Sviesta Ciba |

antiprojekcija (

antiprojekcija) rakstīja,
@ 2023-05-06 08:17:00

Anglijas jaunākā mirstības statistika pēc vakcinācijas statusa
Šis ieraksts gavlenokārt

brookings.

Tātad, nolēmu pārbaudīt, un ONS ir publicējuši mirstības datus par 2022. gada otru pusi: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

Īsumā:
1) joprojām ir spēkā trends, ka lielāka mirstība ir grupām, kam ir daļēja vakcinācija
2) joprojām pilnībā vakcinēto grupā mirstība ir viszemākā
3) notiek regression to the mean - visās grupās statistika kļūst līdzīgāka

Mani takeaway:
- nekāda datu slēpšana nenotika - solīja publicēt datus, kad būs gatavi, kad bija gatavi, tad arī publicēja
- nekādu mirstības palielināšanās trendu starp vakcinētajiem nav

(Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

extranjero
2023-05-06 08:38 (saite)

Jā, interesanti, ka tu atbildi brookings, nevis man – kāpēc tu apgalvo, ka vakcīnu mandāti ir pamatoti?

Tas ir tieši par, ko es runāju. Kad nespēj atspēkot kādu apgalvojumu, tad sākas bet, bet, bet. Ak mājsēdes bija neefektīvas? Bet no kovida nomira 7 miljoni (pēc dažiem datiem 20 miljoni).

Ak, vakcīnu mandāti bija nepamatoti? Bet, bet šeit ir atbilde brookings par mirstību dažādās grupās (kas neko daudz nenozīmē, jo nav randomizētas kontroles grupas).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-06 09:10 (saite)

Tāpēc, ka mums ar brookings bija civilizēta saruna, un man tiešām interesanti, kā/vai viņa domas ir mainījušās?

Par vakcīnu mandātiem vienmēr esmu teicis tikai to, ka
- tas bija lēmums, kas tika pieņemts noteiktā kontekstā.
- Visticamāk, tas izglāba būtisku skaitu dzīvību,
- bet, protams, maksāja noteiktu sabiedrības goodwill daļu.
- Būtiski atbildīgi pie šī goodwill zuduma (un pie tā, ka vispār vajadzēja mandātus) ir arī dezinformācijas izplatītāji (ieskaitot Krieviju, kas ir būtisks anitvax ideju izplatītājs).

Par "mājsēdēm" - neesmu redzējis konkrētu izvērtējumu. Domāju, ka noteikta daļa no tiem bija muļķīgi, neefektīvi un kaitīgi - aizliegumi pastaigāties, piemēram. Daļa visticamāk bija efektīvi - iepirkšanās ierobežojumi, strādāšana no mājām, kad tas ir iespējams, utt. Vēl daļa ir ar plusiem un mīnusiem - tālmācība, ceļošanas ierobežojumi, utt. Tā vienkārši ne tuvu nav tāda balts un melns lieta kā Tu to centies pagriezt.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

extranjero
2023-05-06 09:17 (saite)

>> - Visticamāk, tas izglāba būtisku skaitu dzīvību,

Tam nav nekādu pierādījumu. Tieši otrādi – mandāti samazināja senioru vakcinācijas un iespējami palielināja mirstību.

>> bet, protams, maksāja noteiktu sabiedrības goodwill daļu.

Jā, ir konkrēti rādītāji, par cik tagad ir samazinājušās bērnu vakcinācijas. Šobrīd precīzi neatceros, bet Latvijā kaut kur 5%.

>> - Būtiski atbildīgi pie šī goodwill zuduma (un pie tā, ka vispār vajadzēja mandātus) ir arī dezinformācijas izplatītāji (ieskaitot Krieviju, kas ir būtisks anitvax ideju izplatītājs).

Arī tam nav nekādu pierādījumu.

>> iepirkšanās ierobežojumi

visdrīzāk pilnīgi neefektīvi.

>> ceļošanas ierobežojumi,

visdrīzāk pilnīgi neefektīvi.

Kā tu vispār vari apgalvot, ka tiem ir bijusi kaut kāda efektivitāte, ja tev tam nav nekādu pierādījumu?

Tu esi kā nu jau no amata atceltā CDC direktore, kura neveica nevienu pētījumu, bet lika vakcinētajiem valkāt maskas bez neviena pierādījuma, ka tām ir kāda nozīme.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	formica 2023-05-06 10:16 (saite)
	Vaccines temporal analysis : https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-devils-advocate-an-exploratory https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-vaccine-efficacy (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-06 10:53 (saite)

Paskaties, uz ko tas viss reāli ir balstīts: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/proven-relationship-covid-boosters?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

Tur ir tabula un regresija. Paskatoties uz grafiku, katram, kas ir strādājis ar statistiku ir skaidrs, ka izlase ir daudz par mazu (30 datu punkti), bet efektu un nozīmību rada daži izlēcēji. Un tas ir pirms vēl sākam runāt par to, kāpēc gudrinieks skatās datus tikai par 10.-35. nedēļu. Ļoti specifiska izvēle, ne?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	extranjero 2023-05-06 21:05 (saite)
	Kovida vakcīnu mandāti kā tādi ir dezinformācija, jo liek domāt, ka šīs vakcīnas pasargā no infekcijas pārneses. Tā diemžēl nav un tā kā dezinformācija pierādīti samazina vakcinācijas aptveri, šie mandāti samazina vakcinācijas aptveri. Vai ir skaidrs tagad? (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-06 11:07 (saite)

Nevajag pierādījumus, ja ir pilnīgi skaidrs mehānisms:
1) vakcinācija samazina mirstību
2) mandāti palielina vakcinācijas aptveri
3) secinājums - mandāti samazina mirstību
Ja Tev ir dati, kas apgāž šo elementāro bildi, tad, lūdzu, dalies!

"mandāti samazināja senioru vakcinācijas" - ļoti skaļš apgalvojums! Datus, lūdzu (gaidīt ar maisu, vai ne?)!

Arī par dezinformāciju patiesībā nevajag pierādījumus - ja cilvēks notic aplamai informācijai, ka vakcīna ir neefektīva un bīstama, protams, ka nevēlēsies vakcinēties. Tomēr tie pierādījumi ir - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10070-w

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

extranjero
2023-05-06 21:02 (saite)

>> Nevajag pierādījumus, ja ir pilnīgi skaidrs mehānisms:

Tikai ne medicīnā, lūdzu. No 10 zālēm ar ideālu darbības mehānismu varbūt tikai vienas izdodas apstiprināt, jo praksē vairums no tām nestrādā.

Tāpēc medicīnā un sabiedrības veselībā vienmēr ir vajadzīgi pierādījumi.

Nav pat pierādījumu, ka mandāti palielina vakcinācijas aptveri (it īpaši senioru vidū). Tie pat var samazināt aptveri. Tāpēc (2) punkts nav pierādīts. Punkts.

Jā, man ir dati – Latvijā ar mandātiem senioru vakcinācija ir 70% līmenī, UK bez mandātiem – ap 95-99% līmenī.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-06 21:40 (saite)

"Jā, man ir dati – Latvijā ar mandātiem senioru vakcinācija ir 70% līmenī, UK bez mandātiem – ap 95-99% līmenī."

Kas tas tāds par argumentu? Pamēģini atbildēt uz sekojošiem jautājumiem:
1) kāda bija vakcīnu aptvere senioriem pirms mandātiem Latvijā (un kāda UK, ja jau gribi salīdzināt)?
2) kā vakcīnu aptvere izmainījās pēc mandātu ieviešanas?
3) kāda izskatījās vakcinācijas līkne pirms un pēc mandātu ieviešanas?

Datiem būtu jābūt kaut kādiem tamlīdzīgiem, lai varētu mēģināt kaut ko reāli secināt.

Btw - tavi "dati" ir drīzāk liecība par labu manai tēzei par dezinformāciju. Mums ir tik zema aptvere senioru vidū daļēji tādēļ, ka tajā laikā vēl bijām tiešā krievijas propagandas kanālu ietekmes zonā, kuros katru dienu ziņoja par to, ka covid esot saaukstēšanās, vakcīnas nestrādā, tām ir smagas komplikācijas, utt.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

extranjero
2023-05-06 21:45 (saite)

Tu prasīji datus – es tev iedevu.

Galu galā ne jau man jāpierāda, ka mandāti nestrādā (negatīvo parasti nepierāda), bet mandātu ieviesējiem būtu jāpierāda, ka tie bija efektīvi. Šajā gadījumā tiem būtu jābūt ļoti efektīviem, jo paši par sevi mandāti ir pretrunā cilvēku tiesībām piekrist medicīniskām procedūrām (informētā piekrišana).

Dezinformācija bija arī no valdības, kad ieviesa mājsēdes, neskaidrojot, ka risks ir eksponenciāli pieaug līdz ar vecumu. To pirmo reizi EMA paziņoja tikai 2022. gadā, savukārt latviešu tulkojumā vārds “eksponenciāli” bija izvākts.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-06 21:55 (saite)

Tu man iedevi divus nesaistītus skaitļus, nevis datus. Es Tev iedevu loģisku pierādījumu. Ir arī pētījumu, kas post factum secina, ka mandāti samazināja nāves - bet nu nebūšu Tava google šodien.

Un nefantazē par to risku slēpšanu - kāpēc tad pirmos vakcinēja seniorus? Latvijā vispār sākumā ne-seniori pat gribēdami nevarēja dabūt vakcīnu, jo visas bija rezervētas senioriem - kas par spīti šai informācijai TV un presē izvēlējās klausīties krievijas kanālus, un nevakcinēties. Ok, varbūt, ka bez vārda "eksponenciāli" (kurš gandrīz nevienam tāpat neko neizsaka).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

extranjero
2023-05-06 22:01 (saite)

Kādā ziņā nesaistītus? Tie precīzi ir par vakcinācijas rādītājiem ar un bez mandātiem. Tie ir ļoti saistīti :D

Atcerēsimies, ka senioriem Latvijā pat netika nosūtītas vēstules. Ģimenes ārstiem piesolītā maksa bija smieklīgi maza, tāpēc nebija motivācijas (kamēr vakcinācijas birojā saņēma superaugstas algas).

Latvijā arī rezervēja vakcīnas otrajai devai nevis “pirmās devas vispirms” kā Anglijā.

Tāpat arī meloja par īpaši liela riska pieaugumu (visi izglītoti cilvēki saprotu vārdu eksponenciāli, tāpēc nedirs, ka tas nevienam neko neizsaka) veciem cilvēkiem, tāpēc neradīja viņiem lielāku motivāciju.

Atcerēsimies arī, ka pirmos vakcinēja nevis seniorus, bet ārstus. Turklāt ļoti drīz jau nevakcinētajiem vairs neļāva strādāt vai mācīties, pat ja viņi iepriekš bija izslimojuši ar kovidu.

Smieklīgi, ka mandātus ieviesa pēc tam, ka seniorus jau beidza vakcinēt.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	antiprojekcija 2023-05-06 22:17 (saite)
	"Tie precīzi ir par vakcinācijas rādītājiem ar un bez mandātiem." You are taking the piss, right? (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	extranjero 2023-05-06 22:20 (saite)
	Piedod, bet es pat nezinu, ko šis angliskais izteiciens nozīmē. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	extranjero 2023-05-06 21:49 (saite)
	Tu esi šīs dezinformācijas upuris, jo tu joprojām domā, ka mandāti bija pamatoti. Pat Mr. Trudo jau ieslēdza atpakaļgaitu, un sāka taisnoties, ka nebija nekādu mandātu, ka viņš tikai “pamudinājis” cilvēkus vakcinēties. Ja tev šis politiķa apgalvojums nešķiet meli, tad viss par tevi ir skaidrs. Nekādas uzticības vairs nevar būt. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	datu slēpšana formica 2023-05-06 11:03 (saite)
	https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/academic-censorship https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/retrospective-censorship-the-new https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/how-many-deaths-were-caused-by-the https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/never-vaccinated-vs-ever-vaccinated https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-latest-ons-data-on-deaths-by (Atbildēt uz šo)

brookings
2023-05-07 21:03 (saite)

There are a couple of problems we - you and me - have to face when looking at this data. The first is bias. I am inclined to distrust all official sources including the ONS, whereas you (if not just playing the devil’s advocate) are inclined to trust them.

My distrust comes from having come to believe that pretty much the entire political establishment (which now includes the scientific establishment) is corrupt and locked into not incriminating itself in front of the public - (those of the public who care - which is another sub-point we could get into). I noticed it when I was observing the SPKC website, which would - in a darkly comical manner - remove data when it became inconvenient - or ‘problematic’.

But let’s look at the ONS data, which in the previous report had begun to show problematic numbers, which many of us sceptical of the official safe-and-effective line believed necessitated a long delay in the publication of the next report.

The first main issue is what seems to be evidence of - again - underestimating the number of unvaccinated as once more we have the odd phenomenon of higher non-Covid mortality in the unvaccinated than in the fully vaccinated.

There are four possible explanations for this:

1. Misclassifying vaccinated death as unvaccinated death.
2. Underestimating the total number of the unvaccinated.
3. People who take the vaccines being healthier than the unvaccinated in general.
4. The vaccines are a wonder drug.

My thoughts on these four:

1: Misclassifying vaccinated death as unvaccinated death.

I won’t make this claim. Although I will say here is some debate about it. The head of Mortality at the ONS, Sarah Caul, wrote that they don’t have the number of people who died shortly after the first jab but were counted as unvaccinated. I suppose it might be a big number - but it might just as well be insignificant.

2: Underestimating the total number of the unvaccinated.

Once again, we have higher levels of non-Covid deaths in the unvaccinated population. Let’s take March 2022 for ages 50-59 as an example (I looked at this month as I saw a blog post about it, but I checked other months and age groups and the same phenomenon was evident).

Table 2: Row 2616

Unvaccinated deaths = 193 (in the previous report March 2022 showed just 119 deaths)
Person Years = 38,022 (as opposed to 37,284 in the previous report)
ASMR/100,000 person years = 512.5 (as opposed to 320.5 in the previous report)

3rd Dose > 21 days deaths = 1,4208 (as opposed to 1,097)
Person Years = 507,092 (as opposed to 448,449)
ASMR/100,000 person years = 277.8 (as opposed to 240.6)

This is for non-Covid deaths. It’s a big difference. In fact it is bigger than in the previous report (512.5/277.8) as opposed to 320.5/240.6)

We can calculate - more or less - the number of unvaccinated as a percentage by dividing the person years of this group for this month (38,022) by the total of all the person years for the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts (614,507). It comes out at 6.18%

So the ONS are using the figure of 6.18%. This is the percentage of the unvaccinated 50-59 year olds in March 2022 in the UK.

We can check that with the UKHSA (The UK Health Security Agency). In their Week 13 Covid-19 vaccine survey report published on March 31st 2022, you can see on Page 17 the cumulative vaccine uptake by age. The number of 50-59 year olds who had had a vaccine by March 2022 was a stable 85-87%.

Which leaves an unvaccinated percentage of 13-15%, not 6.8%.

As I say, I read this in a blog, so I decided to try another month and age group.

I chose 18-39 year olds for Feb 2022 (again non-Covid deaths) as these were one of the few cohorts as in the previous report that actually had a higher mortality rate for non-Covid deaths among the vaccinated (see Table 2 Row 2308): ASMR/100 person years of 21 as opposed to 29.4 for the 3rd dose or boost + 21 days cohort.
That changed in this report: the unvaccinated ASMR/100,000 person years now stands at 48.9, while the boosted + 21 days is at 34.1.

We see the same thing: The ONS has the unvaccinated percentage at (by my calculations) 18.3%.

(Atbildēt uz šo)

brookings
2023-05-07 21:03 (saite)

Yet a list to Page 17 of the UKHSA report shows that only about 60% of this cohort had had at least one dose by Feb 2022, which would put the unvaccinated at 40%. - double in other words.

3: People who take the vaccines being healthier than the unvaccinated in general.

How would you measure this? In my own personal experience the refuseniks tended - on the whole - to take more care of themselves than the jabbed, but… I am not going to make any claims here. I don’t see how anyone can.

4: The vaccines are a wonder drug.

Not even those pushing this drug have made this claim. If it is safe and effective, we should see it reducing Covid deaths, not affecting non-covid deaths. I believe this is what you yourself believe.

Check my calculations by all means. I have been busy with other things, and I could easily have made a mistake or two.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-07 22:47 (saite)

The discrepancies between the data sets are really strange. I downloaded a third (still older) version of the data set to check. There are some differences between the two older data sets - within reason I would say. The new dataset seems to have been constructed by some different methodology - as the "person-years" are now completely different, while the deaths also have moved around quite a bit. Looking at April 2021, the discrepancy in the "unvaccinated" deaths is about 300.

But this is not the biggest problem - no, the biggest issue is with the statistics. Take the same April 2021, All Causes as an example:
- there are 3'778 deaths in the "unvaccinated" group
- there are 27'856 deaths in the "ever vaccinated" group
- the person years are quite similar in both groups - within a factor of two

So if I calculate the death rates over 100'000 by hand I get:
- 281 deaths per 100k in the "unvaccinated" group (in the file - 2266.5)
- 1478 deaths per 100k in the "ever vaccinated" group (in the file - 862.4)

The same pattern holds true for all files, up to and including Dec. 2022:
- "unvaccinated" my calculation is 206 vs 1026.7 in the file
- "ever vaccinated" my calculation is 1'113 vs 944.9

So what's the conclusion? Apparently, I don't have the first clue what is going on with this data! I don't think the "person-years" column means what we think it means. If it did, then you should be able to estimate the population size by taking the total "person-years" and multiplying by 12, right? However by that logic the older files point to a total population around 39 million (18+) while the newer point would indicate around 47 million (18+). Both of these numbers are very far from the ~54 million I calculate from the graph in Statista.

Unfortunately I am unable to find a detailed explanation of the methodology used to aggregate this data. I must say that I am now much more confused than before.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2023-05-08 11:51 (saite)

I had the same issue - I had to recheck I had understood what 'person-years' means, and then run some tests on some simple population numbers to check that you could accurately determine the total population by multiplying by 12.

Could the confusion possibly be due to some of the recently vaccinated not having this status for a whole month but just 3 weeks? I don't think so, but nothing else comes to mind.

There is a lot of criticism of this report. When I get a free day, I will trawl through it and see if clarity can be achieved.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	brookings 2023-05-10 18:07 (saite)
	I deleted the previous post as I can already see where I need to recalculate. I will go through the numbers again. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

brookings
2023-05-12 22:18 (saite)

Okay let’s take Feb 2022 non-Covid mortality for 18-39 year olds.

Table 2: Row 2553 - Row 2559

We have the following Person Years
Unvaccinated: 192,631
All other Vaccinated cohorts: 858,727
Total = 1,051,358

Unvaccinated percentage = 18.3%
Total Population of 18 - 39 year olds = (Total Person Years x 365/28) 13,705,202

I think we are supposed to be able to calculate the total population for each cohort by multiplying the Person Years by 12 (approximately) as we get a very similar figure for January:

Person Years
Unvaccinated 219,656
All other Vaccinated cohorts: 944,964
1,164,620 X 365/31 = 13,712,461

However the population of 18-39 year-old in England and Wales is…

(https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/age-groups/latest)
Age Profile:
18-24: 4,957,265
25-29: 3,901,735
30-34: 4,148,785
35-39: 3,981,630

Total: 16,989,415

The ONS Data was for England only, so we need to subtract the number of 18-39 year olds from Wales.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimateswales/census2021#:~:text=The%20percentage%20aged%2090%20years,aged%2015%20to%2064%20years.

Figure 3:

20-24: 95,900 + 91,800
25-29: 92,00 + 94,500
30-34: 95,400 + 100,800
35-39: 90,300 + 95,900

Total: 756,600

We don’t have figures for 18-19 year olds but we can multiply the figures for 15 to 19 year olds by 0.4% to get an estimate.

90,700 + 85,100 = 175,800 x 0.4
=70,320

Total 18-39 year-old Wales Population = 826,920

Subtract this from 16,989,415 to get total England population of 18-39 year-olds = 16,162,495

The ONS Data is, therefore, missing 2,457,293 people (16,162,495 - 13,705,202)

The ONS unvaccinated rate of 18.3% differs from the unvaccinated rate from the UKHSA of somewhere between 30 - 32%. (Figure 3: Dose 1) Week 04-08 2022

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1066759/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-13.pdf

Question:

What if the missing 2,457,293 were all unvaccinated?

Total Person Years of Unvaccinated 18-39 year olds: = 192,631 + 188,504 (2,457,293 x 28/365) = 381,135
Total Person Years of Vaccinated 18-39 year olds = 858,727
Total = 1,239,862

This would give an unvaccinated percentage of 30.7%, which is in accord with the UKHSA data.

It would also mean that there in Feb 2022, there were 90 unvaccinated deaths/381,135 person years (0.0236)
But a higher rate for the vaccinated:
321 vaccinated deaths/858,727 person years. (0.0373)

If the vaccinated were dying of non-Covid causes at the same rate as the unvaccinated in Feb 2022, then only 203 18-39 year olds should have died - not 321.

118 extra young deaths in the UK in Feb 2022.

What do you think? I may have made a mistake somewhere, of course, but that is how it seems to me at the moment.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-13 11:12 (saite)

The calculations are correct, but I don't think the explanation is the right one. Were you to be correct, this would amount to complete fraud of such caliber that nobody would be able to keep it under the lid: it halves the actual death rate and completely reverses the correlation. Especially given that all the numbers are publicly published this is completeley unbelieveable.

There is another clue as to what could be happening, if we look at the previous report, though:

	18-39 unv. deaths	18-39 unv. count	18-39 3x vacc.+boost deaths	18-39 3x vacc.+boost count
Latest report	90	192'631	177	477'976
Previous report	34	167'248	108	388'262

So what this looks to me is that they are just continually adding some data sets. That would mean that the statistics ar based on partial data - but it also seems that deaths from excluded regions (perhaps because there is no good population estimate) are also not counted.

Wich would mean that we're basically back to square one regarding those strange effects.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2023-05-14 10:18 (saite)

From GOV.UK

(https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=England)

Vaccinations in England.

For English areas, the denominator is the number of people aged 12 and over on the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS) database.

Vaccination uptake, by vaccination date age demographics:
Feb 2022 - First Dose:

18-24 = 68.1%
25-29 = 65%
30-34 = 66.9%
35-39 = 70.2%

This matches, pretty much perfectly with the data I presented in my previous post, which was based on

The total number of person-years (based on the population size of the 2021 census)

Minus

The number of vaccinated person-years (all cohorts).

The ONS data that purports to show non-vaccinated people dying at higher rates of non-Covid causes is short by 2,457,293 (of 18-39 year-olds in England), and shows an unvaccinated rate of 18.3% when according to GOV.UK, the unvaccinated rate is between 30 - 35%.

Once again, please check my workings.

And please give more information about 'excluded regions ... with no good population estimate'. I appreciate it might be impossible to achieve 100% confidence in stats related to population sizes, but - for all its failings - we are talking about a highly-developed first world country - not a hard-to-track Amazon tribe.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-14 14:41 (saite)

The "excluded regions" was just my guess - I don't have any idea why the data looks like it does. Do you have any other idea why additional population and additional deaths suddenly show up in the latest data?

The previous iteration of data was short ~5 mil people, but still the death rates were in the same ballpark. Had they counted all deaths but only some of the population, the death rate would have been elevated as well. In fact we see the opposite - for feb. 2022 the death rate has gone up in the new document.

All in all I agree - the data looks highly suspect for a first world country.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2023-05-15 20:42 (saite)

Whatever they are doing with the data, they are not counting the unvaccinated correctly. It is absolutely clear that they are underestimating by a significant amount. The evidence is compelling - both by comparing to the actual 2021 census numbers for the various age ranges and the official UK vaccination rates over time.

I have calculated the numbers for non-Covid deaths of the following age groups for 18-39 year-olds, 50-59 year-olds, and 80-89 year-olds for the following months:

August 2021, March 2022, and July 2022.

The results all show the same significant underestimating of the unvaccinated, and the extra non-Covid deaths in the vaccinated are - in my opinion - appalling - especially for the older cohort.

When you consider the manipulation and coercion the population was subjected to by the establishment to take the vaccination, it does not surprise me in the least that the ONS can't calculate the number of unvaccinated for this report.

I would like to challenge you - as you did me. I would like you to do show me where I have erred in my calculations (it is quite possible of course), or I would like you to openly consider the possibility that these vaccines are resulting in extra non-covid mortality - at least allow it as one possibility.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

antiprojekcija
2023-05-15 21:51 (saite)

I don't see any errors in your calculations. I also do not discount the possibility that the vaccination itself might lead to some increase in mortality. In fact, that is exactly what it looks like from the data on the face of it for the period shortly after vaccination - this looks like a very consistent trend too and showing up for a very long period now.

I just cannot believe that there would be such large unaccounted undercounting going on. Especially given that in the new file both death and total counts increased for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. That to me suggests that there is something else going on in the data.

It might be interesting to just try to contact the ONS and ask a direct question about the total population number vs the numbers in this data set - https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/contactus/generalandstatisticalenquiries

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2023-05-15 22:02 (saite)

If "death and total counts increased for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups" are increasing as you say, it still fails to account for the difference in the ONS vaccination rate and the UKHSA vaccination rate - which is, on average half.

I might ask the ONS, of course. In the meantime, I am going to put my workings out to a wider audience. I hope you don't mind if I link to our discussion: it was quite fruitful, I think, and someone more expert might be able to shed some light.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	antiprojekcija 2023-05-15 22:30 (saite)
	Of course, I don't mind at all! (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	formica 2023-05-16 14:26 (saite)
	Profesors Fentons par organizeeto haosu UK statistikaa: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/archive https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-latest-ons-data-on-deaths-by (Atbildēt uz šo)

Navigate: