Its called base rate fallacy and was predicted 2 years ago.

 As usual TheGatewayPundit doesn't reference the source and cherry-picks the information they want you to look at.  I wonder why that is.

"Base rate fallacy? The definition of it makes me wonder how it would possibly apply."

 Did you read the information your source used as reference? It appears to be clear they are directly referencing base rate fallacy in point 1 and partially in point 2, both left out of The Gateway Pundit's article.  I wonder why that is.


You dismissed that report, using what data?

 I'm not dismissing anything, observing something is not equal to dismissal.  I am using the link You provided and reading the associated information. Then also reading the additional information TGP conveniently did not provide a link to, that it referenced.  There is no way you could read the WaPo article, the two studies and TGP articles and say that TGP didn't select a few specific sentences.


"And, BTW, it was the WaPo, "

 Agreed.  You don't see a significant difference in what WaPo said versus what The Gateway Pundit is saying?  TGP omits a ton of the WaPo information and conveniently doesn't even link to what they are getting the information from.

 Or is this another situation of referencing a full paragraph, then saying just look at sentences 1,2 and3..ignore sentence 4 and 5, then look at sentence 6.  Do not use all of the information, just the cherry-picked sentences.

 
"But, maybe this will help"

 When you read that article you referenced here, what did you get from the ratio shift information?

 Base rate fallacy, in this case, basically means that the percentage number of vaccinated humans that die - will become larger because more humans are vaccinated.

 If 10% of the population wear only White shirts in January, then by December 80% wear only White shirts, it should be expected that a higher percentage of people that go into McDonalds will have White shirts right?  80% of everyone you see have that White shirt on.

 A reporter observes that 7 in 100 people in a Mcdonalds wear White shirts in January, but by December almost everyone is.  75 out of 100 are wearing White shirts!  Huge increase!  White shirts are now associated with congestive heart problems and obesity.  The "proof" is the huge percentage increase.

 Or, is it that as the overall population of White shirt wearing humans gets closer to 100%, you will have a higher percentage of White shirt wearing humans die?


 Lets say 5 in 100 drivers in TX are on motorcycles today.  In two years 86 out of 100 drivers in TX are on motorcycles.  Would you expect to see an increase of motorcycle riders in hospitals if that happened?

 Would it make sense to outlaw motorcycles based off of an increase hospital records if there was also an 85% increase of motorcycles on the road?

 Yes but Covid death rates are expected at this volume at this time and these claims were predicted before a vaccine was even available because this is how math works.

 Covid still kills the older humans easier than middle aged.  Older humans were the first, and percentage-wise highest count category of vaccinated humans.  

 If motorcyclists made up 86% of traffic, and of that 86%, most of those that died were over age 70, we would attribute that to more than just motorcycles.  The higher risk of motorcycles is a factor.  Also Age, response times, recovery potential, influx of younger drivers in trucks etc. come into play.

 So in this case the vaccine being less likely to work over a long term, the unprecedented variant structures, age, treatment options all take part.  But to get the numbers TGP posts, one has to ignore the base rate and selectively choose the numbers available.  


 The primary issue I have with this is that people argued all day long that almost all deaths are considered to be death "FROM" Covid, like car wrecks, then they want to use those same sources to show more vaccinated humans die from Covid.  WTF?  After years of claiming it's wrong the same data is what you use?

 Anyone with Covid die "FROM" Covid.  An outrage, an obviously false statistic that can't be trusted.

 Data shows mostly vaccinated humans die "FROM" Covid.  Now its factually accurate and can be trusted.

 Cherry picking.

"But it doesn't reflect negatively on the jab?"

 It shouldn't since all the information is from a duplicitous source that inflated Covid numbers.  The CDC's provisional coding method considers any human "with" Covid as dying "FROM" Covid remember?

 So now, using that same data, we are supposed to accept that more vaccinated people die from Covid.  

 Can you see the issue I have?  If people are going to insist (incorrectly) that the CDC is inflating Covid death numbers by policy that has not changed, why are they now using those numbers?  


 As for reflecting negatively on the jab, IF we accept that the CDC provisional coding isn't a used mortality statistic, (which Your own sources already said) AND they never said to classify people "with" Covid as dying "FROM" Covid then we can logically discuss what this latest information actually means.  But claiming both is mathematically impossible, illogical, and just plain ridiculous.

 

"It was beneficial to the narrative to inflate the danger, driving the jabs."

 Ok so did the CDC say to Code humans "with" Covid as dying "FROM" Covid?  This is a simple yes or No.

 That material is what TGP and WaPo are using in the information You referenced here.

 
"You can't actually believe what you said. It's ridiculous."

Its all here on this forum.  Multiple claims that the CDC's provisional coding is inflating numbers of people dead "FROM" Covid.  Did this happen?

"God FUKKING DAMMIT, I said what I said.
IDK WHO decided to lie to us, but people were labeled DEAD FROM COVID who died and Had covid.

 Ok so you think people who "HAD" Covid were classified as dying "FROM" Covid.  The material You referenced - Is the exact same data being used today to show people that are vaccinated are dying FROM Covid at a higher ratio.

 You are saying the information "lied to us" but now today you are ok using information that uses the:

Exact.  
Same.  
Data.


 So why is that exact same data correct and not lies today?  Oh they just changed it.  So if the data is just altered to fit a narrative - stop using it to prove your stance - its lies.  Does it reflect poorly on the jab?  Not if it's lies.

 No matter how it reflects on the jab, it uses information You claimed is lies for over a year now.  Again I read something for you, try to tell you what it says and you tell me I am wrong.  


"If they Increased the dead From Covid then they would also increase the dead after they took the jab civic deaths."

 If?  To you there is no "If".  You are wrong, they don't use those stats to calculate mortality statistics, no matter what website or Facebook picture lies to you about it.  

 If a higher percentage of the population is vaccinated a higher portion of the population dying will be vaccinated humans.  What TGP did was omit information.  What did you get from the Ratio information in the article You referenced that TGP didn't acknowledge?  

 You say WaPO isn't reading the RIGHT stuff, the stuff You wont read, and then argue with people that do.  The vaccine is not as effective as claimed, but the method TGP is using to state that is intentionally misleading and is using the same information tables You said were lies.