As I was performing my daily research for my next radio show I came across an article in the Detroit Free Press.  The title of that article was “Why Michigan's 70% vaccination target could be hard to reach”.

I found the topic to be interesting so I clicked on the title and found the very first two sentences contradicting their title and the goal of the piece.  Those two sentences were:

“Michigan needs to vaccinate 70-80% of its residents to reach herd immunity against COVID-19.

But the state faces a hurdle: the 25% of Michiganders who say they will not or are not likely to get the shot, according to new survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau.”

I thought to myself what type of math are they using?  If you take the 25% of Michigan residents who “will not” or “are not likely” to get a vaccination shot and subtract that number from 100% of the population you come to 75%.

In my math, 75% is exactly in the middle between the 70-80% of residents needed to reach herd immunity.  That is including all of the people the article states who “are not likely” to get a vaccination shot, meaning they may actually get the shot.  Interesting that they did not break out the numbers between Michigan residents who “will not” or “are not likely” to get a vaccination shot.  That 75% number that I calculated, without a calculator mind you, could be as high as 80 to 95 percent, we just do not know because they do not give us those numbers.

Are they using common core math and the real answer does not matter as long as you try hard to solve the subtraction problem and throw some social justice in there you are good to go?

Regardless if you believe any government “scientist” or private industry scientist concerning the 70-80% that is needed to reach herd immunity, that is not what I am attempting to understand or point out.  If the Detroit Free Press or anyone else who runs this story, I am looking at you Lansing State Journal, do not understand that the first two sentences undermine the entire reason for the article, then what else are they missing as they attempt to report the news.

If the “news” reporters and their editors cannot even discern that they have a math problem, a math problem that undermines the entire reason for the article how can anyone trust anything these “news” organizations publish?  On top of that, we have other “news” sites picking up this story and not even finding and or questioning what I determined the second I read it.

Be very wary of any “news” sites or stations that would pass along this story and not even question it.

If I am missing something here that is not my fault, it is the fault of the person who wrote this article and their editors.  The numbers they have given us simply do not add up or I should say subtract down below the 70% they state is needed.

If I was the editor I would have pointed out the math problem the article has as well have asked the question what do you mean by residents or population, are residents below the age of 18 to be considered.  Both of those questions should have been asked before publishing this piece.  If they were perhaps they would not look so foolish.

Be careful of what “news” source you read, listen to or watch.  If they miss simple things like I pointed out what are they missing on the really hard to discuss issues?  That is the question you should ask yourself.

The Live with Renk show airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon, to let me know your thoughts call (269) 441-9595

LOOK: Stunning vintage photos capture the beauty of America's national parks

Today these parks are located throughout the country in 25 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The land encompassing them was either purchased or donated, though much of it had been inhabited by native people for thousands of years before the founding of the United States. These areas are protected and revered as educational resources about the natural world, and as spaces for exploration.

Keep scrolling for 50 vintage photos that show the beauty of America's national parks.