ata gathering is a part of scientific method. It is usually gathered so it can be correlated with
something - ie. a prediction of a certain hypothesis.
But, even if perfect, correlation is not evidence for the hypothesis if correlation with other
phenomena is not taken into account.
In example, statistical data on movement of planets and correlation with gravity is alone good
evidence for correctness of laws of gravity but only because the influence of everything else on
these bodies is negligible.
And, if only one planet would behave differently than hypothesized, then this correlation is not
evidence for the hypothesis anymore - it becomes simply evidence for partial correlation. And, if one is
interested in truth, rather than deceit, one would not advertise this correlation as evidence for
the hypothesis - one would admit, not only that one is missing data to reach a sound
conclusion, but that there is certain probability that existing correlation is
a [relatively] meaningless coincidence - and this probability is higher the weaker the existing
Even scientists will hardly be immune to bias when dealing with statistics, consciously or
unconsciously. Why? Because everything is entangled (correlated) with everything to some degree.
Why? To conserve relativity.
But some people are obsessed with absolutism - mainly politicians, economists and [other] charlatans.
And polarized people, in general, support this absolutism.
This is why statistics
are generally abused
(absolutized) in this society - to perpetuate certain agenda.
And here is the latest example:
Fig. \fig1: Vaccination and deaths
There are couple of issues with the hypothesis here (more vaccination => less death):
- there is no correlation at all in the top half of the graph (>75% vaccinated),
- large spikes of inverse correlation in the bottom half of the graph (SI, PL, SK),
- 14-day period,
- other correlations, unaccounted for.
If one discards the top half of non-correlation, one could even conclude that correlation is
inverse to the hypothesis - looking at data from HU to SK, apparently, death rate is actually
increasing with vaccination (in the future, this
correlation is likely to prevail
All of this makes the implied hypothesis that "higher vaccination rate causes lower death
rate" problematic. But once one takes into account GDP per capita and general (pre-COVID) mortality
rates, one will find that the provided evidence for this hypothesis is even more misleading.
Take, for example, a look at mortality rates:
Fig. \fig2: Death rate in EU (2016)
Obviously, countries at the bottom in Fig. \fig1 generally have higher mortality rates than
those at the top - regardless of vaccination. And how did the pandemic and introduced measures to
fight it affect general mortality rates in these countries? That very important information was not taken into account here.
And how was the 14-day period chosen? Was it an unbiased choice, representative for the
situation overall, or was it picked to favor the hypothesis?
Sure, I do not doubt there are more deaths generally than before the pandemics, but this
definitely doesn't show that everyone should vaccinate. At best, this shows that vaccinating
more than 75% of population is a waste and that there is something else affecting death rates, even
though the top graph seems to add considerable weight to vaccination.
The question of whether one should vaccinate or not is not answered here. This is simply an
advertisement for vaccination, and as most advertisements, very misleading.
It is used to put additional pressure on people to make them vaccinate.
Obviously, we are at the moment when people simply need to choose whether to:
- remain in the anthropocentric system and keep moving away from wild nature with increasing external regulation of their lives and organisms by the system, or
- stop, go back a couple of steps and live as part of wild nature.
And everyone should have the right to that choice - which way to evolve.
It is obvious that not everyone has to vaccinate in order for vaccinated to be safe - if you
fear death, protect yourself by all means. But don't be a bloody hypocrite - asking me to change my
lifestyle for you (isolate, wear masks, subscribe to vaccination, etc.), while, at the same time
you refuse to change lifestyle for me and all life of the fucking planet.
I have changed my lifestyle in a way you'll probably never have the balls to even try until
So thanks EU, danke Deutschland, but no thanks, I'm not interested in saving your lifestyle in this shortening
short-term of delusion. I'm saving something more important - my future.