Your 90% figure seems statistically impossible given the current data. Are you using old data or is 90% pulled out of someone’s a$$? What makes a variant a variant? A variant is a variant because in order for Covid to continue to infect people, it needs to mutate in order to overcome natural and manmade immunity. Therefore, Covid vaccines based on “Mutation Zero” should not be expected to be highly effective against subsequent Covid mutations, such as the soon to be obsolete Delta variant. Further, considering that vaccinated in MN is 79.4% and there should also be a sizable number of people who have natural immunity as well. Who is left to get infected at this point? Just as people can get infected with seasonal colds and the flu each year, they can with Covid, vaccinated or not. Reality is a bitch, isn’t? No wonder vaccine producer shills attempt to distort it.
Since you have terrible problems with basic math... let's walk through it. Minnesota has a state population of 5,706,494 as per the 2020 Census. 76.9% of the population of Minnesota is 18 and older as per the 2020 Census. 76.9% of 5,706,494 people yields 4,389,033 people who are 18 and older in Minnesota. Let's go to the Minnesota portal on Covid vaccinations regarding the number of partial doses provided to people who are 18 & older. 18-49 = 1,553,513 50-64 = 857,283 65+ = 823,328 Unknown = 46 ==================== Total = 3,234,170 adults 18+ with a single (partial) vaccination dose Let's do the math. 3,234,170 / 4,389,033 = 73.7% A mere 73.7% of the adults in Minnesota are partially vaccinated when actually going through the math based on the numbers of people. Once again the Tweet you are pushing is pure misinformation.
The percentage of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are very well documented by the KFF and CDC. It is easy to look up and see that over 95% of the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the U.S. are UNVACCINATED. Similarly the percent of vaccinated breakthrough cases is below 0.5% -- which is very good. Here is the KFF information - https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/
You still don't get it. Its quite amazing how unable you are to think one step ahead here. You really are a horrible fucking analyst. I can't imagine how anyone pays you anything to analyze data. Lets assume for a second that everything you've said thus far on this subject is true. That would imply that you've first argued the tweet is false because you said 66.5% was the correct number, not 80%. This is in the quote from your post (I can get it again if you want). Then I point out that the number on the first page of the site which references the CDC says 79.4%, and you say "Ah ha!! See? the Tweet is wrong!" while simultaneously ignoring that the number is different than your previous assertion by orders of magnitude. So now we have two numbers GWB is accepting as correct: 66.5 and 79.4. Then you do your population analysis thing above and you come up with a third number where you claim is correct at 73.7% that you triumphantly shout to the heavens shows the tweet is incorrect. So now we have three numbers GWB thinks is correct: 66.5, 79.4 and 73.7. Since these are all supposedly telling us the same thing from your lips, they can't all be correct, can they? Which number do you want to choose here, GWB? You've essentially fucked yourself here, because if you choose the 73.7% number, then you're admitting to lying twice that you had the correct number before until I pointed you to the census. This is my point - you never actually check anything, you just spout nonsense and narrative - leaping to the narrative immediately without first checking. This is a perfect example. Which number is correct, GWB? Don't worry, I know its hard - even the MN state website can't reconcile its 79.4 and 73.7% numbers (conflicting data). So someone as dumb as you hasn't a prayer. Let me throw you a bone here. Here is the actual CDC data at the CDC. You'll notice this brings in a fourth number of 79.8% when you select 18+ and one dose. Its right there in the link - go right ahead and check. I'll wait. Percent of Population 18+ receiving one dose: 79.8% Now, I know what you're going to do. You're going to cling desperately to the fact that the "tweet is misinformation" because the author said "80%" even though his chart clearly shows the right data: See how the line almost hits 80 but juuuuusst...falls short? The author simplified by rounding 79.8% to 80% - but in GWB NPC's overly pedantic world in desperation to prove the data as wrong, says this is misinformation. So let me correct the data with apologies to the author for having to deal with someone so desperate to be right that he discounts the entire premise of the tweet based on rounding 79.8 to 80.00 and as such, dismisses the whole message of the tweet. Here we go...are you ready? TADAAAAA!!!!! You know its pretty bad when you have to cling to 79.8 not being called "80" in order to discredit the entire premise of the thought.
First. let's review what I stated in my earlier post. Here it is again. "While we are at it -- let's take a look at the full and partial vaccination rates in Minnesota as of November 13th. The partial vaccination rate is a mere 66.5% -- nowhere near the 80% claimed by this clown you reposted from Twitter. Of course he weasel-words with 80% of adults which is also demonstratively incorrect - Minnesota has not achieved this level of partially vaccinated adults yet." Secondly, the Minnesota website states today that the partially vaccinated rate of adults (18+) is 79.4%. The number was lower last week at the time of this tweet. That the CDC is showing a 79.8% figure today is meaningless. While you are at it -- why don't you just pull the figure today and argue the Minnesota vaccination rate in February 2021 for adults was 80%. Time is an important concept. As outlined many times in the past, the Tweets from this Covid-denier, ianmSC, cherry-picks data in an attempt to push a false narrative aligned with their politics rather than reality. Many times the data pushed in his tweets are materially incorrect -- like his claim that Minnesota has a 80% partial vaccination rate for adults at the time of this tweet is factual wrong.
Right. you said 66.5%. That is completely wrong with any of the data we've found on the MN site, the CDC or your own math. Why is the CDC data meaningless? You can't just say "its meaningless" without saying why. I agree time is an important concept, but you can say "80%" when you're right at 80% (and 79.8 or 79.4% is "at" 80). It doesn't change the message of the data and chart where a highly vaccinated state is running at the highest case rate in the country (which you also tried to argue is false but were wrong). You "outline" bullshit daily around here. Doesn't make any of it right.
I stated 66.5% of the population and provided the chart and link to the source of the data showing this. I then outlined how the Tweet poster weasel-worded to use 80% of adults -- which was still a false statement at the time the Tweet was published. So was the CDC website showing 79.8% last week when this Tweet was published -- no it was not. Time is an important concept -- you should learn about it.
This is what you said The Partial Vaccination Rate is a Mere 66.5% - nowhere near the 80%. That's it, word for word. You can check the link. Your statement is complete horseshit. Like, not even close. It was three days ago, and the CDC didn't update for today yet. So yeah, its accurate.