# Distrust of Public Health Statistics

There have been continuous reports coming from various public health organizations which summarize their analysis of the state of medical facilities with respect to COVID-19. For the most part, they've been predictable in the sense that they, at a high level, report a higher proportion of hospitalizations and deaths for those that have not been vaccinated. Many celebrate this as a sign that the vaccines are a success and or use this as evidence that whoever is still not vaccinated should be condemned, shamed and, if necessary, ostracized and expelled from society. The problem is that there is disagreement about how these statistics are computed and what they mean. Rather than engage in discourse to clarify any potential for misunderstanding and pursue the means of improving analysis and reporting, there has been an incessant predisposition by public health officials, politicians and big tech platforms to censor those who question the reports and maintain the status of these publications as iron-clad proof that we can base our conclusions upon.

Is it really fair to discourage discourse and criticism of these reports? On the one hand we might say that it's better to avoid discouraging persons from vaccination, and to avoid complicating matters which might lead to confusion, as it's very easy for any individual to be caught on any segment in the semantic process of formulating, computing, reporting and critiquing the reports that are being published. This makes some sense, as it could be said that, regardless of whether or not the vaccines as effective as the ideal preventative treatment, they're what we have at the moment, they've been proven more effective than not, and they are the means by which we can mitigate the remaining threat of this "pandemic". Furthermore, for whatever efficacy they yield, they reduce the risk of future outbreaks of variants.

On the other hand, it might be inaccurate to come to these conclusions, as they all require deducible predicates which themselves might not be qualify as easily as is being assumed. Here is a quick an introductory breakdown before we go into deeper anaysis:

## Rationales and their predicates
1. These are the vaccines we have
- Assumes that they are more efficacious than not.
- Assumes that the most important threat affected by these vaccines is the SARS-CoV2 virus
- Assumes that they provide a net benefit
2. They are proven
- Assumes that the data which has been aggregated thus far leans in one direction
- Assumes that the means by which we evaluate the data is rigorous and helpful
- Assumes that they are proven on the basis of any degree of efficacy
3. They can mitigate the remaining threat
- Assumes they we have agreed upon targets which, if met, signal the end of the threat
- Assumes that in cases where the targets are being met, the threat has been mitigated and policy is changed as expected
- Assumes that in places where the vaccines have been used to the degree that was initially proposed, the threat is lower than in places where the vaccines have not been used to the same degree.
4. They rediec the risk of future outbreaks of variants
- Assumes that the rate and type of mutations that have been incurred thus far are worrisome
- Assumes that the likelihood of producing a dangerous variant increased on the basis of there being a lower level of vaccination.

## Analysis

### These are the vaccines we have

#### More efficacious than not
Are they more efficacious than not? What sort of measurement would lead to such a conclusion? Are we performing that measurement? If so, what conclusion are we arriving at? Are these conclusions localized or universal? What can be done to improve the measurement process?

##### Efficacy
When the public is told that a treatment is efficacious, what they take in is essentially the following:
1. The theat you should be most concerned about is that of COVID-19
2. This treatment will stop you from getting COVID-19
3. This treatment will stop you from transmitting COVID-19.
4. This treatment is efficacious in mitigating the threat of disease,

##### The threat you should be most concerned about is that of COVID-19
One needn't look too hard to see that there are exist other mortal threats which cause greater damage both in intensity and in numbers of persons affected. The argument against these concerns is to say that the damage brought about by COVID-19 is less understood, causes long term damage that we aren't yet able to observe, leads to future pandemics that are much worse, and leads to greater socioeconomic distress than other threats.

I'm not sure any of those statements can be qualified, but they are the arguments that are used against bringing up other threats, in spite of the fact that not only are the other threats more serious by the immediate numbers, immediate numbers that have been enhanced due to our states' and world's influential elite focusing all resources towards mitigation of the COVID threat, but that are being potentiated across unknown time scales that cannot be predicted except insofar that we should reasonably expect the causative effect to be an increase.

##### This treatment will stop you from getting COVID-19
It has been declared many times by public health officials, politicians, the media, and other private professionals of all stripes, that taking the vaccine will stop you from getting infected with COVID-19 and stop you from being hospitalized and dying.

This has not been proven. In fact, it has been shown over and over again to be false, and declared as such even by the very same public health organizations that previously assured us this would not be the case.

In spite of these realizations, many professionals, and most politicians, have continued to make the case that the vaccines will stop you from getting COVID-19

##### This treatment will stop you from transmitting COVID-19
This was the big one. The crux of the argument for mandating vaccines, coercing people to take vaccines, and for even allowing for persons to be taking vaccines whose key clinical trials are still ongoing, was on the basis of stating that herd immunity could be achieved through their use.

Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as it is well known that these vaccines do not:
a) provide protection in the upper respiratory tract
b) stop you from being infected with SARS-CoV2
c) stop you from transmitting SARS-CoV2 to others

##### This treatment is efficacious in mitigating the threat of disease