The study claims to have developed their reference points using encrypted identifiers from official government registries. In other words, they exploited private medical data tracked by the Canadian government. By cross referencing vaccination status with severe traffic accidents the group asserts that the unvaccinated are 72% more likely to harm themselves or others in the process of a car wreck.
There are two problems immediately evident from a scientific standpoint:
One, the group admits that a much larger portion of people who are unvaccinated were younger, ages 18-39. This makes perfect sense, because the vast majority of young people are at near zero risk of mortality from a covid infection. The median Infection Fatality rate of covid is a tiny 0.23%, and the younger you are, the more the IFR shrinks. Why get a vaccine for a virus that is no threat to your age group, and that doesn't prevent transmission to those around you anyway?
But beyond that, younger people are also statistically more likely to get into car accidents by virtue of age, inexperience and more reckless behavior. While teens are known for auto accidents, insurance companies rate people ages 25 – 34 as the deadliest drivers on the road. This age group, coincidentally, makes up the bulk of the Temerty Faculty's unvaccinated test case.
In other words, the study seems to ignore the age factor in an effort to support the unvaccinated factor. Maybe their vaccine status has nothing to do with their risky behavior and their younger age is the actual cause? Which is more likely given the circumstance?
Two, another problem with the study is the complete lack of peer review and the inability for independent analysis of their core data. The group claims to have used encrypted government medical data that is unavailable to the public (rather convenient, right?). While certain government officials might be able to get quick access, there is no way for the general public to look at this data to see if their claims are accurate or if the study is rigged. They could, frankly, say whatever they want about the unvaccinated being dangerous and no one would be able to disprove it for quite some time.
Perhaps a couple of years down the road the study will be debunked, but as in most cases of dubious and potentially politically motivated science the headlines stick in people's minds while no one notices the retractions.
But what would be the motive for exaggerating this kind of study other than to try to make the unvaccinated look bad? Consider the possibility of insurance as leverage.
Most people are required by law to have insurance of one kind or another, including car insurance, and the premiums they have to pay are based on a company's (or government's) determination of risk. Imagine if your insurance rates in every area skyrocketed because you are unvaccinated and are considered high risk? This is likely the root purpose of studies like the one in Toronto.
Punish the unvaccinated by institutionalizing vaccine status into every facet of life, including car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, business insurance, etc. Another point of leverage would be credit. Many bank loans are also based the concept of low risk, but if you are unvaccinated and labeled high risk in life and in finances then you could be rejected for future access to funds.
The basic strategy is this: Use high costs to force the unvaccinated into compliance, and slowly whittle the public down. These people won't give up easily, and since the direct route of medical tyranny has failed, they have decided to use indirect chicanery to get what they want.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/OK4EYZMALJBM3OT43KAWBBCCNQ.jpg)
