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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.