It seems very odd that the vaccinated are the vast majority of the deaths, but only about half the critical care admissions. Are the unvaccinated way more likely to recover? Are people only admitted to critical care if they are under 50, otherwise left to die?
I wonder if this is a policy in the NHS. Ivor Cummins pointed out that 80%-90% of the people who died in the first wave in Ireland were deemed too sick for ICU. They shut down the country to protect people that they refused to save. It's hard for Americans to grasp this concept. We spend billions every year keeping the very old and very ill alive on machines...especially if they have really good insurance.
Not sure if this is relevant, but when I graph data taken directly out of the UKHSA reports of total hospitalization counts versus total death counts broken down by injection status, the "unvaccinated" seem to account for about 40% of the hospitalizations but only 20% of the deaths. So it may actually be that the dreaded "unvaccinated" do in fact recover better?
Most unvaccinated persons are under 40 years of age. Could it could simply be that although they get sick from Covid-19 because they're younger they're more likely to recover once over the initial stages of the disease?
critical care admissions stats likely broken in some way. other data show that once you are in ICU, being vaccinated doesn’t really help you anymore. might be that ‘unvaccinated’ is accumulating many people whose vaxx status is unknown/unrecorded, alongside some other errors (over hospitalisation of children b/c dedicated pediatric corona wards?)
Perhaps the majority of unvaxxed in critical care were not in there for covid? In the US at least, they test the unvaxxed at a very high PCR threshold to fish for asymptomatic false positives. Random people in critical care that are vaxxed are not tested for covid unless they are displaying symptoms. At least that's one way they play with the stats in the US.
Another way for them to turn this back into a pandemic of the unvaxxed is to start recategorizing the unboosted as unvaxxed.
I'm not sure where you live or what is happening in your locale, but in my area of the US, (PNW), all hospitals are requiring PCR for everyone at admission, transfer, or any OR cases, (even outpatient). All patients needing an inpatient bed, whether just floor status or ICU, get swabbed at admission, vaxxed or unvaxxed. And the labs are generally cycling them the same, albeit it at a fairly high threshold.
Over the summer a vaxxed nurse I know was exposed to covid at work and tried to get tested a few days later before a big social event. Since they didn't have symptoms, the hospital refused to administer a test. 'Those are the rules'
Ended up having to buy a self test from Walmart because the people running the health system have goals separate from public health.
Good to hear it's running a bit more sensibly by you, though it's clear by now that PCR at 35 and above is designed to create as many fake cases as possible.
The UK data is one of the most detailed we have but it is still full of weird things according to Pr. Norman Fenton who studied it extensively. He doesn't know if it's because of incompetence or something else.
What is the quality of the ICNARC data - I remember reading in comments somewhere form someone saying they were familiar with the details of compilation and said that it is a voluntary system with incomplete participation marred by infrequent & inconsistent reporting from Hospitals - IDK if this is true or not! - Does anyone have an informed take on the quality of this info?
Or they are simply not being offered critical care services. The NHS has had guidelines in place for years to limit high level care for the elderly, all for cost containment and to maintain bed availability, which is already tight in the UK. My hunch is they are dying at home, in care centers, or regular hospital floors.
My Mum died in hospital, in Oct this year, aged 84. One of the first things the doc said to me on admittance, was, she was too frail for ICU. That'll be the DNR, then!
It's my own experience so may not be representative everywhere but I was the youngest on Covid ward and in ICU at 41. Older people were being brought in and dissapearing / removed over night to be replaced the next day. Sounds ridiculous but it happened.
Getting better, have long Covid according to hospital but no one can tell me what it is just that it takes about 12 months to go away. NHS website says that pneumonia takes about 6 months to clear so probably dealing with after affects of that for now.
All the best in your full recovery. My advice is to go to a good chiropractor because it'll help rebalance your central nervous system, and potentially improve immune system function. I'm happy to find you a competent experienced one. Just let me know your city or local area. Or just send me an email at dr.maryanne (at) shiozawawellness (dot) com . (I'm an American chiropractor practicing in London, and I know a lot of great chiros in the UK.)
(My husband, 3 children, and I also had Covid, and what helped us recover well - among other things like lots of rest and Vit D - was chiropractic adjustments.)
They all had Covid, it was a Covid ward, they disapeared overnight so must have died. People were sent home at day between 12 and 5 if they were well enough.
Older people brought into ICU and disappearing or removed? ICU is quite a serious place to be does anyone think it is possible they passed away, rather than recovered?
The majority of the vaccinated deaths are are in the elderly who likely have co morbidities, or may be frail and would be unlikely to benefit from or survive critical care. Plus the months of rehabilitation after. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the sickest patients are escalated to critical care, it’s the ones who are more likely to recover that are. It comes to a point where the best thing you can do is palliative care on a general ward. So, yes, it could be either of those things. Not sure there’s particularly an age limit but likelihood to survive certainly is
The old are much more likely to die from Covid (over 60's account for ~85% of Covid deaths)
The old are much more likely to be vaxxed (over 60's more than 90% double vaxxed)
A little less than half Covid emergency care cases are over 60's (only ~25% of those unvaxxed)
60's: 450 unvaxxed, ~800 vaxxed
70's: 315 unvaxxed, ~850 vaxxed
>80's 228 unvaxxed, ~1000 vaxxed
So, yes, in general the unvaccinated are more likely to recover but because of age. And the under 60's deaths seem to correlate to vaxxed/unvaxxed hospitalisations.
However, eugyppius' graph does show dispproportionate deaths in vaxxed >60's beyond ratios indicated by breakdown listed above.
Yes highly recommended. Shines a lot of light on some very dubious data for example combining the younger trail cohort into the 6mth report. That in itself skews the data and is criminal both on the part of Pfizer and those we entrust to review it as the gatekeepers.
It lists 1200+ deaths, 42K+ adverse reactions etc. But it seems to me the total number of people in the trial is redacted. Am I misreading it, or being dense or what? I can't find the total anywhere.
That wasn't a trial John it was analysis of the first 42K adverse reactions which were received as unsolicited reports by Pfizer which they were duty bound to record.
Ah. So this is in the first 2 months of the rollout, so it's 1200+ deaths of random members of the public who got it. THought I was missing something, thank you.
As RDP noted, your critical commentary on the Pfizer trials is remarkable - I found it extraordinarily useful, in particular inclusion of the organizational arrangements for implementing and overseeing the trials across so many locations. Many thanks for sharing that.
Before get to link, want point out weekly report has the column of unlinked "cases" in the Covid case table - these are of same order of magnitude as the unvaccinated numbers & significantly less than the vaccinated numbers (which are calced from difference and thus accumulates error bias in other two counts) I think could make a case that significant number of these unlinked are unvaccinated (If you got the vax why wouldnt you be in their database?)
As to the linked paper - they analyse older reports when, i believe, the all-case mortality numbers were still also being published in the report. They extract non-covid mortality time-series (three age groups) in unvaccinated and compute background mortality rate - they find that from raw data this calculated non-covid unvaccinated mortality significantly higher than expected (indicating that denominator too small - undercounting unvaccinated) They also detect large spikes in non-covid unvaccinated mortality at just the time that initial vaccinations were being given. Indicates miscategorization of deaths immediately following jabs being counted as unvaccinated deaths. They go on to also correct an offset due to date of death registration not being same as actual date of death and thus use of wrong population denominator (need population from date of infection when calculating mortality not population from death date). They also point out some hinky stuff with population numbers but did not need to correct as determined didnt make overly significant differnce in analysis.
When all said & done they see significant mortality in Vaccinnee in close proximity to the time of jab and then longer term only slightly less/insignificant all-case mortality reduction in vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated.
They summarize as getting vaccine is like soldier in a foxhole deciding to make a run for a reinforced bunker. Have to cross an open area where subject to sniper fire - if you are weak/slow or already injured/(unknowingly infected at time of jab) then not a very good chance of getting to the bunker (should have stayed in the foxhole.) Incoming artillary is such that not too dissimilar death rates in the foxhole (unvaccinated) or in the bunker(vaccinated)
One thing that this analysis seems to confirm is the problem with the population estimate for unvaccinated (calculated by difference & thus subject to errors in both total count & vaccinated + unlinked people that majically disappear when you go from Infection to Hospitalization to Mortality tables). I believe the analysis in paper could be used to estimate the magnitude of error in population of vaccinated and used to make a correction. Reinstatement of all-case mortality information to the weekly reports would be nice also so didnt have to hunt it down.
I agree that some of the unlinked are likely unvaxxed, but some might have gotten the jab in another country...so not linked to the NHS.
There is also a significant hole in the UKHSA data. How do they categorize cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in people who are twice jabbed but less that 14 days out? Are they lumped in with single jab 21+days?
And, now, we have a new category of double-jabbed plus booster. There are Omicron cases in double-jabbed and boosted students at Cornell right now. Are we really supposed to believe this isn't happening in the UK?
Nevertheless, the UKHSA is the best data we have. This tweet by Don Wolf says it best...
I shouldnt have even mentioned the unlinked that only affect "Cases" and those don't really matter- simply a distraction.
Much more important to look at the paper and seeing that mortalities in the vaccinated that occur within the 14 day window are being miscategorized as vaccinated deaths. These show up as anomalies and can be separated out and reassigned back to the vaccinated mortality to give a better estimates of mortality rates.
miscategorized as vaccinated deaths? You mean unvaccinated, right?
I wrote this in response to another comment below. The deaths in the fully vaxxed are already pretty bad.
==============
The goal is to not die...not to have a lower rate of death in your age cohort by vaxx status.
The fully vaxxed have been the majority of deaths since the first UKHSA report in week 39.
Week 39, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 35 and week 38
76.3% fully vaxxed (2293/3005)
19.5% unvaxxed (586/3005)
Week 50, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 46 and week 49
75.4% fully vaxxed (2201/2920)
21.2% unvaxxed (618/2920)
Most of these deaths were in the older cohorts. The week 50 report would include any death benefit from the boosters. About 80% of those age 65 and older have received a booster.
No worries. I thought so. Just wanted to be sure I understood. I often cringe when I re-read some of my comments. Need to slow down and read before I press enter, but I never do. Wish they had an edit option.
Great summary Tom! The report was a fascinating but difficult read. The authors summarized neatly as follows. "With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination." In short, the vaccines don't work.
I was the only unvaxxed in ICU less than 5 weeks ago, ( I had a pre existing lung issue that turned into an infection then pneumonia) and also in the main ward when I got out of ICU, I saw many empty beds that were occupied the night before then filled back up with more vaxxed people.
Something very fishy about this data. Richmond NHS have been making some extraordinary claims today that 97% of patients don't have 2 jabs and a booster. They've given boosters to over 20 million of our most elderly down so I find this figure quite unbelievable.
Whilst waiting in A&E I had nothing to do but listen to everyone around me and out of 30 people that came in after me, only 1 other was unvaxxed everyone else was double jabbed and approx half of them had boosters as well due to their age.
Leon this is really helpful information because it shows that it is not the odd person but a number of people coming in due to the vaccine. I keep hearing it is the unvaccinated clogging up our beds, but it is the vaxxed.
How do you know their vaxx status, exactly? You seem to be very sure about this for every single person on the ward, which seems a bit odd if you were only a patient there. Were they all announcing their status loudly and clearly or something?
I was left on a gurney in the middle of the A&E right next to the computer that the nurses were using to enter the data on, they talked about every patients vaccination status as they entered it.
Have people lost the art of courtesy? I rather listen to boots on the ground, than the hysteria-media because they love saying all the unvaccinated are piling in
Similarly the double vaxxed accounted for 80% of deaths but these good folks were only offered 52% of ICU space. They used to supply a table with the actual numbers and percentages but stopped doing that. I'm always suspicious when the change what they report and start reporting per 100,000 when they have no idea how many unvaccinated people there actually are.
So if you are over 50 and at risk and especially if you are over 75 , it makes sense to get vaxxed as this seems to protect one against severe disease and death. The RATE of death among vaxxed people is lower than the rate in unvaxxed. So the vaxxes reduce the chances of death in older at risk people. Great! this is what they were ostensibly intended to do. But they dont reduce transmission or spread and side effect profile makes them a bad risk for health people under 50 and especially under 40 unless there is a compelling reason for someone who is younger ( comorbidities) to get them. So there is no medical or ethical justification for mandates or passports. Am I missing something?
The goal is to not die...not to have a lower rate of death in your age cohort by vaxx status.
The fully vaxxed have been the majority of deaths since the first UKHSA report in week 39.
Week 39, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 35 and week 38
76.3% fully vaxxed (2293/3005)
19.5% unvaxxed (586/3005)
Week 50, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 46 and week 49
75.4% fully vaxxed (2201/2920)
21.2% unvaxxed (618/2920)
Most of these deaths were in the older cohorts. The week 50 report would include any death benefit from the boosters. About 80% of those age 65 and older have received a booster.
amended reply. the only way I know - delete and insert new one. haven't changed much, only corrected a typo and am adding this clarifier:
The somewhat nasty remarks at the end of this comment are not directed to anyone here or in fact anywhere - they are an expression of my attitude to that amorphous entity 'the government' that is currently jackbooting its way into our lives.
disagree. i'm in the aged cohort. my goal is not to die AND to not have a nasty severe episode if I can avoid it.
My current feeling is that being without co-morbidities and in good general health and with (illegal thanks to my homicidal government) early treatments standing by I'm better off without this risky wildcard: the vaccine.
All the arguing back and forth doesn't help me much if at all.
And ironically the more specific and particular the arguments get the less persuasive they are: because they get down to arguing fine points of statistical analysis etc. on what's clearly fundamentally atrocious data.
For me the broad picture mainly tells the story. I simplistically divide the world into two camps (as most of us do) 'for me' and 'against me'.
'Against me' are all those who censor everything, who maintain there's an emergency when there's clearly nothing more than medical event of perhaps some severity, who take despotic powers without explanation or apology on that spurious basis, who deny me free speech, who deny me early treatment medication thousands of doctors have spoken for, who subject to home arrest literally millions of innocent people, who mandate useless and in many ways harmful maskings, who've cost the nation, the taxpayer untold (because they won't tell) millions even billions, who're unconcerned with the commensurate global effects which we're assured are costing millions the quality of their lives and even their lives, who publish bald lies such as a vax has been fully tested when 'full testing' in pure simple ordinary every day logic includes over an adequate period of time and there has not been any such time span as yet.... and so on...
all the way to mandating I take a vax.
When I read/see on a daily basis the awful state of Israel, as an example, going mad trying to flog a dead horse back to life.
See? In my simplistic world they are simply the 'evil anti-me' and I naturally abhor and shun anything and everything they stand for.
Let me be plain, I think it is very, very stark: if they had ever, ever at any time, displayed any concern for the people, any consideration, manifested anything that would inform, nurture, sustain, maintain, empower the people, dispel fogs of confusion, illuminate the truth, let freedom grow, look for help, share and include the people, encourage the people to think they could fight this supposedly monstrous enemy - if they had ever done any of that I might tend a little to giving them credence and contemplating going along with some of their narrative.
But they did not and do not.
I love learning something about immunology and vaccines and viruses and statistics and the human race and its psychology etc....
But in the end all the discussions, debates, charts, graphs, data lists, reports, trials, tests, anecdotes etc mean nothing to me compared to that:
They are pure evil. they would see me dead if they could.
They make no bones of it. Simple test: Can I have Ivermectin?
No.
Please. I won't take a vaccine, I might die - you tell me I might die - you tell me it's terrible and a great danger - so I'm in fear of my life - can I have Ivermectin, I'll at least get placebo benefit?
No.
But I might die or more probably at least suffer much unnecessarily.
Die you bastard.
Thanks, buddy. Well I've got your measure. And what's that you say? Take your vaccine? Go fuck yourself.
Their behaviour in the first place created the suspicion, now they want us to pay for our own curiosity.. Online Harms Bill next year anything that could be misconstrued as misfit-information, they feel say they can take some kind of criminal action again us. So where will substack still be a safe place to share?
I'm confused. Did you take my comment as support of the jabs? If so, please re-read it...'cause it's not. My point is that the messaging is garbage. Yes, the death rates are lower in the fully vaxxed...but the fully vaxxed make up a significant majority (~75%) of the deaths going back months. The rates are almost unchanged.
I don't want to catch the 'ro either, so I take reasonable precautions. I may get it anyway.
I'm not sure where you're located. I live in the States and was able to get Ivermectin for my family through Push Health and Honeybee Health Pharmacy. It was all done online, and I paid out of pocket. Honeybee Health appears in the pharmacy drop-down.
The Ivermectin I have is manufactured in the United States for Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals.
"Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals utilizes a contract manufacturer and two contract packagers for its Ivermectin tablets, USP (3mg). The manufacturer and both packagers are located in the United States and are all in good standing with the FDA and routinely audited."
The link I provided is for Pennsylvania. If you click on the "Request Now" button on this link, it will connect you to links for all the states. I assume they will reimburse you if they cannot connect you with a provider for your area.
Good grief. I suddenly realised what you read - I mean how you must have read what I wrote in my slapdash fashion.
No, no, no. I wasn't addressing you at all at the end there. I was directing my ire to the government. I was speaking rhetorically. Giving you a view inside my head at my attitude vis-a-vis them.
Good god, no. I apologise for writing so poorly as to give that impression.
It's pretty off-putting to have such language directed at oneself, I know that. I never use that language at respondents in comments columns. I reserve it entirely for addressing my hypothetical government representative.
These comments and this dicussion are very interesting. I think the rates are very important to consider. even though the majority of deaths are in vaxxed people, those people are much larger percentage of the population and they tend to be sicker and older. So if the vaxes were really deadly or ineffective you might expect to see a HIGHER death rate among the vaxxed. But that isnt the case. In the minority of population that is not vaxxed , the rate of death in this population is higher. This suggests that for a certain subset of people ( those over a certain age say 65 with comoribdities) the vaxxes actually are protective. And that's exactly what they were intended for.
Whats really tragic to me is how something that could have been targeted to protect the truly vulnerable morphed into this global totalitarian religious crusade to stick in a needle in every human being's arm. I blame the public health establishments; people like fauci et al, criminally inept
It's all a welter of confusion and deception, misinterpretation, inaccurate data, etc... I don't know what's right at all.
Are you sure the death rate for vaxxed can be trusted, for instance? Because sometimes they count those that are within fourteen days of their jab to be 'unvaxxed', don't they?
On the grounds that the vax hadn't had time to do its sterling work, I suppose.
But incidentally shiftng all adverse reactions and deaths into the 'unvax' column.
You are correct… a giant mess! Too bad we in the USA dont have a huge generously funded agency that could manage something like this and gather accurate and honest data. It seems as if the death rates in the first two weeks after the first mRna vaxxes cancel the benefit (reduction in mortality ) in the longer term. If this is true then the vaxxes in general have been a complete failure. If one adds the deaths in the first two weeks after the jabs and other causes of excess deaths in the vaxxed it could very well be that the death rate among the vaxxed equals or exceeds the death rate among the unvaxxed.
The vaxx rates in the UK are very high. I sincerely doubt that people age 70 and older who remain unvaxxed are ne'er-do-wells. Most are likely too ill to take a jab.
Thank you for all that. No, I didn't take your comment that way though I might have sounded like it. I was just kinda off on my own hobby horse, freewheeling along...
:)
I have Ivermectin. Got it from India, no trouble. There's some chance it could be fraudulent but not, I think, a big chance, it's from a fairly major and well established retailer there.
We ordinary people are learning such a lot in this incredible time, aren't we?
Perhaps be good if we learned some chemistry tricks, too, perhaps how to test Ivermectin tabs for the presence of Ivermectin?
it depends on your age and risk category. It should be a personal decision. THere is absolutely no rational medical scientific justification for mandates or passports or any kind of social pressure to get vaxxed. Its 90 percent hysteria and politics
Does the apparent improvement in the older age groups indicate that boosters aren't leading to an increase in cases? (Due to immune suppression or whatever the cause might be).
It'll be interesting to see what happens over the coming weeks with the mass booster drive, considering that a tidal wave of cases is expected, and it is that time of year. I'm not sure what we'll be seeing in these weekly data releases: an improvement/reversal of the negative efficacy or worsening of it.
So is it correct that the vaccine still seems to provide say a 4x or so mutiple reduction in death rates? Obviously considering lots of possible cofounders like vaccinated people may be healthier overall or more likely to test.
from these numbers, yes. the effect seems much more modest at the level of all-cause mortality, suggesting that a great many deaths aren't so much prevented by the vaccines, as merely moved out of the Corona column.
According to the UKHSA week 50 report, about 80% of the population age 65 and older has had two jabs and a booster. Over 90% have had two jabs.
Aside from the confounders (the older vaxxed are paradoxically more healthy and health conscious, the older unvaxxed are too ill to get a jab)...these populations are too far apart for meaningful comparison.
The goal is to not die...not to have a lower rate of death in your age cohort. Telling a double-jabbed 75-year-old that there is a lower rate of death in his age cohort gives him a false sense of protection. 76.2% of the deaths in the 70-79 cohort were fully vaxxed (and some boosted). 81.4% of the deaths in the 80+ cohort were fully vaxxed (and some boosted).
The fully vaxxed are the majority of the deaths in the older cohorts and have been for weeks. About 90% of the 80+ cohort was double jabbed by week 20. In the week 39 report, they were 84.1% of the deaths (week 35 through 38).
In my experience, it's very much dependent on the person. I know elderly people who are living their lives as they always did and were very angry at the restrictions, and I know of people who are in hiding.
My former dentist (now in his 80s) had no contact with anyone but his wife (no adult children, no grandchildren) for over a year. They would have their groceries delivered to their front door and leave them outside for twenty minutes. Their only entertainment/escape was taking long drives in the car (not sure how they re-filled their tank of gas).
Some people are so afraid of this virus and of dying that they've completely forgotten how to live. It's sad...but they've harmed the rest of us with their insanity.
I am not even in that age group nor live in fear of the virus. Yet, I have been living under lockdown light for over 20 months now. Most everything is cancelled. By in laws are afraid to have their grandson, my son over to their home. The list is long. One can not have a social life if one is the only one not afraid to do so.
But the point of my question is that whether they choose to or not, many who have passed away these past 20 some months were scared into or forced to give up living until they no longer existed. Criminal.
I wonder about such figures. Pfizer's original report according to Chris Martensen claimed improvement from a natural 99.86% 'protection' to 99.96%. That means instead of 14 dying out of 10,000 only 4 people die. That's getting close to your 4 x reduction isn't it?
But in numbers we're talking about counting 14 people, dead or sick, from 10,000.
In a scenario where co-morbidities are often overlooked or ignored.
In a scenario where clear deaths from other causes can be lumped in.
In a scenario where traditionally hospital deaths from medical errors are running at something between 200,000 - 300,000 per year which must have some effect on such numbers.
And so on.
I'm no mathematician. No statistician. But to borrow their phrase, to me those numbers are 'not statistically significant' no matter how much they might look they are.
I thought the Pfizer trials didn't try to demonstrate any effect on deaths, it wasn't powered to do so. Or so they claim. Actually there were more deaths in the vaccine arm than the control arm, but, a small number on both sides.
There were also a small number of positive PCR tests on both arms. Far less than the average positivity rate in the general population at the same time. Vaccines work 95% of the time when you don't get exposed to Covid. That should have been the marketing right there.
Is it possible to calculate Number Needed to Vaccinate for Hospilizatona and Death from their Hospizliation/Death Rates per 100K? If so how is that done? And how would you account for working from 1 week of data? Also, I take it per 100K is per 100K vaccinated and per 100K unvaccinated for their respective columns? Is that correct?
Thanks for the honest answer. It's not going to stop me from fiddling around. I just got 666 for the NNTV to prevent hospitalization for 40 years olds. Not sure how I got it but I took the devil's number as a sign I'm guessing right.
Has anyone wondered why the unvaxxed are such a high percentage of admissions now, relative to their prevalence in the population? I.e. half the ward is unvaxxed, but are only around 10% of total population. If numbers had been similar last year or in previous waves pre vax, the rate of covid admissions should have been many x higher. No?
In Norway we have similar numbers as in UK. 90% vaxxed in adult pop. Hospital admissions are about 50-50 vaxxed and unvaxxed. For unvaxxed the rate for admissions is 20 per 100 k. For vaxxed Its 1.3 ish. For the unvaxxed, basically all admissions are age group 45 - 65. So the rate per 100 k In that group is at least double, perhaps quadruple. Havent calculated precisely. in fact, right now, in raw numbers its about 120 out of 100000.
Basically, if the rate of admissions for age groups 45-65 was 50 - 100 per 100k last year, scenes in the hospitals would have been biblical.
So are unvaxxed 40-60 getting sicker from covid now?
Rates of infection have skyrocketed here, and are 8-10 times higher than previous waves. This could account for something, but not everything.
One hypothesis I’ve considered is that the vaxxed are infecting with higher prevalence, and higher viral loads. Basically making the unvaxxed alot sicker if they get infected.
Hospitals ask you if you've been vaccinated upon admission. If you are, then no PCR. If you are not, then you are tested. This disparity between not testing the vaccinated (unless symptomatic) and testing every unvaccinated patient counts some towards the discrepancy.
a) infections are rising within the general population, we had a low percentage of infections last year, and drastic measures were taken, which limited contact and kept the spread of infection lower. This year, more people are getting infected (which is unavoidable and can only be delayed) => vaccinated have a bit of protection against severe COVID, unvaccinated don't => more hospital admissions.
b) Viral loads seem to be equally high in the vax. and unvax. (according to Drosten, I think), but viral loads diminish faster in the vax. So I don't think that can make such a difference.
The negative efficacy for the remaining two-dosed (young) population is fundamentally a PR embarrassment, and that is why the UK press are having to handwavingly justify the irrational policy of boosting the young before finishing the booster program for the elderly. Eventually the truth might just get out that the unvaccinated have roughly similar and the recovered, far superior, steady-state immunity to the vaccinated, and that therefore the whole policy of vaccinating the healthy was insane and driven by the pandemicists and their profit and power motives.
The diabolical aspect of the pandemicist's use of leaky and short term vaccines is that their agenda to get universal coverage and rolling boosters now dovetails with that of the public health bureaucrats who just want to save face and protect their political capital. It's all one massive doubling-down operation.
Regarding the temporary booster improvement in those older age groups, Covid19Crusher on Twitter did a good table on Omicron in Denmark with 2X + booster at 0.4. Unvaxxed at 0.47, one jab at 0.7 and two jabs at 1.4 as percentages of those populations by vax status. So 2 vaxxed 3 times as likely as unjabbed to get Omicron.
Been thinking about it: if it were the case that the unvaccinated occupied 48% of ICU and only constituted 19% of deaths we could draw the conclusion that ICU staff see the unvaccinated as more viable and likely to survive than the fully vaccinated.
If the deaths of the vaccinated are happening before the ICU (home, ward, or emergency) the proportions of vaccinated versus unvaccinated dying in the ICU could be identical for all we know even less!
Accepting that deaths are happening outside of ICU, which I do, then whether the ICU patients are vaxed or otherwise is pretty much irrelevant isn't it? People die inside and outside of ICU's for all sorts of reasons, vaxed or unvaxed.
I heard some numbers at a staff briefing this morning, can't remember the exact numbers but around 12 covid patients in ICU out of 25 ish beds. I wasn't really paying that much attention. No other details and they didn't tell us what the other ones were in for but presumably a mix of post operative care, car, or or other bizarre accidents, kids who have been stabbed or beaten up, suicide attempts, and all sorts of people with all sorts of problems.
It seems very odd that the vaccinated are the vast majority of the deaths, but only about half the critical care admissions. Are the unvaccinated way more likely to recover? Are people only admitted to critical care if they are under 50, otherwise left to die?
i agree this is a puzzle
I wonder if this is a policy in the NHS. Ivor Cummins pointed out that 80%-90% of the people who died in the first wave in Ireland were deemed too sick for ICU. They shut down the country to protect people that they refused to save. It's hard for Americans to grasp this concept. We spend billions every year keeping the very old and very ill alive on machines...especially if they have really good insurance.
Not sure if this is relevant, but when I graph data taken directly out of the UKHSA reports of total hospitalization counts versus total death counts broken down by injection status, the "unvaccinated" seem to account for about 40% of the hospitalizations but only 20% of the deaths. So it may actually be that the dreaded "unvaccinated" do in fact recover better?
Here are my graphs, anyway. https://noline.substack.com/p/uksha-week-50
Most unvaccinated persons are under 40 years of age. Could it could simply be that although they get sick from Covid-19 because they're younger they're more likely to recover once over the initial stages of the disease?
What do you think Eugyppius?
critical care admissions stats likely broken in some way. other data show that once you are in ICU, being vaccinated doesn’t really help you anymore. might be that ‘unvaccinated’ is accumulating many people whose vaxx status is unknown/unrecorded, alongside some other errors (over hospitalisation of children b/c dedicated pediatric corona wards?)
Perhaps the majority of unvaxxed in critical care were not in there for covid? In the US at least, they test the unvaxxed at a very high PCR threshold to fish for asymptomatic false positives. Random people in critical care that are vaxxed are not tested for covid unless they are displaying symptoms. At least that's one way they play with the stats in the US.
Another way for them to turn this back into a pandemic of the unvaxxed is to start recategorizing the unboosted as unvaxxed.
I'm not sure where you live or what is happening in your locale, but in my area of the US, (PNW), all hospitals are requiring PCR for everyone at admission, transfer, or any OR cases, (even outpatient). All patients needing an inpatient bed, whether just floor status or ICU, get swabbed at admission, vaxxed or unvaxxed. And the labs are generally cycling them the same, albeit it at a fairly high threshold.
Over the summer a vaxxed nurse I know was exposed to covid at work and tried to get tested a few days later before a big social event. Since they didn't have symptoms, the hospital refused to administer a test. 'Those are the rules'
Ended up having to buy a self test from Walmart because the people running the health system have goals separate from public health.
Good to hear it's running a bit more sensibly by you, though it's clear by now that PCR at 35 and above is designed to create as many fake cases as possible.
The UK data is one of the most detailed we have but it is still full of weird things according to Pr. Norman Fenton who studied it extensively. He doesn't know if it's because of incompetence or something else.
What is the quality of the ICNARC data - I remember reading in comments somewhere form someone saying they were familiar with the details of compilation and said that it is a voluntary system with incomplete participation marred by infrequent & inconsistent reporting from Hospitals - IDK if this is true or not! - Does anyone have an informed take on the quality of this info?
Quite an eye opener but only 11% of patients admitted to ICU are aged 70+ despite the fact that the average age of Covid death is 82.
Older people are dying of natural causes and then being labeled as covid after the fact for kickbacks
Or they are simply not being offered critical care services. The NHS has had guidelines in place for years to limit high level care for the elderly, all for cost containment and to maintain bed availability, which is already tight in the UK. My hunch is they are dying at home, in care centers, or regular hospital floors.
My Mum died in hospital, in Oct this year, aged 84. One of the first things the doc said to me on admittance, was, she was too frail for ICU. That'll be the DNR, then!
Many people are not dying in hospitals. They are dying at home or in care facilities.
https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/more-than-70-000-extra-deaths-at-home-in-england-and-wales-since-pandemic-began/
most of these are non-corona deaths though
Well, they were probably from vein corona, not nose corona.
It's my own experience so may not be representative everywhere but I was the youngest on Covid ward and in ICU at 41. Older people were being brought in and dissapearing / removed over night to be replaced the next day. Sounds ridiculous but it happened.
Glad to see you're on here, which means that you have recovered? I hope you're well!
Getting better, have long Covid according to hospital but no one can tell me what it is just that it takes about 12 months to go away. NHS website says that pneumonia takes about 6 months to clear so probably dealing with after affects of that for now.
All the best in your full recovery. My advice is to go to a good chiropractor because it'll help rebalance your central nervous system, and potentially improve immune system function. I'm happy to find you a competent experienced one. Just let me know your city or local area. Or just send me an email at dr.maryanne (at) shiozawawellness (dot) com . (I'm an American chiropractor practicing in London, and I know a lot of great chiros in the UK.)
(My husband, 3 children, and I also had Covid, and what helped us recover well - among other things like lots of rest and Vit D - was chiropractic adjustments.)
From the shameless commerce division.
Do you think they dying and then removed or simply held there long enough to expose them to covid?
They all had Covid, it was a Covid ward, they disapeared overnight so must have died. People were sent home at day between 12 and 5 if they were well enough.
Older people brought into ICU and disappearing or removed? ICU is quite a serious place to be does anyone think it is possible they passed away, rather than recovered?
See above comment
The majority of the vaccinated deaths are are in the elderly who likely have co morbidities, or may be frail and would be unlikely to benefit from or survive critical care. Plus the months of rehabilitation after. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the sickest patients are escalated to critical care, it’s the ones who are more likely to recover that are. It comes to a point where the best thing you can do is palliative care on a general ward. So, yes, it could be either of those things. Not sure there’s particularly an age limit but likelihood to survive certainly is
Yes I think this is the reason.
The old are much more likely to die from Covid (over 60's account for ~85% of Covid deaths)
The old are much more likely to be vaxxed (over 60's more than 90% double vaxxed)
A little less than half Covid emergency care cases are over 60's (only ~25% of those unvaxxed)
60's: 450 unvaxxed, ~800 vaxxed
70's: 315 unvaxxed, ~850 vaxxed
>80's 228 unvaxxed, ~1000 vaxxed
So, yes, in general the unvaccinated are more likely to recover but because of age. And the under 60's deaths seem to correlate to vaxxed/unvaxxed hospitalisations.
However, eugyppius' graph does show dispproportionate deaths in vaxxed >60's beyond ratios indicated by breakdown listed above.
If anyone hasn't see it Canadian Covid Care Alliance gave a spectacular critique of Pfizer's RCTs as a slide deck.
https://www.skirsch.com/covid/MoreHarm.pdf
Their summary of the trial is perfect. I thought I understood it pretty good going in and I came out understanding even better...and thus angrier.
Know how you feel. When you think of the damage this is doing especially to kids.
How come this isn't the basis of some court cases everywhere? I'm waiting for Nuremberg 2.0 over here
The initial shortage of toilet paper will hopefully be dwarfed by the coming shortage of rope. I've stockpiled enough for local.... "uses'....
Yes highly recommended. Shines a lot of light on some very dubious data for example combining the younger trail cohort into the 6mth report. That in itself skews the data and is criminal both on the part of Pfizer and those we entrust to review it as the gatekeepers.
All the RCTs were complete fraud. I did a fairly deep dive on the Pfizer trials with some novel criticisms most have not seen. https://communityoperatingsystem.wordpress.com/2021/12/05/pfizers-rct-administrative-nightmare/
Maybe you can tell me Simon if you looked at these in detail. In this doc, the internal Pfizer doc with the Orwellian name
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
It lists 1200+ deaths, 42K+ adverse reactions etc. But it seems to me the total number of people in the trial is redacted. Am I misreading it, or being dense or what? I can't find the total anywhere.
That wasn't a trial John it was analysis of the first 42K adverse reactions which were received as unsolicited reports by Pfizer which they were duty bound to record.
I should have also said that this data was after the vaccine got its EUA and was being rolled out in the first 2 months of general distribution.
Hey Simon. Your deep dive is freaking excellent work bro!
Thanks, I thought I worked quite hard on it but sadly you are the only person to appreciate the effort.
Ah. So this is in the first 2 months of the rollout, so it's 1200+ deaths of random members of the public who got it. THought I was missing something, thank you.
As RDP noted, your critical commentary on the Pfizer trials is remarkable - I found it extraordinarily useful, in particular inclusion of the organizational arrangements for implementing and overseeing the trials across so many locations. Many thanks for sharing that.
Thank you April. You seem like such a lovely person. God Bless.
I am trying to do a deep dive on your deep dive, but I am finding the charts so fuzzy that I cannot read them Do you have a link to clearer charts?
If its the first chart the link was in the article but here it is again. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2113468/suppl_file/nejmc2113468_appendix.pdf
Which charts are you interested in?
Brilliant! Submit this on Steve Kirsch's substack.
I don't know how to do that!
I'll submit it for you...
Thank you. I feel like I'm wasting my time writing in the wind.
Thank you for that. A valuable addition to the dossier.
Once you read this you cannot look at these data in weekly reports the same way:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
Before get to link, want point out weekly report has the column of unlinked "cases" in the Covid case table - these are of same order of magnitude as the unvaccinated numbers & significantly less than the vaccinated numbers (which are calced from difference and thus accumulates error bias in other two counts) I think could make a case that significant number of these unlinked are unvaccinated (If you got the vax why wouldnt you be in their database?)
As to the linked paper - they analyse older reports when, i believe, the all-case mortality numbers were still also being published in the report. They extract non-covid mortality time-series (three age groups) in unvaccinated and compute background mortality rate - they find that from raw data this calculated non-covid unvaccinated mortality significantly higher than expected (indicating that denominator too small - undercounting unvaccinated) They also detect large spikes in non-covid unvaccinated mortality at just the time that initial vaccinations were being given. Indicates miscategorization of deaths immediately following jabs being counted as unvaccinated deaths. They go on to also correct an offset due to date of death registration not being same as actual date of death and thus use of wrong population denominator (need population from date of infection when calculating mortality not population from death date). They also point out some hinky stuff with population numbers but did not need to correct as determined didnt make overly significant differnce in analysis.
When all said & done they see significant mortality in Vaccinnee in close proximity to the time of jab and then longer term only slightly less/insignificant all-case mortality reduction in vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated.
They summarize as getting vaccine is like soldier in a foxhole deciding to make a run for a reinforced bunker. Have to cross an open area where subject to sniper fire - if you are weak/slow or already injured/(unknowingly infected at time of jab) then not a very good chance of getting to the bunker (should have stayed in the foxhole.) Incoming artillary is such that not too dissimilar death rates in the foxhole (unvaccinated) or in the bunker(vaccinated)
One thing that this analysis seems to confirm is the problem with the population estimate for unvaccinated (calculated by difference & thus subject to errors in both total count & vaccinated + unlinked people that majically disappear when you go from Infection to Hospitalization to Mortality tables). I believe the analysis in paper could be used to estimate the magnitude of error in population of vaccinated and used to make a correction. Reinstatement of all-case mortality information to the weekly reports would be nice also so didnt have to hunt it down.
I agree that some of the unlinked are likely unvaxxed, but some might have gotten the jab in another country...so not linked to the NHS.
There is also a significant hole in the UKHSA data. How do they categorize cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in people who are twice jabbed but less that 14 days out? Are they lumped in with single jab 21+days?
And, now, we have a new category of double-jabbed plus booster. There are Omicron cases in double-jabbed and boosted students at Cornell right now. Are we really supposed to believe this isn't happening in the UK?
Nevertheless, the UKHSA is the best data we have. This tweet by Don Wolf says it best...
https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1471562296581230592?fbclid=IwAR2v_eikeKSM22msmP1VLKDuXpfaRNQ7r4tlPUiROhDX1c5bmAmN2ySXxGI
I shouldnt have even mentioned the unlinked that only affect "Cases" and those don't really matter- simply a distraction.
Much more important to look at the paper and seeing that mortalities in the vaccinated that occur within the 14 day window are being miscategorized as vaccinated deaths. These show up as anomalies and can be separated out and reassigned back to the vaccinated mortality to give a better estimates of mortality rates.
miscategorized as vaccinated deaths? You mean unvaccinated, right?
I wrote this in response to another comment below. The deaths in the fully vaxxed are already pretty bad.
==============
The goal is to not die...not to have a lower rate of death in your age cohort by vaxx status.
The fully vaxxed have been the majority of deaths since the first UKHSA report in week 39.
Week 39, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 35 and week 38
76.3% fully vaxxed (2293/3005)
19.5% unvaxxed (586/3005)
Week 50, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 46 and week 49
75.4% fully vaxxed (2201/2920)
21.2% unvaxxed (618/2920)
Most of these deaths were in the older cohorts. The week 50 report would include any death benefit from the boosters. About 80% of those age 65 and older have received a booster.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
thanks yes my failure to proof read reply/response above
Vaccinee death miscategorized as Unvaccinated death
No worries. I thought so. Just wanted to be sure I understood. I often cringe when I re-read some of my comments. Need to slow down and read before I press enter, but I never do. Wish they had an edit option.
Sweet Jesus please add an edit option!
Great summary Tom! The report was a fascinating but difficult read. The authors summarized neatly as follows. "With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination." In short, the vaccines don't work.
In November the unvaccinated only accounted for 19% of Covid deaths so its hard to see why the 19% would be occupying 48% of ICU beds.
I was the only unvaxxed in ICU less than 5 weeks ago, ( I had a pre existing lung issue that turned into an infection then pneumonia) and also in the main ward when I got out of ICU, I saw many empty beds that were occupied the night before then filled back up with more vaxxed people.
Something very fishy about this data. Richmond NHS have been making some extraordinary claims today that 97% of patients don't have 2 jabs and a booster. They've given boosters to over 20 million of our most elderly down so I find this figure quite unbelievable.
Whilst waiting in A&E I had nothing to do but listen to everyone around me and out of 30 people that came in after me, only 1 other was unvaxxed everyone else was double jabbed and approx half of them had boosters as well due to their age.
Leon this is really helpful information because it shows that it is not the odd person but a number of people coming in due to the vaccine. I keep hearing it is the unvaccinated clogging up our beds, but it is the vaxxed.
How do you know their vaxx status, exactly? You seem to be very sure about this for every single person on the ward, which seems a bit odd if you were only a patient there. Were they all announcing their status loudly and clearly or something?
I was left on a gurney in the middle of the A&E right next to the computer that the nurses were using to enter the data on, they talked about every patients vaccination status as they entered it.
I can see why many staff are leaving the NHS they are the boots on the ground seeing all the carnage.
Have people lost the art of courtesy? I rather listen to boots on the ground, than the hysteria-media because they love saying all the unvaccinated are piling in
Similarly the double vaxxed accounted for 80% of deaths but these good folks were only offered 52% of ICU space. They used to supply a table with the actual numbers and percentages but stopped doing that. I'm always suspicious when the change what they report and start reporting per 100,000 when they have no idea how many unvaccinated people there actually are.
So if you are over 50 and at risk and especially if you are over 75 , it makes sense to get vaxxed as this seems to protect one against severe disease and death. The RATE of death among vaxxed people is lower than the rate in unvaxxed. So the vaxxes reduce the chances of death in older at risk people. Great! this is what they were ostensibly intended to do. But they dont reduce transmission or spread and side effect profile makes them a bad risk for health people under 50 and especially under 40 unless there is a compelling reason for someone who is younger ( comorbidities) to get them. So there is no medical or ethical justification for mandates or passports. Am I missing something?
Not to me, sounds spot on
Only that nobody in politics really wants to admit this?
thats why they are all failures and cowards
The goal is to not die...not to have a lower rate of death in your age cohort by vaxx status.
The fully vaxxed have been the majority of deaths since the first UKHSA report in week 39.
Week 39, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 35 and week 38
76.3% fully vaxxed (2293/3005)
19.5% unvaxxed (586/3005)
Week 50, COVID-19 deaths within 28 days age 50 and older week 46 and week 49
75.4% fully vaxxed (2201/2920)
21.2% unvaxxed (618/2920)
Most of these deaths were in the older cohorts. The week 50 report would include any death benefit from the boosters. About 80% of those age 65 and older have received a booster.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
amended reply. the only way I know - delete and insert new one. haven't changed much, only corrected a typo and am adding this clarifier:
The somewhat nasty remarks at the end of this comment are not directed to anyone here or in fact anywhere - they are an expression of my attitude to that amorphous entity 'the government' that is currently jackbooting its way into our lives.
disagree. i'm in the aged cohort. my goal is not to die AND to not have a nasty severe episode if I can avoid it.
My current feeling is that being without co-morbidities and in good general health and with (illegal thanks to my homicidal government) early treatments standing by I'm better off without this risky wildcard: the vaccine.
All the arguing back and forth doesn't help me much if at all.
And ironically the more specific and particular the arguments get the less persuasive they are: because they get down to arguing fine points of statistical analysis etc. on what's clearly fundamentally atrocious data.
For me the broad picture mainly tells the story. I simplistically divide the world into two camps (as most of us do) 'for me' and 'against me'.
'Against me' are all those who censor everything, who maintain there's an emergency when there's clearly nothing more than medical event of perhaps some severity, who take despotic powers without explanation or apology on that spurious basis, who deny me free speech, who deny me early treatment medication thousands of doctors have spoken for, who subject to home arrest literally millions of innocent people, who mandate useless and in many ways harmful maskings, who've cost the nation, the taxpayer untold (because they won't tell) millions even billions, who're unconcerned with the commensurate global effects which we're assured are costing millions the quality of their lives and even their lives, who publish bald lies such as a vax has been fully tested when 'full testing' in pure simple ordinary every day logic includes over an adequate period of time and there has not been any such time span as yet.... and so on...
all the way to mandating I take a vax.
When I read/see on a daily basis the awful state of Israel, as an example, going mad trying to flog a dead horse back to life.
See? In my simplistic world they are simply the 'evil anti-me' and I naturally abhor and shun anything and everything they stand for.
Let me be plain, I think it is very, very stark: if they had ever, ever at any time, displayed any concern for the people, any consideration, manifested anything that would inform, nurture, sustain, maintain, empower the people, dispel fogs of confusion, illuminate the truth, let freedom grow, look for help, share and include the people, encourage the people to think they could fight this supposedly monstrous enemy - if they had ever done any of that I might tend a little to giving them credence and contemplating going along with some of their narrative.
But they did not and do not.
I love learning something about immunology and vaccines and viruses and statistics and the human race and its psychology etc....
But in the end all the discussions, debates, charts, graphs, data lists, reports, trials, tests, anecdotes etc mean nothing to me compared to that:
They are pure evil. they would see me dead if they could.
They make no bones of it. Simple test: Can I have Ivermectin?
No.
Please. I won't take a vaccine, I might die - you tell me I might die - you tell me it's terrible and a great danger - so I'm in fear of my life - can I have Ivermectin, I'll at least get placebo benefit?
No.
But I might die or more probably at least suffer much unnecessarily.
Die you bastard.
Thanks, buddy. Well I've got your measure. And what's that you say? Take your vaccine? Go fuck yourself.
Their behaviour in the first place created the suspicion, now they want us to pay for our own curiosity.. Online Harms Bill next year anything that could be misconstrued as misfit-information, they feel say they can take some kind of criminal action again us. So where will substack still be a safe place to share?
Really? They are going to try to introduce such a Bill? Utter madness. Herd, clone, sheep, drone, masochist thinking.
Don't worry. They'll never get that across the line.
And, you have also identified why they are unmoved by all the data, charts etc. They don’t care.
Very well said.
I'm confused. Did you take my comment as support of the jabs? If so, please re-read it...'cause it's not. My point is that the messaging is garbage. Yes, the death rates are lower in the fully vaxxed...but the fully vaxxed make up a significant majority (~75%) of the deaths going back months. The rates are almost unchanged.
I don't want to catch the 'ro either, so I take reasonable precautions. I may get it anyway.
I'm not sure where you're located. I live in the States and was able to get Ivermectin for my family through Push Health and Honeybee Health Pharmacy. It was all done online, and I paid out of pocket. Honeybee Health appears in the pharmacy drop-down.
The Ivermectin I have is manufactured in the United States for Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals.
https://www.pushhealth.com/service-request/ivermectin/1683?state=Pennsylvania&fbclid=IwAR20zhs6q_dYLAyYm0dMd_nBFRr600Jn7rr-BsEnTZpo9m8zU4K6B3BFw48
https://honeybeehealth.com
http://edenbridgepharma.com
http://edenbridgepharma.com/news.php#IVM
August 12, 2021
"Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals utilizes a contract manufacturer and two contract packagers for its Ivermectin tablets, USP (3mg). The manufacturer and both packagers are located in the United States and are all in good standing with the FDA and routinely audited."
The link I provided is for Pennsylvania. If you click on the "Request Now" button on this link, it will connect you to links for all the states. I assume they will reimburse you if they cannot connect you with a provider for your area.
https://www.pushhealth.com/drugs/ivermectin
Good grief. I suddenly realised what you read - I mean how you must have read what I wrote in my slapdash fashion.
No, no, no. I wasn't addressing you at all at the end there. I was directing my ire to the government. I was speaking rhetorically. Giving you a view inside my head at my attitude vis-a-vis them.
Good god, no. I apologise for writing so poorly as to give that impression.
It's pretty off-putting to have such language directed at oneself, I know that. I never use that language at respondents in comments columns. I reserve it entirely for addressing my hypothetical government representative.
Sorry. :(
No worries.
These comments and this dicussion are very interesting. I think the rates are very important to consider. even though the majority of deaths are in vaxxed people, those people are much larger percentage of the population and they tend to be sicker and older. So if the vaxes were really deadly or ineffective you might expect to see a HIGHER death rate among the vaxxed. But that isnt the case. In the minority of population that is not vaxxed , the rate of death in this population is higher. This suggests that for a certain subset of people ( those over a certain age say 65 with comoribdities) the vaxxes actually are protective. And that's exactly what they were intended for.
Whats really tragic to me is how something that could have been targeted to protect the truly vulnerable morphed into this global totalitarian religious crusade to stick in a needle in every human being's arm. I blame the public health establishments; people like fauci et al, criminally inept
It's all a welter of confusion and deception, misinterpretation, inaccurate data, etc... I don't know what's right at all.
Are you sure the death rate for vaxxed can be trusted, for instance? Because sometimes they count those that are within fourteen days of their jab to be 'unvaxxed', don't they?
On the grounds that the vax hadn't had time to do its sterling work, I suppose.
But incidentally shiftng all adverse reactions and deaths into the 'unvax' column.
You are correct… a giant mess! Too bad we in the USA dont have a huge generously funded agency that could manage something like this and gather accurate and honest data. It seems as if the death rates in the first two weeks after the first mRna vaxxes cancel the benefit (reduction in mortality ) in the longer term. If this is true then the vaxxes in general have been a complete failure. If one adds the deaths in the first two weeks after the jabs and other causes of excess deaths in the vaxxed it could very well be that the death rate among the vaxxed equals or exceeds the death rate among the unvaxxed.
The vaxx rates in the UK are very high. I sincerely doubt that people age 70 and older who remain unvaxxed are ne'er-do-wells. Most are likely too ill to take a jab.
Thank you for all that. No, I didn't take your comment that way though I might have sounded like it. I was just kinda off on my own hobby horse, freewheeling along...
:)
I have Ivermectin. Got it from India, no trouble. There's some chance it could be fraudulent but not, I think, a big chance, it's from a fairly major and well established retailer there.
We ordinary people are learning such a lot in this incredible time, aren't we?
Perhaps be good if we learned some chemistry tricks, too, perhaps how to test Ivermectin tabs for the presence of Ivermectin?
Or cook up some home brewed hydroxychloroquine....moonshine of the 21st century.
Push consult cost $115. Ivermectin was about $5.60 per 3 mg pill.
Yes, the evil intentions of those in power.
it depends on your age and risk category. It should be a personal decision. THere is absolutely no rational medical scientific justification for mandates or passports or any kind of social pressure to get vaxxed. Its 90 percent hysteria and politics
Wheat production is up %270 Comrades. Tractors are running on borscht. Drosten scored three goals against Italy in the Barcelona olympics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/D1C0MM/status/1466207478060777473
Does the apparent improvement in the older age groups indicate that boosters aren't leading to an increase in cases? (Due to immune suppression or whatever the cause might be).
case increases expected ca 14 days out from booster dose. most in the older cohorts are more than 2weeks out from booster by now.
It'll be interesting to see what happens over the coming weeks with the mass booster drive, considering that a tidal wave of cases is expected, and it is that time of year. I'm not sure what we'll be seeing in these weekly data releases: an improvement/reversal of the negative efficacy or worsening of it.
So is it correct that the vaccine still seems to provide say a 4x or so mutiple reduction in death rates? Obviously considering lots of possible cofounders like vaccinated people may be healthier overall or more likely to test.
from these numbers, yes. the effect seems much more modest at the level of all-cause mortality, suggesting that a great many deaths aren't so much prevented by the vaccines, as merely moved out of the Corona column.
According to the UKHSA week 50 report, about 80% of the population age 65 and older has had two jabs and a booster. Over 90% have had two jabs.
Aside from the confounders (the older vaxxed are paradoxically more healthy and health conscious, the older unvaxxed are too ill to get a jab)...these populations are too far apart for meaningful comparison.
The goal is to not die...not to have a lower rate of death in your age cohort. Telling a double-jabbed 75-year-old that there is a lower rate of death in his age cohort gives him a false sense of protection. 76.2% of the deaths in the 70-79 cohort were fully vaxxed (and some boosted). 81.4% of the deaths in the 80+ cohort were fully vaxxed (and some boosted).
The fully vaxxed are the majority of the deaths in the older cohorts and have been for weeks. About 90% of the 80+ cohort was double jabbed by week 20. In the week 39 report, they were 84.1% of the deaths (week 35 through 38).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
If I may add a human element to this. How has the quality of life of these people been in the 20 some months leading up to the deaths?
In my experience, it's very much dependent on the person. I know elderly people who are living their lives as they always did and were very angry at the restrictions, and I know of people who are in hiding.
My former dentist (now in his 80s) had no contact with anyone but his wife (no adult children, no grandchildren) for over a year. They would have their groceries delivered to their front door and leave them outside for twenty minutes. Their only entertainment/escape was taking long drives in the car (not sure how they re-filled their tank of gas).
Some people are so afraid of this virus and of dying that they've completely forgotten how to live. It's sad...but they've harmed the rest of us with their insanity.
I am not even in that age group nor live in fear of the virus. Yet, I have been living under lockdown light for over 20 months now. Most everything is cancelled. By in laws are afraid to have their grandson, my son over to their home. The list is long. One can not have a social life if one is the only one not afraid to do so.
But the point of my question is that whether they choose to or not, many who have passed away these past 20 some months were scared into or forced to give up living until they no longer existed. Criminal.
I wonder about such figures. Pfizer's original report according to Chris Martensen claimed improvement from a natural 99.86% 'protection' to 99.96%. That means instead of 14 dying out of 10,000 only 4 people die. That's getting close to your 4 x reduction isn't it?
But in numbers we're talking about counting 14 people, dead or sick, from 10,000.
In a scenario where co-morbidities are often overlooked or ignored.
In a scenario where clear deaths from other causes can be lumped in.
In a scenario where traditionally hospital deaths from medical errors are running at something between 200,000 - 300,000 per year which must have some effect on such numbers.
And so on.
I'm no mathematician. No statistician. But to borrow their phrase, to me those numbers are 'not statistically significant' no matter how much they might look they are.
I thought the Pfizer trials didn't try to demonstrate any effect on deaths, it wasn't powered to do so. Or so they claim. Actually there were more deaths in the vaccine arm than the control arm, but, a small number on both sides.
There were also a small number of positive PCR tests on both arms. Far less than the average positivity rate in the general population at the same time. Vaccines work 95% of the time when you don't get exposed to Covid. That should have been the marketing right there.
Is it possible to calculate Number Needed to Vaccinate for Hospilizatona and Death from their Hospizliation/Death Rates per 100K? If so how is that done? And how would you account for working from 1 week of data? Also, I take it per 100K is per 100K vaccinated and per 100K unvaccinated for their respective columns? Is that correct?
can't do this reliably, because the size of the unvaccinated population is too uncertain.
Thanks for the honest answer. It's not going to stop me from fiddling around. I just got 666 for the NNTV to prevent hospitalization for 40 years olds. Not sure how I got it but I took the devil's number as a sign I'm guessing right.
If anybody is interested in my amateur attempt at this per age group here it is
https://dennisfield.substack.com/p/drawing-lines-in-the-statistical
Has anyone wondered why the unvaxxed are such a high percentage of admissions now, relative to their prevalence in the population? I.e. half the ward is unvaxxed, but are only around 10% of total population. If numbers had been similar last year or in previous waves pre vax, the rate of covid admissions should have been many x higher. No?
In Norway we have similar numbers as in UK. 90% vaxxed in adult pop. Hospital admissions are about 50-50 vaxxed and unvaxxed. For unvaxxed the rate for admissions is 20 per 100 k. For vaxxed Its 1.3 ish. For the unvaxxed, basically all admissions are age group 45 - 65. So the rate per 100 k In that group is at least double, perhaps quadruple. Havent calculated precisely. in fact, right now, in raw numbers its about 120 out of 100000.
Basically, if the rate of admissions for age groups 45-65 was 50 - 100 per 100k last year, scenes in the hospitals would have been biblical.
So are unvaxxed 40-60 getting sicker from covid now?
Rates of infection have skyrocketed here, and are 8-10 times higher than previous waves. This could account for something, but not everything.
One hypothesis I’ve considered is that the vaxxed are infecting with higher prevalence, and higher viral loads. Basically making the unvaxxed alot sicker if they get infected.
Or what am I missing?
Hospitals ask you if you've been vaccinated upon admission. If you are, then no PCR. If you are not, then you are tested. This disparity between not testing the vaccinated (unless symptomatic) and testing every unvaccinated patient counts some towards the discrepancy.
As far as I've understood,
a) infections are rising within the general population, we had a low percentage of infections last year, and drastic measures were taken, which limited contact and kept the spread of infection lower. This year, more people are getting infected (which is unavoidable and can only be delayed) => vaccinated have a bit of protection against severe COVID, unvaccinated don't => more hospital admissions.
b) Viral loads seem to be equally high in the vax. and unvax. (according to Drosten, I think), but viral loads diminish faster in the vax. So I don't think that can make such a difference.
The negative efficacy for the remaining two-dosed (young) population is fundamentally a PR embarrassment, and that is why the UK press are having to handwavingly justify the irrational policy of boosting the young before finishing the booster program for the elderly. Eventually the truth might just get out that the unvaccinated have roughly similar and the recovered, far superior, steady-state immunity to the vaccinated, and that therefore the whole policy of vaccinating the healthy was insane and driven by the pandemicists and their profit and power motives.
The diabolical aspect of the pandemicist's use of leaky and short term vaccines is that their agenda to get universal coverage and rolling boosters now dovetails with that of the public health bureaucrats who just want to save face and protect their political capital. It's all one massive doubling-down operation.
Wow. <-60% efficacy at weeks 15-19 and they even cut off the chart (no data?) so we cannot see how bad it is <14 weeks... Can anyone spell ADE?
This looks awful for any "vaccinate the entire population" advocate, and the evidence just keeps getting worse for that point of view.
Regarding the temporary booster improvement in those older age groups, Covid19Crusher on Twitter did a good table on Omicron in Denmark with 2X + booster at 0.4. Unvaxxed at 0.47, one jab at 0.7 and two jabs at 1.4 as percentages of those populations by vax status. So 2 vaxxed 3 times as likely as unjabbed to get Omicron.
https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1470789195463593985
Been thinking about it: if it were the case that the unvaccinated occupied 48% of ICU and only constituted 19% of deaths we could draw the conclusion that ICU staff see the unvaccinated as more viable and likely to survive than the fully vaccinated.
If the deaths of the vaccinated are happening before the ICU (home, ward, or emergency) the proportions of vaccinated versus unvaccinated dying in the ICU could be identical for all we know even less!
Accepting that deaths are happening outside of ICU, which I do, then whether the ICU patients are vaxed or otherwise is pretty much irrelevant isn't it? People die inside and outside of ICU's for all sorts of reasons, vaxed or unvaxed.
I heard some numbers at a staff briefing this morning, can't remember the exact numbers but around 12 covid patients in ICU out of 25 ish beds. I wasn't really paying that much attention. No other details and they didn't tell us what the other ones were in for but presumably a mix of post operative care, car, or or other bizarre accidents, kids who have been stabbed or beaten up, suicide attempts, and all sorts of people with all sorts of problems.
Yes, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a vaxed/unvaxed divide, just more likely to survive.