Sviesta Ciba |

antiprojekcija (

antiprojekcija) rakstīja,
@ 2022-12-12 18:37:00

Garais covid
Jauns liels meta pētījums (kopā reprezentē datus par > 700'000 izslimojušo) par "long-covid" secina, ka apmēram 45% izslimojušo ir vismaz viens simptoms, kas vēl nav pārgājis pēc 4 mēnešiem. Biežākais no tiem ir nogurums/vājums.

"The reasons as to why so many patients are experiencing Long Covid remains unknown; proposed physiological mechanisms underpinning the persistent symptoms include: organ damage, inflammation, altered immune status and psychological effects."

Tas tā, tiem, kam liekas, ka covid tā pati gripa vien ir.

P.S.

extranjero, neaizmirsti atjaunot savu Beijesa modeli ar pētījuma nopietnībai atbilstošu svaru. Man personīgi liekas mazliet pārliecinošāk, nekā tas pētījums, kas konstatēja, ka covid simptomus var piedzīvot pat tad, ja tests bijis negatīvs.

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

brookings
2022-12-13 09:58 (saite)

1) I don't agree that it is misinformation, and I will tell you why. The SPKC used to publish relative infection rates of vaxed and unvaxed. When the infection rates of the unvaxed fell so much that the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated were less likely to be infected than the fully vaccinated, they removed that chart from their twitter and home page (some time in March this year of memory serves).

They then replaced it with a graph, which you can see on post of mine here on April 14th. When the levels of infection of the boosted and double vaxed fell to the levels of unvaxed or below, that graph disappeared, too.

I then wrote to both the SPKC and the VM to get the numbers of infection and the numbers of the various cohorts. I published some of it on Ciba. the standout fact for me was the incredibly high relative rate of infection in those who had started vaccination - 10x higher than the other groups. It also did not show any significant difference in the infection rates of the unvaxed, vaxed, and boosted. The results did not show what the SPKC currently purports to be the case. If something has changed, I would much prefer that the workings are shown and the absolute numbers of the infection (and cohort sizes) are given.

I say this because as I mentioned before this is clearly (in my view) a political issue, and information that casts shade on the safety and efficacy of these vaccines is, therefore, a political threat.

The Office of National Statistics data on all-cause mortality is extremely troubling. Here it is:

Age-standardised mortality rate/100,000 person years [updated] UK April 2022:

Unvaccinated: 1204.6
First dose, less than 21 days ago: 6578.6
First dose, at least 21 days ago: 2497.9
Second dose, less than 21 days ago: 2786.2
Second dose, between 21 days and 6 months ago: 2333.5
Second dose, at least 6 months ago: 2355.6
Third dose or booster, less than 21 days ago: 1522.5
Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago: 966.1

May 2022:

Unvaccinated: 872.9
First dose, less than 21 days ago: x (not enough data)
First dose, at least 21 days ago: 1873.4
Second dose, less than 21 days ago: x
Second dose, between 21 days and 6 months ago: 1815.9
Second dose, at least 6 months ago: 1703.7
Third dose or booster, less than 21 days ago: 2056
Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago: 797

As you can se the numbers are way higher in all but the 'third dose or booster at least 21 days ago'. What interested me was how the numbers for this group would change over time. Would they also rise to the levels of the other vaxed cohorts? As I mentioned in my post of Sep 28th, is it dangerous to stop getting vaxed, as if you do, your chances of dying become much higher (much higher than the unvaxed cohort). By the way, these figures are age-adjusted. If there is a normal explanation as to why they vary so much, it would be good to know.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2022-12-13 13:46 (saite)

Regarding the SKPC data (in particular daily or weekly infection statistics) - these can be misleading (and I would argue were misleading this spring) because of a general apathy and unwillingness to test, especially in alienated cohorts. I doubt that the real infection rate in these groups was equal. In any case - we have the hospitalization and death rates which should be much more reliable (and pretty much match up with similar statistics in other countries).

I now took a look at the UK data, and, yeah, I see the trend. It hasn't really changed since 2021 as well (except that back then there was no boosters yet and the excess deaths might have been masked by the high number of covid deaths among the unvaccinated). I don't know what to make of it at the moment. A possible explanation would be an increased mortality rate shortly after vaccination, but that does not explain the high mortality for the "Second dose, at least 6 months ago" group, for example.

Btw, you should also notice that the mortality rate in the fully vaccinated group is lower by a lot more than the mortality rate due to covid. This would indicate that there are some more factors at play. Perhaps, the more affluent and health-conscious are already mostly fully vaccinated, while the rest (who are more likely to die) are just now catching up? This also seems unsatisfactory, because it does not explain the low mortality in the unvaccinated group.

I'll keep an eye on newer data and research on this topic.

P.S. I agree that it was a very politicised issue, but I don't think it is anymore. I feel that it has largely dropped below the radar since the war started.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2022-12-13 13:53 (saite)

Could you elaborate on the following? I wasn't able to catch what you meant.

Btw, you should also notice that the mortality rate in the fully vaccinated group is lower by a lot more than the mortality rate due to covid.

Also, when you are referring to UK data (that hasn't changes since 2021), could you tell which data you have in mind (on infection rates, Cvd mortality, all-cause mortality and so on)?

Thanks.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2022-12-13 14:01 (saite)

I looked at the dataset here. Judging by the numbers it is the same you were referencing.

What I meant was that in Table 1 they provide three types of causes of death - "all causes", "covid deaths" and "non-covid related deaths". It is striking that the "Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago" group has lower non-covid related mortality accross the board. So the effect must be explained by something other than vaccination (unless you believe that the booster is some kind of elixir of life ;).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2022-12-13 14:39 (saite)

Okay - that's clear. A couple of points:

It is a good idea, I think to concentrate on all-cause mortality (thanks Begemots) as this eliminates all the arguments about transmission rates, testing, and what is or isn't a covid death.

What's clear from the table is that all-cause mortality rates in the vaccinated cohorts start to exceed rates in the unvaccinated from about May/June 2021. Initially it is just one cohort (Dose 1 over 21 days), but with each passing month more and more vaccinated groups shower high all-cause mortality until we hit Feb 2022, where all bar one group is higher than the unvaccinated.

If the table follows the same pattern, we should have started to see higher rates in 'third dose or booster at least 21 days ago' (higher rates than in the unvaccinated).

However, that data isn't, as far as I am aware, available.

I find it very concerning, personally.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2022-12-13 16:03 (saite)

Sure, "all causes" is what we're ultimately interested in. It's just that this detail tells us that something more is going on beyond just vaccination.

Regarding the cohorts - I'm thinking that the explanation for "rates in the vaccinated cohorts start to exceed rates in the unvaccinated" is just that the exceptionally healthy cohort of "early vaccine adopters" is moving onwards to nominally new groups -
- at first its the "Second dose, between 21 days and 6 months ago" which (meaning, in large part the same actual people) then becomes
- "Third dose or booster, less than 21 days ago" by October/November 2021 and eventually
- "Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago" by December 2021.

After that the gap in non-covid related deaths between the fully vaccinated an unvaccinated cohort starts to close as the fully vaccinated cohort grows ever larger (accepting new and new "less healthy" members it would seem).

The question then becomes - who are the people either getting vaccinated belatedly or stopping to vaccinate and why are they more likely to die compared to either the fully vaccinated or the unvaccinated?

Note that the October-December 2021 period also allows us to rule out the spike in deaths after vaccination hypothesis - while the "early vaccine adopters" are getting their third shot, the mortality in the "Third dose or booster, less than 21 days ago" is very low indeed.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2022-12-13 16:32 (saite)

Is there some basis for the assumption that those who start vaccination early and continue with it are exceptionally healthy (in general)?

In the UK, it was the older generations and immune-compromised who started early. And I think it is this group who is most likely to continue with it. I don't have stats for that. I just go off the fact that my parents and all their peers are vaccinated and continue with it. Among my younger friends and acquaintances, less so.

It seems that this assumption you posit must be true for your later suppositions to hold water.

I disagree with your claim that the spike in deaths after vaccination hypothesis can be ruled out. Dose 1 all-cause mortality rates have been significantly higher than the unvaccinated since the summer of 2021 (Dose 1 over 21 days over 6,000 in June and July). It would, though, seem to show that if you continue with the shots, you are less likely to suffer from this fate (death after injection).

Actually, you can see these higher rates in non-covid deaths in the recently vaccinated as early as May 2021 when the vaccines were rolled out to the younger and fitter generations.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2022-12-13 17:10 (saite)

It's not an assumption but rather an observation looking at the data - there are just less deaths in this group. It does not matter here that the older were a majority among the early vaccinated since we are looking at age-weighted data anyway.

Well, "ruled out" in the sense that if the shot itself would have been a major cause of death then it would have to show up in that Oct-Dec 2021 data as well. It's just a counterpoint to that idea. If you are interested in shot 1, then look at Jan-Mar 2021 when the first vaccines were rolled out. This is the same "healthy" cohort, and the non-covid mortality rate there is half of what it is for the unvaccinated.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2022-12-15 09:39 (saite)

It seems counter intuitive that those who took the vaccines early would be healthier. The ONS itself states in the notes to the table that

"Caution must be taken when comparing mortality rates and counts as the characteristics of people in the different vaccination status groups, such as health, may differ, particularly due to the prioritisation of the vaccine to more clinically vulnerable people."

A more credible explanation could be found in the surprising-to-me fact that the ONS doesn't know how many people are unvaccinated. Here is some information from Full Fact (https://fullfact.org/health/expose-england-population-vaccinated/):

"To estimate the size of the population eligible for vaccination, the government uses the ONS estimate for the population aged 12 and over, which is 48,375,273. With 43,250,509 first doses having been given in England, that would leave an estimated 5.1 million eligible people who have not received a dose of vaccine."

However

"The NIMS figure for the population aged 12 or over is 54,328,630, which would leave around 11 million eligible people in England who have not received a dose of vaccine."

NIMS = National Immunisation Management Service

I don't claim to know what is going on with any certainty, but if I understand this information correctly, then the ONS could be underestimating the number of unvaccinated in the UK - possibly to a significant extent. This would explain the difference in non-Covid death rates/100,000 in the recently vaccinated in the ONS data. I say that as not even the most fervent proponents of the vaccines claimed it would mean you are less likely to die from non-Covid ailments.

Another piece of evidence to support this is the information on the ONS website, namely:

"There will be a delay in publishing the next edition of the deaths by vaccination status dataset as we require data on subsequent booster vaccinations and will be updating to the 2021 Census populations. The next publication date will be announced on the release calendar when this is confirmed."

This is interesting as the Full Fact article states that "The ONS figure is an estimate of the population over a year ago based on the 2011 census".

My fear - based on the one-sided nature of information dissemination I have clearly seen up until now - is that the ONS knows that the death rates in the unvaccinated are (when the NIMS data and/or 2021 Census data is used) significantly higher across ALL vaccinated cohorts. And they are reluctant to publish, as a result.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2022-12-15 13:35 (saite)

Oof, yeah 2011 feels old as hell considering everything that has transpired. Even though they "update it every year based on surveys", the errors are bound to accumulate. But the NIMS data sounds even more fishy as it counts both emigrees and double counts people with multiple GPs.

Here is an interesting graph illustrating your point - the ONS and NIMS data are so out of whack that you get diametrically opposed results using one or the other.

IDK, maybe it would be prudent to look at some better organized countries data to get a clearer picture? :)

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	extranjero 2022-12-17 12:15 (saite)
	>> double counts people with multiple GPs UK tas vispār nav iespējams. Katrs NHS numurs var būt piesaistīts tikai vienam GP. Tas viss ir centrālajā datubāzē. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	antiprojekcija 2022-12-17 12:25 (saite)
	1) Kā tad Tu skaidro to nesakritību? ONS vienkārši ir tik nekompetenti, ka pazaudēja 6 miljonus iedzīvotāju? 2) Kā Tev liekas, es to "double counting" pats izdomāju? (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

extranjero
2022-12-17 12:28 (saite)

1) Statistika ir sarežģīta, var būt visādi iemesli. Ja pat UK ar dažādām metodēm var nonākt pie pretrunīgiem rezultātiem, tad ir jāapšauba dati no valstīm ar vēl sliktāku uzskaiti.

2) Es nezinu, kas to izdomāja. Es tikai pasaku, ka tas nav reāli. Ja to kāds raksta, tad viņš nav īsti lietas kursā, kā UK sistēma darbojas. Daudz reālāk ir tas, ka cilvēkam nav neviena GP, vai vispār nav NHS numura (piemēram veseli imigranti, kuriem vēl nav bijusi vajadzība iet pie ārsta, vai arī nelegālie imigranti).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	extranjero 2022-12-17 12:29 (saite)
	Tāpat ar imigrantiem var būt tā, ka viņi vakcinējas citā valstī, un tas jau NHS ierakstos neparādās. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	antiprojekcija 2022-12-17 12:35 (saite)
	Labi, interesantāks jautājums - ko Tu domā par brookings datiem, un mūsu diskusiju? (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

extranjero
2022-12-17 12:42 (saite)

Tur ir ļoti jāiedziļinās, lai izstrādātu pamatotu viedokli. Piedod, bet man tam nav laika.

Es tikai pateikšu, ka visa tā pārlieku mirstība ir ļoti neskaidra, un var būt jebkādi iemesli. Šobrīd es nevaru arī izslēgt, ka problēma ir vakcīnas – ja mRNS vakcīnas izraisa miokardītu veseliem cilvēkiem, tad būtībā tās var nedaudz bojāt sirdi jebkuram. Nu varbūt ne gluži akūtā formā, bet tā, ka tas ietekmē turpmāko veselību un dzīvildzi. Droši vien būs vajadzīgi 5-10 gadi, lai to pierādītu.

Bet īstermiņā kovida vakcīnu mandāti ir samazinājuši MMR vakcīnas bērniem, kas noteikti atspēlēsies ilgtermiņā. Bērniem šajā pandēmijas periodā būs īsāka dzīvildze, un ne jau kovida dēļ, bet nesaprātīgo ierobežojumu un politiku dēļ.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2022-12-17 12:53 (saite)

Ok, paldies!

Starp citu, Tu to MMR vakcinācijas samazinājumu liec tīri pie vakcīnu mandātu kājām, jeb saskati arī anti-vakcinācijas dezinformācijas kampaņu lomu? Manuprāt, te ļoti nopietni jāskatās, kas vēl ir cēlonis, un kas - sekas.

Es pat domāju, ka bez tām varbūt tie mandāti nemaz nebūtu bijuši vajadzīgi. Galu galā, antivax kustība ir krietni senāka par covid, un pirmie masaliņu uzliesmojumi jau bija vēl pirms covid. Skat., šeit jau 2018. gadā tiek celta trauksme par dezinformāciju, un tās sekām.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	extranjero 2022-12-17 15:20 (saite)
	Cēlonis ir vakcīnu mandāti par ne visai labām vakcīnām, kas noveda pie lielāka atbalsta antivax. Tāpēc arī lielāka dezinformācija. Šīs lietas ir ļoti sarežģītas, un jau agrāk bija liela pretestība vakcīnām, tad valdības nekādi šoreiz nevar attaisnoties, ka nezināja, ka tā varētu notikt. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	extranjero 2022-12-17 12:16 (saite)
	Tāpat diez vai ir daudzas valstis, kur būtu vēl labāka medicīnas datu uzskaite, nekā UK, un kurai būtu iespējama piekļuve pētniekiem. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Navigate: