't writing stats papers on this forum, however, if we were, then including a description of the data collected would be expected.
Reporting descriptive statistics as you receive them is not deceptive, so long as the pertinent factors are also described.
I wouldn't stop paying attention to stats on that basis, but that is your choice. I am curious about the "shot status unknown", and this can be estimated if those data are available.

No, we're trying to get accurate information. That's increasingly difficult if the data is being intentionally or incompetently presented.

One of the core thrusts of @gator1776's presentation of data has been his claims that those who haven't taken the shot make up a large percentage of the covid patients.

When he first started doing this, it was 1%. Then it went up to 10%. Now it's closing in on 20%.

If for say 15% of the patients the shot status is unknown, and they are put down as not having the shot, that completely changes the outlook of the data. And it can lead to completely faulty assumptions and conclusions.

But why am I having to explain this to you? You've taken stats classes, you say. So you know all this.

Just curious how I immediately spotted this, and you didn't mention it, but instead Liked his post?

Curious.

 

[SORT14]

No, we're trying to get accurate information. That's increasingly difficult if the data is being intentionally or incompetently presented.

One of the core thrusts of @gator1776's presentation of data has been his claims that those who haven't taken the shot make up a large percentage of the covid patients.

When he first started doing this, it was 1%. Then it went up to 10%. Now it's closing in on 20%.

If for say 15% of the patients the shot status is unknown, and they are put down as not having the shot, that completely changes the outlook of the data. And it can lead to completely faulty assumptions and conclusions.

But why am I having to explain this to you? You've taken stats classes, you say. So you know all this.

Just curious how I immediately spotted this, and you didn't mention it, but instead Liked his post?

Curious.

There's no need to be so angry or combative. It's ok if you are, but it isn't necessary.
You don't have to explain anything to me. I understand the point you're trying to make.
I asked you about the 'shots unknown' aspect of your argument. If you don't have any data that supports that claim, then just say so. I have reached out to 3 Florida area hospitals asking them about this. If you have the data already, it would save me the trouble. If you don't, then fine. Ultimately though, it isn't like we can't flesh out a value for the 'shot status unknown' group.

 

[gator1776]

Ghost - this guy isn't worth having a conversation about statistics with. He told us yesterday 1.8% of Covid positives will die.

That means we've really lost over 5MM people to Covid in the US.

I'm just a dumb Marketing guy but somehow I can still manage to use the divide function on a calculator and figure out percentages.

The Butchers Bill

Worldwide

Total Number of Cases: 207,434,535
Total Number of Deaths: 4,336,332
Mortality Rate: 2.1%
US Total Number of Cases: 36,697,292
US Total Number of Deaths: 621,716
Mortality Rate: 1.7%

Reference:

COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

coronavirus.jhu.edu

Do you have numbers that disprove Johns Hopkins?

 

[gator1776]

There's no need to be so angry or combative. It's ok if you are, but it isn't necessary.
You don't have to explain anything to me. I understand the point you're trying to make.
I asked you about the 'shots unknown' aspect of your argument. If you don't have any data that supports that claim, then just say so. I have reached out to 3 Florida area hospitals asking them about this. If you have the data already, it would save me the trouble. If you don't, then fine. Ultimately though, it isn't like we can't flesh out a value for the 'shot status unknown' group.

It’s kind of an odd thing to hang your hat on. There is no unknown for Vaccination status in this numbers I am posting because we ask every patient or patient’s family did they get a vaccine or not. The really unknown variable is whether they’re telling us the truth or not, and again the bias would likely be towards lying that you had the vaccine even if you did it and not the other way around.

🤷

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I didn’t know I needed to show my work on here, LOL

Um yeah, you do. Everyone does. That's how you ensure accurate information. That's how you build trust and credibility.

But especially you, since you've admitted you have an agenda, and you've admitted to misrepresenting information here in the past.

So you're now saying you ask all patients their shot status upon admission. Fine.

You've been doing these updates for weeks now. That's now up to thousands of patients.

I've never once seen you list a single patient with unknown shot status.



Note the fine print: "Those not fully vaccinated includes those who are unvaccinated or not yet fully vaccinated, and where vaccination status is unknown"

Now if @Tmi512 presented the same data with the same claims, I'd be more willing to buy it.

 

[SORT14]

It’s kind of an odd thing to hang your hat on. There is no unknown for Vaccination status in this number because we ask every patient or patient’s family did they get a vaccine or not. The really unknown variable is whether they’re telling us the truth or not, and again the bias would likely be towards lying that you had the vaccine even if you did it and not the other way around.

🤷

Yea, this is kinda what I'm fleshing out.

 

[gator1776]

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that we base vaccination status on the patient telling us whether they’re vaccinated or not, or their family if they’re already on the fan. That doesn’t seem like a hard concept to understand

 

[Gator Fever]

I’m truly glad you’re feeling better. I mean that, and you will have some antibodies anywhere from 3 to 6 months, damn shame he had to go through a serious infection where you felt like crap for two weeks to get there.

Of course to those of us who know you this reads:
I will never take the vaccine that’s been proven to prevent Covid in many and certainly reduce the symptoms In those that still get some infection, but I’ll damn sure take horse worm medication with no proven benefit.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I am proof invermectin works. Literally shut off the crazy 103 fever that had persisted for many days right after it kicked in and then took care of the rest.

Its a shame joke doctors refuse to use it even after other doctors have marveled about its results..

The arrogance is so bad that when a judge ordered it be used on a coma patient per the families wishes the hospital doctors still refused and an outside doctor had to come in and do it.

 

[gator1776]

I am proof invermectin works. Literally shut off the crazy 103 fever that had persisted for many days right after it kicked in and then took care of the rest.

Its a shame joke doctors refuse to use it even after other doctors have marveled about its results..

The arrogance is so bad that when a judge ordered it be used on a coma patient per the families wishes the hospital doctors still refused and an outside doctor had to come in and do it.

An n of 1 is never proof

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

There's no need to be so angry or combative. It's ok if you are, but it isn't necessary.
You don't have to explain anything to me. I understand the point you're trying to make.
I asked you about the 'shots unknown' aspect of your argument. If you don't have any data that supports that claim, then just say so. I have reached out to 3 Florida area hospitals asking them about this. If you have the data already, it would save me the trouble. If you don't, then fine. Ultimately though, it isn't like we can't flesh out a value for the 'shot status unknown' group.

I wasn't angry or combative with you. I was quite the contrary. And I never made any claims, I simply pointed out how easily the data could be manipulated if we remove the 'shot status unknown' numbers, and just put them down as having not taken the shot.

It sounds like you are trying to make this about me now, instead of addressing my points. Which is fine, I suspected this was coming.

The fact remains, if the data isn't collected accurately, the entire body is contaminated and would be rejected.

This is first day stats stuff. As a stats guy, you know this.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that we base vaccination status on the patient telling us whether they’re vaccinated or not, or their family if they’re already on the fan. That doesn’t seem like a hard concept to understand

That's fine.

What happens if you don't know the status?

Breakthrough cases aren’t the cause of the US Covid-19 surge

Unvaccinated people still make up the vast majority of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

www.vox.com

"Those not fully vaccinated includes those who are unvaccinated or not yet fully vaccinated, and where vaccination status is unknown"


Again, you've been posting these updates for weeks. That's thousands of patients.

You've never posted a number for 'shot status unknown'.

That either means that every one of the thousands of patients told the doctors what their status was, or some didn't, and you just guessed their status. Or you didn't guess the status, you just didn't include the number in your data.

Only three options. Again, all this is first day stuff.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

An n of 1 is never proof

You've repeatedly praised posters sharing their stories if those stories supported your agenda. Let's not be dishonest here.

 

[fatman76]

The Butchers Bill

Worldwide

Total Number of Cases: 207,434,535
Total Number of Deaths: 4,336,332
Mortality Rate: 2.1%
US Total Number of Cases: 36,697,292
US Total Number of Deaths: 621,716
Mortality Rate: 1.7%

Reference:

COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

coronavirus.jhu.edu

Do you have numbers that disprove Johns Hopkins?

Nope - I made a mistake. I grabbed the vax doses instead of cases. This is correct. My bad.

@GhostOfMatchesMalone

 

[gator1776]

That's fine.

What happens if you don't know the status?

Breakthrough cases aren’t the cause of the US Covid-19 surge

Unvaccinated people still make up the vast majority of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

www.vox.com

"Those not fully vaccinated includes those who are unvaccinated or not yet fully vaccinated, and where vaccination status is unknown"


Again, you've been posting these updates for weeks. That's thousands of patients.

You've never posted a number for 'shot status unknown'.

That either means that every one of the thousands of patients told the doctors what their status was, or some didn't, and you just guessed their status. Or you didn't guess the status, you just didn't include the number in your data.

Only three options. Again, all this is first day stuff.

Vox
Do you consider Vox to be a reputable source of medical information?

They didn’t even reference the research article they cited.

But let’s say for a moment it’s true, how does that change the fact that the vast majority of hospitalized patients, and in particular the severely ill ones on life-support, are unvaccinated by a ratio of 9.5 to 1?

Again there is no unknown a vaccination status in these patients, we know their vaccine status based off their history on every single one of them.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Ghost - this guy isn't worth having a conversation about statistics with. He told us yesterday 1.8% of Covid positives will die.

That means we've really lost over 5MM people to Covid in the US.

I'm just a dumb Marketing guy but somehow I can still manage to use the divide function on a calculator and figure out percentages.

Oh I would never waste my time having a conversation about stats or really anything with him.

Just pointing out how the data he is presenting could have easily been misrepresented.

I spotted it immediately. And I'm not even a stats guy.

 

[gator1776]

You've repeatedly praised posters sharing their stories if those stories supported your agenda. Let's not be dishonest here.

But I’ve never called it proof.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

But let’s say for a moment it’s true, how does that change the fact that the vast majority of hospitalized patients, and in particular the severely ill ones on life-support, are unvaccinated by a ratio of 9.5 to 1?

Because if you are recording the data incorrectly, you have no idea what the actual ratios are.

 

[gator1776]

Nope - I made a mistake. I grabbed the vax doses instead of cases. This is correct. My bad.

@GhostOfMatchesMalone

No worries man. Clearly an emotional topic for all of us. I appreciate your owning up to it and respect you for it. As always make the best choice for you that you think is right and I support that As a libertarian at heart.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

But I’ve never called it proof.

And you never pointed out to them that larger conclusions could not be drawn from what happened to them, either.

Again, you admitted freely you have an agenda. This is another example of it.

 

[gator1776]

Thanks guys I’ve enjoyed the back-and-forth this morning but I just got to work so I’ll catch y’all later.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

@jfegaly you posted some numbers from an Oklahoma hospital system a few days ago.

Does your source know what their criteria is for reporting patients with an unknown shot status?

Do they record this differently, or do they simply put it down as not having the shot?

If so, have they been instructed to do so?

 

[SORT14]

I wasn't angry or combative with you. I was quite the contrary. And I never made any claims, I simply pointed out how easily the data could be manipulated if we remove the 'shot status unknown' numbers, and just put them down as having not taken the shot.

It sounds like you are trying to make this about me now, instead of addressing my points. Which is fine, I suspected this was coming.

The fact remains, if the data isn't collected accurately, the entire body is contaminated and would be rejected.

This is first day stats stuff. As a stats guy, you know this.

No, just the opposite. I am trying to make it not about you or me, but about the discussion.
In reality, all data sets have imperfections, so dealing with missing/bad data is simply part of the game. It doesn't render an analysis useless per se, but it can if the errors are highly prevalent. In statistics, there are error terms, variability, confidence intervals, etc. This is to control or identify how much of a statistical result is "noise".
I don't mind if you call into question my expertise, that's certainly fair. But what I am trying to do is get to the heart of your argument about "shot status unknown" so I can work to resolve that. You may think that I am working against you, but I am simply trying to address what appears to me to be a major concern of yours.

 

[fatman76]

No worries man. Clearly an emotional topic for all of us. I appreciate your owning up to it and respect you for it. As always make the best choice for you that you think is right and I support that As a libertarian at heart.

I'm wrong all the time. Pretty used to owning up to it.

 

[jfegaly]

@jfegaly you posted some numbers from an Oklahoma hospital system a few days ago.

Does your source know what their criteria is for reporting patients with an unknown shot status?

Do they record this differently, or do they simply put it down as not having the shot?

If so, have they been instructed to do so?

I can try to find out....Oklahoma percentages are right at about 20 percent vaccinated in the hospital in which my sister works as of yesterday. I tried to dig deeper and find out if they were doing breakdown by vaccine (which one), and she said not that she knew of at the time. If I had to guess, it would be put down as unvaxed but again...I will check.

Their numbers had actually gone down from Monday. Monday it was 269 hospitalized. Yesterday it was 254 with 20 percent vaxxed.

 

[jfegaly]

Nope - I made a mistake. I grabbed the vax doses instead of cases. This is correct. My bad.

@GhostOfMatchesMalone

Kudos man. Now, if we could only get others that made/make mistakes to do the same. Those folks might be able to gain some trust.

As for me? I am going to get that RSV vaccination for my kiddos today. wish me luck.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

No, just the opposite. I am trying to make it not about you or me, but about the discussion.
In reality, all data sets have imperfections, so dealing with missing/bad data is simply part of the game. It doesn't render an analysis useless per se, but it can if the errors are highly prevalent. In statistics, there are error terms, variability, confidence intervals, etc. This is to control or identify how much of a statistical result is "noise".
I don't mind if you call into question my expertise, that's certainly fair. But what I am trying to do is get to the heart of your argument about "shot status unknown" so I can work to resolve that. You may think that I am working against you, but I am simply trying to address what appears to me to be a major concern of yours.

Data can't be a little dirty and still have validity. That's like saying you can get a little pregnant.

The argument all along has been that those who haven't taken the shot make up almost all the covid cases.

At first it was 1%. Then later 10%. Then 20%. We've seen studies from the UK that had it at nearly a 50/50 split.

Let's take a hypothetical: Let's say 100 covid cases are admitted.

20 have gotten the shot.

50 haven't gotten the shot.

30 are unknown.

Three ways that data can be counted:

1 - Toss out the unknowns. 20 have gotten the shot, 50 have not. So roughly 70% of patients have no shot, 30% do.

2 - Count all three statuses. So 20% have gotten the shot, 50% have not, and 30% are unknown.

3 - Put down all the unknowns as not having the shot. So 20% have taken the shot, 80% have not.


See how we have 3 wildly different outcomes based on how the data is presented? #2 is the most accurate. #1 is close, and #3 is an outright lie.

If the validity of the data cannot be guaranteed, I dismiss it all.

 

[SORT14]

Data can't be a little dirty and still have validity. That's like saying you can get a little pregnant.

The argument all along has been that those who haven't taken the shot make up almost all the covid cases.

At first it was 1%. Then later 10%. Then 20%. We've seen studies from the UK that had it at nearly a 50/50 split.

Let's take a hypothetical: Let's say 100 covid cases are admitted.

20 have gotten the shot.

50 haven't gotten the shot.

30 are unknown.

Three ways that data can be counted:

1 - Toss out the unknowns. 20 have gotten the shot, 50 have not. So roughly 70% of patients have no shot, 30% do.

2 - Count all three statuses. So 20% have gotten the shot, 50% have not, and 30% are unknown.

3 - Put down all the unknowns as not having the shot. So 20% have taken the shot, 80% have not.


See how we have 3 wildly different outcomes based on how the data is presented? #2 is the most accurate. #1 is close, and #3 is an outright lie.

If the validity of the data cannot be guaranteed, I dismiss it all.

Unfortunately, this is not correct. That is a false dichotomy. In the real world, all data are imperfect. There are certainly cases where the data set is so bad it can't be used, but that is not often the case.
Hypotheticals aside (I understand your point, but I think you have probably exaggerated the proportion of unknowns, possibly to make your point salient?), again, what I am trying to get to is a resolution of the question rather than an outright dismissal without trying to answer your question.
Let me ask you an honest question: Do you want to know the proportions of unknown, or are you going to reject any attempt to reconcile that concern?
Edit: Adding a thought.. it would be possible to analyze the infection and diseased rate of the known vaccinated persons and do the same for the known unvaccinated and then test to see if the "shot status unknown" group showed any meaningful difference from either group. Essentially, use the unknown group as a control group and then run a comparison (ANOVA, Kruskall-Wallis, or even a Bayesian approach).