Two exciting new models have been released. One says the vaccinated should fear the unvaccinated. The second, a new scientific Artificial Intelligence computer mathematical model, has concluded Experts should be launched into space.
William M Briggs, who calls himself the Statistician to the Stars!, is lead author of the second study. “This exciting new model, done on a computer, is very scientific. It has many science equations in it. It concludes Experts have to be launched into space.”
Dr Briggs has a PhD degree from an Ivy League university, which allowed him to code his mathematical science model on a computer. “Not only should Experts be launched into space,” said Dr Briggs, “But they should not be afforded the luxury of a spacesuit.”
Dr Briggs also said that the model insists this should be done as soon as possible.
Dr David N. Fisman, co-author of the new model on covid vaccination, and one of the Experts who will soon be slung into the outer void, said, “I don’t like the idea. But I am powerless to dispute a computer science math model. My fate is sealed,” he added.
It’s true, dear readers. My model is on a computer and is therefore indisputable. Fisman is at least wise enough to understand this. He, Afia Amoako and Ashleigh R. Tuite, are responsible for the peer-reviewed paper “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission” in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Here’s how propagandists are portraying the paper: “Being with unvaccinated people increases COVID-19 risk for those who are vaccinated: modelling study”.
The research published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that vaccinated people who mix with those who are not vaccinated have a significantly greater chance of being infected than those who stick with people who have received the shot.
In contrast, unvaccinated people’s risk of contracting COVID-19 drops when they spend time with people who are vaccinated, because they serve as a buffer to transmission, according to the mathematical model used in the study.
Ah. A mathematical model. Well, there’s no questioning these. Right?
This mathematical says that your vaccine stops working when you’re withing so many feet of an unvaccinated person. Just as the Kamala Harris speculated when she said we had to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.
Vaccines are funny things! When they appear in mathematical science models. Like this one (my emphasis):
Methods: We constructed a simple susceptible–infectious–recovered compartmental model of a respiratory infectious disease with 2 connected subpopulations: people who were vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated. We simulated a spectrum of patterns of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups that ranged from random mixing to complete like-with-like mixing (complete assortativity), in which people have contact exclusively with others with the same vaccination status…
The emphasized words tell you all you need to know. That—and do let me know if you’ve heard this before—all models only say what they are told to say!
A model that says the vaccinated should stay away from the unvaccinated was told to say that.
It is, of course, possible for a model to be told something useful. Did this one?
Writing of this amazing new work, physician Byram W. Bridle, says “Fisman, et al. is only thinly veiled hate speech under the guise of science.”
Bridle identified a number of places where the model was told to say the wrong things. The list is large. I’ll quote only one (the shortest):
Fatal flaw: “We did not model waning immunity”. I was flabbergasted by this assumption. COVID-19 ‘vaccine’-induced immunity is ridiculously short-lived. In contrast, naturally acquired immunity is much longer-lived. This differential effect would have had a major influence on the outcome of the mathematical model. This assumption by the authors ignores obvious scientific facts.
He also, God bless him, had the patience to work through the Fisman model, which is in Excel (yes). Bridle found the whole thing revolved around one bad assumption. “Correcting only this one assumption completely reverses the conclusions of the paper.”
Once again, and all together: all models only say what they are told to say. And this one was told to say something asinine.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.