This is why I always lump partially and fully vaccinated together. This is why I include the first 14 days in most of my calculations. This is why private VE was about 40-50% over the last year (less in other places) and public VE was negative (in other words, the vaccine caused cases which meant the chance of getting a case in the vaccinated was higher even if it was slightly lower than the unvaccinated... Ie. Private VE).
Not sure if that makes sense I probably would need a long post or article to fully explain, but in any case, calculating VE for a few months post second dose is idiotic at best.
I understand it perfectly. You should write a post about it regardless when you have time, but I really want the public to understand that the partitioning of risk in such a way that not only tricks the public into doing something riskier is totally unconscionable because you are committing three moral crimes at once - You are misclassifying the outcome of a decision on those who didn't decide, telling those whose decision didn't result in irreversible hazard (survived) that they did something which is why they are alive, and ignoring all those people who did try to do that thing but died as people who didn't decide early enough to do that thing which would have saved their lives when they did exactly that!
Note that 0-14 days post 1st jab is counted as UNVACCINATED! So, at least HALF of the unvaccinated deaths can be safely moved over to the partially VAXXED. Then redraw the charts and have a second look.
So, the Cansino vaccine jabbed counted as partially vaxxed for post one and up to 27 days after the receiving the jab. Unvaxxed received all those that dies within a day of receiving ANY jab (so received them from 1-jabbed and 2-jabbed). Thanks for the clarification!
Two observations from the chart:
1. After Oct. 15, the jabbed and unjabbed experience about same mortality. Meaning, the jab does nothing in terms of mortality.
2. The peak of mortality of unvaxxed and single-jabbed coincide at around Aug. 25, but the peak of mortality of the fully-jabbed is delayed by 3 weeks to Aug. 15. Isn't it strange? Why would that be?
That's two brilliant observations and I wish I had a twitter account so that I could ask the author of that post about the vaccination rollout policy in Malaysia with respect to whether it was pushed on younger/not vulnerable/not at risk/previously infected on the other side of the peak.
Because the cases rates drop precipitously for partially vaccinated around halfway down the wave and I can't know what that does for the size of the denominator.
Basically, if the rates looked higher for those positive at least 1 day after an injection at the start of the wave, the reason could be anything from the delayed or suboptimal immune response in those who were allowed to vaccinate early (immunosenescence ) to severe adverse reaction without rapid death leading to over lower exposure time while in that status but nevertheless getting infected later and testing positive later when they counted as "Fully Vaccinated". Another rather grim reason could be that if the those fully vaccinated were dying from other causes with a delay, it would gradually increase the case-rate due to shrinking denominator. Honestly, don't know how people who are supposed look at these things and worry are not worrying and instead asking us to look away.
How can one explain the spikes of mortality in partially vaccinated when the wave has ended? Why does the partially vaccinated curve for cases have lower rates than fully vaccinated but higher death rate?
It can also be that partially vaccinated eventually transition to fully vaccinated and receiving a second dose of toxins. Now the ones that survived one jab and progressed to two are (a) with a survival bias and (b) dealing with longer term issues? In any case, every pattern is there for some reason to be discovered.
I track the Alberta data closely and about 8% of ALL covid deaths this year were in the first 14 days of the first dose. That number is likely similar in most places, depending on when the vaccination campaign occurred. If it started mid wave and was highly effective (ie. Lots of vaccinations per day), the death toll would be higher. Alberta is partially lower than it should have been because while they started vaccinating during the wave, the distribution was so ineffective that there were not enough people getting jabbed to sustain the wave. In the absence of good data, they force us to make assumptions (if they don't like our assumptions they can release better data), so using 8% of all covid deaths as a baseline for how many unvaccinated should be counted as vaccinated would be a fair assumption.
The only time this doesn't happen is when they publish vaccination data by report date instead of vaccination date and are not very good at reporting. Thanks for doing this. In case you're not on Twitter - https://twitter.com/mdccclxx/status/1476568452869599242?s=20
The part I don't have quite pinned down for my own understanding and so can't communicate effectively on, is the fact that there are so many reports that the unvaccinated make the majority of hospitalizations and deaths. Or in the UK, the rates are 4 to 5 times higher for hospitalization and death. The fact some get caught in the vaccination process doesn't seem that it would fully account for it. Then again maybe I'm not looking at these graphs close enough.
Look at this all-cause mortality chart of 18-39 year olds.
You can see that it's hard to die from Covid if you died from other reasons without a nasopharyngeal swab PCR test (which is not proof that someone didn't die from an infection, but just proof that they didn't get have viral RNA in a specific place in their body).
How can we trust those denominators for the population? The unvaccinated is not a registration event but a lack of event, so the denominators can't be trusted. When we fix the denominators, we get higher mortality in vaccinated.
Also, you will find that the category "Good Health" has the same trendlines as people with "Poor(er) health" in these mortality graphs.
"Figure 4: The higher non-COVID-19 mortality rate for 18 to 39-year-olds who had received a second dose is likely to be explained by the prioritisation of the clinically vulnerable for vaccination
Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for the 18 to 39 years age group by vaccination status and health status, monthly from 1 January to 31 October 2021, England
Embed code
Notes:
Age-specific mortality rates per 100,000 person-years, age-standardised within age groups to the European Standard Population 2013. “Person-years” take into account both the number of people and the amount of time spent in each vaccination status.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures for deaths that occurred between 1 January and 31 October.
95% confidence intervals are indicated by the shaded regions. Where the total number of deaths is less than 100, Dobson’s method is used, otherwise the normal approximation is used. Non-overlapping confidence intervals denote a statistically significant difference in ASMR.
Rates for all ages are not calculated where the total number of deaths is fewer than 10. Rates for age breakdowns are not calculated where the total number of deaths is fewer than three.
Age is defined on the first day of each month.
Health status is defined as ”good” where the number of recorded hospital episodes since 1 January 2020 is fewer than 3 and the number of comorbidities recorded from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2020 is 0, “poor” if the number of hospital episodes is fewer than 12 and the number of comorbidities is fewer than 2, and “very poor” in all other cases. The percentages of 18- to 39-year-olds in our dataset with “very poor”, “poor”, and “good” health are 6.4%, 5.3% and 88.4% respectively.
Download this chart
.xlsx
The analysis of the non-COVID-19 ASMRs show that the changing composition of the groups of people in the different vaccination statuses can have a large effect on mortality, thereby limiting the insights that can be gained from these comparisons. However, the monthly ASMRs for deaths involving COVID-19 are consistently lower for those who had the second dose at least 21 days ago compared to those who are unvaccinated, demonstrating the effect that the vaccine is having on reducing COVID-19 mortality. We will continue to publish updates and analysis on deaths by vaccination status."
The UK Health Security Agency reports undermine the claim of a pandemic of the unvaxxed. Yes, the rate of hospitalization and death is higher in the unvaxxed, but the data sets really aren't comparable (95% versus 5%) is some age cohorts.
In the UKHSA Week 39 Report...
76.3% of the people who died age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
74% of the people who were hospitalized age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
In the UKHSA Week 50 Report...
71.8% of the people who died age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
61.4% of the people who were hospitalized age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
When you include the partially vaxxed, the numbers are even worse.
This is why I always lump partially and fully vaccinated together. This is why I include the first 14 days in most of my calculations. This is why private VE was about 40-50% over the last year (less in other places) and public VE was negative (in other words, the vaccine caused cases which meant the chance of getting a case in the vaccinated was higher even if it was slightly lower than the unvaccinated... Ie. Private VE).
Not sure if that makes sense I probably would need a long post or article to fully explain, but in any case, calculating VE for a few months post second dose is idiotic at best.
I understand it perfectly. You should write a post about it regardless when you have time, but I really want the public to understand that the partitioning of risk in such a way that not only tricks the public into doing something riskier is totally unconscionable because you are committing three moral crimes at once - You are misclassifying the outcome of a decision on those who didn't decide, telling those whose decision didn't result in irreversible hazard (survived) that they did something which is why they are alive, and ignoring all those people who did try to do that thing but died as people who didn't decide early enough to do that thing which would have saved their lives when they did exactly that!
Note that 0-14 days post 1st jab is counted as UNVACCINATED! So, at least HALF of the unvaccinated deaths can be safely moved over to the partially VAXXED. Then redraw the charts and have a second look.
Good point! I updated the post.
So, the Cansino vaccine jabbed counted as partially vaxxed for post one and up to 27 days after the receiving the jab. Unvaxxed received all those that dies within a day of receiving ANY jab (so received them from 1-jabbed and 2-jabbed). Thanks for the clarification!
Two observations from the chart:
1. After Oct. 15, the jabbed and unjabbed experience about same mortality. Meaning, the jab does nothing in terms of mortality.
2. The peak of mortality of unvaxxed and single-jabbed coincide at around Aug. 25, but the peak of mortality of the fully-jabbed is delayed by 3 weeks to Aug. 15. Isn't it strange? Why would that be?
That's two brilliant observations and I wish I had a twitter account so that I could ask the author of that post about the vaccination rollout policy in Malaysia with respect to whether it was pushed on younger/not vulnerable/not at risk/previously infected on the other side of the peak.
Because the cases rates drop precipitously for partially vaccinated around halfway down the wave and I can't know what that does for the size of the denominator.
Basically, if the rates looked higher for those positive at least 1 day after an injection at the start of the wave, the reason could be anything from the delayed or suboptimal immune response in those who were allowed to vaccinate early (immunosenescence ) to severe adverse reaction without rapid death leading to over lower exposure time while in that status but nevertheless getting infected later and testing positive later when they counted as "Fully Vaccinated". Another rather grim reason could be that if the those fully vaccinated were dying from other causes with a delay, it would gradually increase the case-rate due to shrinking denominator. Honestly, don't know how people who are supposed look at these things and worry are not worrying and instead asking us to look away.
How can one explain the spikes of mortality in partially vaccinated when the wave has ended? Why does the partially vaccinated curve for cases have lower rates than fully vaccinated but higher death rate?
pasted in your question. will relay answer if I get one
Thanks!
It can also be that partially vaccinated eventually transition to fully vaccinated and receiving a second dose of toxins. Now the ones that survived one jab and progressed to two are (a) with a survival bias and (b) dealing with longer term issues? In any case, every pattern is there for some reason to be discovered.
If one just draws a graph with jabbed (any) and unjabbed, that will be pretty damning for the vaxx.
I track the Alberta data closely and about 8% of ALL covid deaths this year were in the first 14 days of the first dose. That number is likely similar in most places, depending on when the vaccination campaign occurred. If it started mid wave and was highly effective (ie. Lots of vaccinations per day), the death toll would be higher. Alberta is partially lower than it should have been because while they started vaccinating during the wave, the distribution was so ineffective that there were not enough people getting jabbed to sustain the wave. In the absence of good data, they force us to make assumptions (if they don't like our assumptions they can release better data), so using 8% of all covid deaths as a baseline for how many unvaccinated should be counted as vaccinated would be a fair assumption.
" the distribution was so ineffective that there were not enough people getting jabbed to sustain the wave."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry that such a statement can both, be constructed and make perfect sense.
That's the gulf between those who are seeing Vaccination drives as dangerous vs life-saving.
The only time this doesn't happen is when they publish vaccination data by report date instead of vaccination date and are not very good at reporting. Thanks for doing this. In case you're not on Twitter - https://twitter.com/mdccclxx/status/1476568452869599242?s=20
My god!!!!! I just saw this. Let me process it, thanks,I'm banned on twitter!
Aren't we all?! Although, I saw Steve Kirsch's account seems to be active again?
The part I don't have quite pinned down for my own understanding and so can't communicate effectively on, is the fact that there are so many reports that the unvaccinated make the majority of hospitalizations and deaths. Or in the UK, the rates are 4 to 5 times higher for hospitalization and death. The fact some get caught in the vaccination process doesn't seem that it would fully account for it. Then again maybe I'm not looking at these graphs close enough.
Look at this all-cause mortality chart of 18-39 year olds.
You can see that it's hard to die from Covid if you died from other reasons without a nasopharyngeal swab PCR test (which is not proof that someone didn't die from an infection, but just proof that they didn't get have viral RNA in a specific place in their body).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1721/fig4wrapper/index.html
How can we trust those denominators for the population? The unvaccinated is not a registration event but a lack of event, so the denominators can't be trusted. When we fix the denominators, we get higher mortality in vaccinated.
Also, you will find that the category "Good Health" has the same trendlines as people with "Poor(er) health" in these mortality graphs.
Verify it yourself. https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1721/fig4wrapper/datadownload.xlsx
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest
"Figure 4: The higher non-COVID-19 mortality rate for 18 to 39-year-olds who had received a second dose is likely to be explained by the prioritisation of the clinically vulnerable for vaccination
Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for the 18 to 39 years age group by vaccination status and health status, monthly from 1 January to 31 October 2021, England
Embed code
Notes:
Age-specific mortality rates per 100,000 person-years, age-standardised within age groups to the European Standard Population 2013. “Person-years” take into account both the number of people and the amount of time spent in each vaccination status.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures for deaths that occurred between 1 January and 31 October.
95% confidence intervals are indicated by the shaded regions. Where the total number of deaths is less than 100, Dobson’s method is used, otherwise the normal approximation is used. Non-overlapping confidence intervals denote a statistically significant difference in ASMR.
Rates for all ages are not calculated where the total number of deaths is fewer than 10. Rates for age breakdowns are not calculated where the total number of deaths is fewer than three.
Age is defined on the first day of each month.
Health status is defined as ”good” where the number of recorded hospital episodes since 1 January 2020 is fewer than 3 and the number of comorbidities recorded from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2020 is 0, “poor” if the number of hospital episodes is fewer than 12 and the number of comorbidities is fewer than 2, and “very poor” in all other cases. The percentages of 18- to 39-year-olds in our dataset with “very poor”, “poor”, and “good” health are 6.4%, 5.3% and 88.4% respectively.
Download this chart
.xlsx
The analysis of the non-COVID-19 ASMRs show that the changing composition of the groups of people in the different vaccination statuses can have a large effect on mortality, thereby limiting the insights that can be gained from these comparisons. However, the monthly ASMRs for deaths involving COVID-19 are consistently lower for those who had the second dose at least 21 days ago compared to those who are unvaccinated, demonstrating the effect that the vaccine is having on reducing COVID-19 mortality. We will continue to publish updates and analysis on deaths by vaccination status."
The UK Health Security Agency reports undermine the claim of a pandemic of the unvaxxed. Yes, the rate of hospitalization and death is higher in the unvaxxed, but the data sets really aren't comparable (95% versus 5%) is some age cohorts.
In the UKHSA Week 39 Report...
76.3% of the people who died age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
74% of the people who were hospitalized age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
In the UKHSA Week 50 Report...
71.8% of the people who died age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
61.4% of the people who were hospitalized age 50 and older were fully vaxxed.
When you include the partially vaxxed, the numbers are even worse.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports