Possibly Higher Insurance Rates for Those Who Are NOT Covid-19 Vaccinated - Due to More Accidents.

Weird..the worst drivers iv'e seen are the ones wearing masks. The brain fog must be rough after the pokey pokes.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Yahhh, me no vax. me idiut, me stoopid. Me cant C strate. HAALP.

Me gonna get Jabber then git Freee Donut From dunken donut. Donut healthy. Then me wont B idiot no more.

a reply to: carewemust

That seems like they are trying to threaten those who are un vaccinated that they will be hit or run by vehicles.

I dont believe threatening articles like these isnt going to convince the most if not the majority who arent vaccinated.

These statistics are probably accurate. Seeing as unvaccinated people continued on with their lives like usual while the vaccinated people stayed inside and didn't drive anywhere.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

Possibly Higher Insurance Rates for Those Who Are NOT Covid-19 Vaccinated - Due to More Accidents.

Due to more instances of sickness and/or hospitalization, death, or long covid, and healthcare costs associated with that. For the idiots who won't get vaccinated.

Christ I knew at least one Lefty would jump on here defending this ridiculous story.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

Possibly Higher Insurance Rates for Those Who Are NOT Covid-19 Vaccinated - Due to More Accidents.

Due to more instances of sickness and/or hospitalization, death, or long covid, and healthcare costs associated with that. For the idiots who won't get vaccinated.

Christ I knew at least one Lefty would jump on here defending this ridiculous story.

Reminds me of a skier that’s had three knee surgeries b!tching that smokers cost the health system time and money.

Age....Older people have less accidents -----Older people get vaccinated at higher rates

Did they compare the same demographic groups or just lump two groups together.

Look at the graph on this website:
aaafoundation.org...

I bet if you compared the groups, you would find vaccinated have a higher rate of gray hair - it doesn't mean the vaccination caused gray hair.

You have to compare demographic group to demographic group.

Hey everybody check this out!

Study Claims Unvaccinated People More Likely To Be Reckless, Cause Traffic Accidents

This is the product of Zero Hedge, who published this article which - when compared with our conversation - seems to be something that we collectively "called." I have to wonder, has someone been reading ATS?

originally posted by: JAY1980
These statistics are probably accurate. Seeing as unvaccinated people continued on with their lives like usual while the vaccinated people stayed inside and didn't drive anywhere.

The study was over a 1 month period.....when many younger drivers had not yet received there dose.
Younger drivers have more accidents generally..... that's why their insurance is higher.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

To me, that is just another sign that this was done with the intent of justifying one of two things: raising insurance rates further, OR as fodder to vilify the unvaccinated.

The study was either poorly analyzed, or it was intended to be used disingenuously from the start.

a reply to: carewemust
The unvaccinated was constantly persecuted, belittled and shunned by the authorities, their peers and family.
The uncertainty about what is next in store for them put them under constant stress and very likely gave them sleepless nights.
Conclusion: The unvaccinated were more prone to accidents due to induced intense stress.

On a further note, since more and more info are coming out vindicating the "untampered bloods" on one side and on the other side the incidence of sudden death is increasing resulting in an increase in stress amongst the "fked up bloods" and their family, we can also postulate that there will a bigger increase in accidents amongst them soon.

I doubt a statistics like that would be a predictive variable alone, although considering the complexity of different machine learning model algorithms (for example XGBoost), it is likely a feature liked that would have some influence on the model score.

Once, my company was involved in creating a credit scoring model for a bank. In the end, a variable like iPhone user was included in the model (in addition to 300 more variables). In a dataset of tens of millions, the variable in combination with other variables proved to be predictive enough to affect the actual model performance. So if you are iPhone user in certain age group with certain other characteristics, it affects your credit score.

Considering my social sphere, I would say, to be honest, that at least the ones who are the loudest about being against vaccination, are definetely riskier group, at least when it would come to insurance or credit score. They tend to be less educated and highly anti-government, anti-police, anti-rules. At least based, on what back when I knew them, they were always into some shady stuff. They acted similarly in traffic, based on common sense and self confidence, not the actual rules. "I am good driver, it is ok to speed a bit".

Although I do not want to generalize. I myself are unvaccinated (the only one out of my closer circle). I am not proud of it though, it was simply my decision at the moment and if necessary, for example for travel or work, I would not mind taking the vaccine.

But to sum it up, the models are somewhat of a black boxes. They are simply mathemathical algorithms and if some variable adds value on a larger dataset and improves the model performance, it can save the companies millions long-term. It is not discrimination.

originally posted by: Cabin
...
Considering my social sphere, I would say, to be honest, that at least the ones who are the loudest about being against vaccination, are definetely riskier group, at least when it would come to insurance or credit score. They tend to be less educated and highly anti-government, anti-police, anti-rules. At least based, on what back when I knew them, they were always into some shady stuff. They acted similarly in traffic, based on common sense and self confidence, not the actual rules. "I am good driver, it is ok to speed a bit".

Although I do not want to generalize. I myself are unvaccinated (the only one out of my closer circle). I am not proud of it though, it was simply my decision at the moment and if necessary, for example for travel or work, I would not mind taking the vaccine.

But to sum it up, the models are somewhat of a black boxes. They are simply mathemathical algorithms and if some variable adds value on a larger dataset and improves the model performance, it can save the companies millions long-term. It is not discrimination.

I disagree.

People paying attention are well aware of exactly how statistical "models" are "used in public communications" in the real world. We can certainly see who uses them the most..., economists, social engineers, weather forecasters, politicians, lobbyists, fund managers, speculators, environmental activists..., oh and insurance companies.

You'll pardon me if I pass on attributing any benevolence to statistics in media - which are subject to whims of the analyst and the presumably all-knowing authors who actually 'design' the models themselves.

Algorithms are layers upon layers of mathematic formulas. Mathematical formulas are not "black boxes". They hold no mysteries.

The reason that they take the form of "black boxes" is because they are allowed to be considered "trade secrets" in certain industries. However industry lobbyists managed to secure protective secrecy for algorithmic pricing is another story entirely, but it isn't something we can ignore and treat as if that means "this is just the way the world works."

I am assuming sincerity in your observations regarding those characteristics you attribute to people who refused to get a vaccine. But your list of characteristics is, at least, disappointing. But I cannot judge, as it is a matter of who you know, not me. I agree there can be too many reasons for not getting it that don't translate to generalizations of judgement about people. (And of course, the obverse is true.)

But not so with an insurance company. They are legitimized in their biases by 'black box' algorithms and some air of unquestionability.

I think it is a text-book example of bias - if the criterion cited is specific to vaccination obedience. And I grant it may not be - but they are not actually saying that.

I think it's the presumption being that those who "don't do as their told" lessen "profit" for the insurance companies. In my opinion, it is because to them this who they should gamble on ... people who will 'obey.' People who obey, don't object to the proclamations of authorities, like Insurance companies.

Insurance companies profit by gambling on the 'profitability' of coverage. They "invest" that profit the same way a bank does. In effect, an insurance company is just a bank... another financial gambling institution. They maximize the revenue stream by wagering coverage against the probability of having to endure a "payout," which they no doubt characterize as a "loss." They expend great energies to actively manage payout circumstances, (often relying on fine-print minutia do reduce their exposure to this "loss.") Avoiding payouts represents the majority of interactions between their clients and the company. Towards that end, they will encourage and discourage coverage through rate manipulation.

I think there is more dimensionality to the publication of this information. I agree that it is unworthy - in and of itself - to impose these alleged rate hikes based solely upon vaccination status.

But this article make that impression fairly clearly. Perhaps engendering more angst against those who dare to question the government of Canada, and refuse the privilege of participating in the great COVIID experiment. Lord knows, they can never give these people enough grief...

When digital currency is globally imposed, they will be able to punish people directly. And this is exactly the kind of opportunity they will use to do it. Because we allow them to "decide" based upon commercially provided "black box" statistics.

Sorry, I digress...

originally posted by: starviego
There is no logical reason why non-vaccinated people would have higher accident rates. So I am calling BEX on this so-called 'scientific' study.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

Possibly Higher Insurance Rates for Those Who Are NOT Covid-19 Vaccinated - Due to More Accidents.

Due to more instances of sickness and/or hospitalization, death, or long covid, and healthcare costs associated with that. For the idiots who won't get vaccinated.

Christ I knew at least one Lefty would jump on here defending this ridiculous story.

Reminds me of a skier that’s had three knee surgeries b!tching that smokers cost the health system time and money.

originally posted by: JAY1980
These statistics are probably accurate. Seeing as unvaccinated people continued on with their lives like usual while the vaccinated people stayed inside and didn't drive anywhere.

Purebloods should get a discount on health insurance. This study is bogus and created for price gouging.