They're always pretty good at nailing the simple maths equations, however I do think it is critical to understand the statistical analysis and then to consider the potential biases that just might be squirrelled away in the calculation process to suit the data collection models.
As any person who actually listened to their high school maths teacher in year 8-9 or 10 should know, the percentage claim for any statistical analysis can vary wildly from very solid to the “consistency of a turd in a 20 litre bucket of water that’s been sitting on the back of a Ute for a week”.
Depending on how the accurate the inputs are and how robust the format is for the data collection.
98% is plausible but only in the world of creative accounting and I can almost guarantee you that the person who first stood up and referenced the 98%, had their fingers crossed.
PS Have you ever met a person/people who got the Jab accreditation by nefarious means (didn’t take the shot or got the Jabber to squeeze the juice out onto the floor?
