"Vaccination status is determined by matching to Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) data."
Completely ignoring the 225 that don't show up on the immunisation register means leaving the real world behind. There's a pretty good chance that the people who don't show up in the immunization register are not vaccinated.
In fact the document referred to says: "... people who are not vaccinated remain far more likely to suffer severe COVID-19. The minority of the overall population who have not been vaccinated are significantly overrepresented among patients in hospitals and ICUs with COVID-19"
OK. That doesn't change the stats. 25% are NOT being ignored. Any stats like these will always include an unknown category. It IS normal to draw conclusions from stats with an unknown subset. Or do you do math differently than everyone else trained in stats?
Here's what you wrote, in case you decide to edit it after I've already replied, which is what you've been doing:
Just pointing out that any conclusion drawn from ignoring 25% of the data is going to be shaky.
The 225 you're ignoring, out of 918, are the ones who don't show up on the list of people who are vaccinated. I wonder how many of them are not vaccinated, and should be added to the 1 "no dose".
For anyone who is wondering:
"Vaccination status is determined by matching to Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) data."
Completely ignoring the 225 that don't show up on the immunisation register means leaving the real world behind. There's a pretty good chance that the people who don't show up in the immunization register are not vaccinated.
In fact the document referred to says: "... people who are not vaccinated remain far more likely to suffer severe COVID-19. The minority of the overall population who have not been vaccinated are significantly overrepresented among patients in hospitals and ICUs with COVID-19"
Don't take our word for it. Read it yourself: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20220723.pdf
Is your reply intended to refute the stats that i posted? It doesn’t.
Just pointing out that any conclusion drawn from ignoring 25% of the data is going to be shaky.
OK. That doesn't change the stats. 25% are NOT being ignored. Any stats like these will always include an unknown category. It IS normal to draw conclusions from stats with an unknown subset. Or do you do math differently than everyone else trained in stats?
Here's what you wrote, in case you decide to edit it after I've already replied, which is what you've been doing:
The 225 you're ignoring, out of 918, are the ones who don't show up on the list of people who are vaccinated. I wonder how many of them are not vaccinated, and should be added to the 1 "no dose".