A peer reviewed clinical research study using data from Canada over a 30 day period in 2021 declares that the unvaxxed are 72% more likely to be in a car crash, and they posited several hypotheses that might explain the correlation.
A limitation of our study is that correlation does not mean causality because our data do not explore potential causes of vaccine hesitancy or risky driving. One possibility relates to a distrust of government or belief in freedom that contributes to both vaccination preferences and increased traffic risks. 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. Alternative factors could include political identity, negative past experiences, limited health literacy, or social networks that lead to misgivings around public health guidelines. These subjective unknowns remain topics for more research.
Perhaps we can think of better hypotheses than these experts and their peers. Let’s look at their hypothesis most cited in the establishment media.
“… a distrust of government …”
Seriously?!
Do they actually expect us to believe that those who think government is lying about vaccines also think government is lying about stop signs? Aren’t these experts and their peers able to deduce that every driver has a lifetime of first-hand experience with stop signs and that stop signs are far less complex and far more transparent than all things Covid?
Let’s see how easily we can deduce better hypotheses.
Looking at this peer reviewed article, and without having to do any additional research, we can deduce that the laptop class is far more likely to work remotely and is far more likely to be vaccinated, and that blue collar workers are much less likely to be vaccinated and are much more likely to be driving to work.
We have already outdone the experts, and we can plausibly account for the 72% increase, but there is so much additional analysis we can perform.
For example, we know that the unvaccinated were not allowed to use mass transit in Canada, so that is another reason the unvaccinated were much more likely to be driving.
How did the experts miss these two superior hypotheses? It is already looking as if the difference should be larger than 72%. It is surprising the difference was only 72%.
Let’s continue.
Senior citizens are the most vaccinated and do not have to drive to work.
So the unvaccinated should be in more car crashes than the level found by these experts.
Consider that the percentage of those vaccinated are consistently overestimated, and thus, it will always seem like the unvaccinated are disproportionately higher than expected for any scenario that is actually measured.
What is going on here? Are we just way smarter than these experts and their peers? Are we just way more honest? Maybe it is because we do not have their conflicts of interest.
Now consider the mounting evidence that the vaccinated are disproportionately experiencing sudden health issues (e.g. death) that would incapacitate a driver and thus be more likely to result in the driver’s death at the scene. In some cases, a vaccinated driver who crashed and died because of an adverse event will have been killed by the adverse event, and in other cases will have been killed by the crash.
Did this study consider that possibility?
Ah, this study excluded crashes where the driver died at the scene.
Junk science indeed.
Did this study consider that possibility?
Ah, this study excluded crashes where the driver died at the scene.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the data yourself.
Oh wait, they are not releasing the data.
Junk science indeed.
Let’s not be too hasty though. They did claim that they controlled for age, sex, location, socioeconomic quintile, and medical history …. but that is more junk science. It is also a trick because we are smarter and more honest, so we naturally assume that means they compared crash rates of vaxxed and unvaxxed in the same socioeconomic category, for example, but that is not what they based it on. They said it was “based on demographic databases”. In other words, it is known that a given socioeconomic class has accidents at a known rate relative to another socioeconomic class, so they adjusted for that.
Very sneaky. I wonder if they know they are tricking us, or if they simply tricked themselves, and thereby tricked us as a by product. This reminds me of the kind of doublethink that was necessary to master at an automatic subconscious level just to survive and navigate the authoritarian socialist world in Orwell’s 1984.
Definitely, junk science.