antiprojekcija ([info]antiprojekcija) rakstīja,
@ 2023-05-06 08:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Anglijas jaunākā mirstības statistika pēc vakcinācijas statusa
Šis ieraksts gavlenokārt [info]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

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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 90192'631 177477'976
Previous report 34167'248 108388'262


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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]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)


[info]antiprojekcija
2023-05-15 22:30 (saite)
Of course, I don't mind at all!

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?