It's simple enough to ascertain if the deaths from batch 1 jabs are excessive or not, by comparing death rates of unjabbed of that age group. A problem with that is whether there is even a sizable sample of unjabbed elderly patients in nursing homes to use as a control anymore!
Of the 10 sites all of them but 1 are 25% or higher rates of death, which is higher than I would expect for people over 65 on average. However, the fact of some of these folks being in nursing homes, particularly the Te Hopai home that provided advanced nursing service, definitely changes expectations. These are questions for statisticians that have data sets to query they can sort for co-morbidities. Steve Kirsch said Norman Fenton, a reputable statistician, considers the data solid.
I wondered about the way the rates are expressed, without relation to controls for the image provided above, or as deaths per day for the national NZ figures, rather than as a % or rate as is usual for such reckonings, but recall that Winston Smith isn't a statistician, but an IT guy. We'll see how that information is responded to, sooner or later.
Thanks!
You are right about he death rates - I do hope there is gold in the data somewhere - but then again, maybe it will take time in finding it - the fact is, that the death rates are higher - as we know, with released gov data - so there is a massive rise - will see what is in this new data though (which I hope is legit). Also about the nursing homes - it seems far higher than I would have thought as well. But who knows.
And you are right - Winston is not a statistician. It might be a case of he thought it was good, but it had holes. I believe, that the gov was trying to cloud all the data anyway - we know they hardly recorded side effects - put wall after wall in front of people to stop them recording them.
Thanks!