I track Alberta data and have noticed a flurry of similar occurrences. I am convinced their two most effective tools are 1) not adjusting summary statistics by person years lived 2) changing denominators on rate equations (ie. Remove one unvaccinated everytime someone gets vaxxed in a given time period, do not adjust the numerator). Alberta does this with time frames as far as 120 days which gives insane (implausible) rates for the unvaxxed and I've even had people quote me it as proof the vax works.
In any case, there are dozens of examples of manipulated data on Alberta's vaxx website. It is either foul play or gross incompetence. I suspect if you look into Santa Clara further this will be the least of the problems you find.
I track Alberta data and have noticed a flurry of similar occurrences. I am convinced their two most effective tools are 1) not adjusting summary statistics by person years lived 2) changing denominators on rate equations (ie. Remove one unvaccinated everytime someone gets vaxxed in a given time period, do not adjust the numerator). Alberta does this with time frames as far as 120 days which gives insane (implausible) rates for the unvaxxed and I've even had people quote me it as proof the vax works.
What adjusting for person years lived does:
https://jestre.substack.com/p/against-the-spread
In any case, there are dozens of examples of manipulated data on Alberta's vaxx website. It is either foul play or gross incompetence. I suspect if you look into Santa Clara further this will be the least of the problems you find.
I am hoping that my writing would prompt someone who is smarter, to look into Santa Clara. I mean, it is as ridiculous as it gets.