Here is the study where they manufactured their figures to 'prove' the unpoked have more auto accidents:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext#%20\
The entire study is flawed (and on purpose). It claims a link between "poke hesitancy" and "risky driving" because of "a distrust of government or belief in freedom that contributes to both poke preferences and increased traffic risks"
It goes on...
"A different explanation might be misconceptions of everyday risks, faith in natural protection, antipathy toward regulation, chronic poverty, exposure to misinformation, insufficient resources, or other personal beliefs."
These claims are based on accidents which resulted in hospitalisation. Each person injured is referred to in the paper as a "crash" - even when the injured person was a pedestrian!
"Results show substantial incidence of serious traffic crashes that is increased for those who are not poked relative to those who are poked."
There is a fundamental error in how they reached that conclusion.
They used two sets of data:
1. the numbers of people presenting to hospital after a traffic accident
2. The number of people in the government poke database
Nowhere do they talk about people who are not in the system. Someone not in the government poke data could still be in an accident. They would still go to hospital if injured. Only then would they be added to the government data.
All those people who are not in the system and remained healthy are not counted. Accidents in the poked column are measured as a proportion of those poked. Accidents in the unpoked are measured as a proportion of those unpoked and in the system.
The attached table shows the problem clearly: no matter which way you chop the data the risk is apparently increased by about the same amount. The vertical line at point 1 should be picked up and lifted across to where all the dots are.
You still see an increased risk for people with dementia who were not poked (and highly likely to have been pedestrians). You also see a lower risk for the old, those with diseases of the old and those who had covid.
Using their same methodology you could estimate that the unpoked had a higher rate of anything:
* giving to charity
* recycling
* buying the most christmas presents
Whatever you want when the levels are actually the same - because the denominator is artificially small.
The point is probably best made by the number of people they claim to have in the database:
11,270,763, not 11,300,000
it was exactly 11,270,763.
It is not possible to measure the size of a city that accurately.
Their conclusion is worth sharing too:
"These data suggest that COVID poke hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID pokes."
What a joke! They continue this stupidity because there are even stupider people just buying anything they shovel . . .
Here is the study where they manufactured their figures to 'prove' the unpoked have more auto accidents:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext#%20\
The entire study is flawed (and on purpose). It claims a link between "poke hesitancy" and "risky driving" because of "a distrust of government or belief in freedom that contributes to both poke preferences and increased traffic risks"
It goes on...
"A different explanation might be misconceptions of everyday risks, faith in natural protection, antipathy toward regulation, chronic poverty, exposure to misinformation, insufficient resources, or other personal beliefs."
These claims are based on accidents which resulted in hospitalisation. Each person injured is referred to in the paper as a "crash" - even when the injured person was a pedestrian!
"Results show substantial incidence of serious traffic crashes that is increased for those who are not poked relative to those who are poked."
There is a fundamental error in how they reached that conclusion.
They used two sets of data:
1. the numbers of people presenting to hospital after a traffic accident
2. The number of people in the government poke database
Nowhere do they talk about people who are not in the system. Someone not in the government poke data could still be in an accident. They would still go to hospital if injured. Only then would they be added to the government data.
All those people who are not in the system and remained healthy are not counted. Accidents in the poked column are measured as a proportion of those poked. Accidents in the unpoked are measured as a proportion of those unpoked and in the system.
The attached table shows the problem clearly: no matter which way you chop the data the risk is apparently increased by about the same amount. The vertical line at point 1 should be picked up and lifted across to where all the dots are.
You still see an increased risk for people with dementia who were not poked (and highly likely to have been pedestrians). You also see a lower risk for the old, those with diseases of the old and those who had covid.
Using their same methodology you could estimate that the unpoked had a higher rate of anything:
* giving to charity
* recycling
* buying the most christmas presents
Whatever you want when the levels are actually the same - because the denominator is artificially small.
The point is probably best made by the number of people they claim to have in the database:
11,270,763, not 11,300,000
it was exactly 11,270,763.
It is not possible to measure the size of a city that accurately.
Their conclusion is worth sharing too:
"These data suggest that COVID poke hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID pokes."
What a joke! They continue this stupidity because there are even stupider people just buying anything they shovel . . .
English
Arabic
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
Polish