So I went through the stats myself and while I saw that if you are vaccinated you are more likely to get the Covid (This is per 100K). If you look at the rates of death per 100K you are appear to be less likely to die or go to the hospital. Is there a reason you didn't use rates per 100K of cases and rates per 100K of deaths? Instead you seem to use rates and then switch to totals.
So I used Table 5 from page 20 of the UK PDF. And the rates of unvaccinated are higher in every category except for cases.
(Since I am a random reader, I wanted to give you my background. I am pro-choice, I am pro-exercise and dieting as the best course for staying healthy and I am anti-lockdown). I just am skeptical of everything so want to make sure I understand even the people on my side.
"Over 85% of cases in the UK are among the vaccinated". This is a tricky stat to unwind. For example, suppose the vax was a placebo and did nothing - if 85% of the country was vaxxed then you'd expect 85% of cases to be among the vaccinated. The real data we need is "amongst those who were vaxxed, what % got sick" vs "amongst those who were not vaxxed, what % got sick". I wonder if this info can be extracted from that data above.
I've looked through these reports and have them saved on my drive/iCloud in case they get deleted some day. But what's interesting is that the reports didn't always include information about cases, hospitalizations, and deaths per 100k until their Week 36 report. One has to wonder why they (and the Scottish equivalent) started including this data in these reports when they weren't before, and didn't have to? Are the people making these reports seeing concerning trends which they want disclosed, while all of the other governments try to cover this up?
I am not sure also. But I know that doing this reporting requires a lot of bravery and dedication. They wanted to show what is going on, their careers be damned. They deserve our utmost respect. Never mind their paragraphs with disclaimers.
In my opinion, they normalized per 100,000 because they thought it might make the jabs look better and quiet their critics. It didn't work. I followed the Public Health England reports for delta over the summer. The ratio of infections in the unvaxxed to vaxxed dropped from 7.4 in mid-June to 1.6 in mid-September (when they discontinued the reports). I suspect they thought normalizing the case data would dilute the effect...but it has just gotten worse. The UKHSA reports have claimed the same effectiveness in every report (week 39 through week 44) while the rate of infection in the fully vaxxed has nearly doubled in some age cohorts.
If anyone is interested, the CDC Director just made a very concerning statement:
‘“We’re actively encouraging vaccination in all of our employees and doing outreach in order to get our agency vaccinated,” Walensky responded.’
She could have just said, "We do not disclose personal medical information," or something to that effect. Instead she says something much worse. By her own admission, not even the CDC employees working for the fake news propaganda mill that is the CDC are getting vaccinated? Enough of them are not vaccinated that they have to do outreach to get their own employees vaccinated? But they want YOU to get vaccinated. They want YOU to take the vaccine while pregnant. Clown world
Thanks for the analysis. Yes, it is amazing that the UKHSA continues to publish this report, albeit with lower and lower details.
Science is a bitch. You think you have a nice hypothesis that makes sense (vaccines!). You take that to data and discover that the data does not agree. Good scientists discard the hypothesis and move on.
Shows how very few have the mental predisposition to be scientists. It is not the analytical prowess that dictates success, but the brutal disregard for confirmation bias; almost a pathological bent to always looking for evidence to disprove oneself.
There is one thing that constantly comes as a surprise to me. People tend to gravitate to sites, groups, etc. that align with their own ideas and thinking, that's natural, and I am not an exception. But whenever I wonder off that circle and stumble upon a vaccine-related discussion, things are very different. A local parent group on facebook turns into a bunch of angry wasps whenever anyone says anything negative about the vaccines. Same goes for ycombinator news, which should be (in theory) full of fairly intelligent people. Every covid discussion there turns into a disaster. I read through a few but now avoid those on purpose. Americans are very used to trusting the government.
1) I wonder what the numbers would look like if they included also the deaths caused by the vaccination. Do you have estimates?
2) If you look at the "cases", the vaccines seem to have a bad influence indeed, but how reliable are these "case numbers"? Do they refer to really sick people, or just people who had a positive PCR test? And how randomly were the tested persons selected from the population? Do you have any idea?
Koen, the answer to all these questions is "I do not know". But the questions are very good questions.
The "deaths caused by vaccination" number is unobtainable. As for cases, I suspect that most are symptomatic. This was a part ofthe reason why I excluded under-18s, because they are over-tested in schools.
it's interesting that they differentiate between unvaxed, partial and full vaxed, and give the population numbers for each.
but the data seems to be majorly ‘confounded’.
for instance, just averageing the daily registered deaths over the month of june 2021, the general in-hospital death rate of full vaxeds was 6,8 times HIGHER than the unvaxed, which is to be expected, since the elderly got vaxed first.
but since, as the portion of the full vaxed grew, it's become an absurd reversal.
for the july 2021 set, the general in-hospital death rate of full vaxeds appears 2,5 times LOWER than the unvaxed. in august, 4,3 times LOWER.
i believe this only means that the vaxed group is acquiring more of the healthy, young individuals under the state coercive policies. but these absurdly impressive hospitalization and death rate reductions are being credited to the c19 shots.
Actually it found it started happening in a somewhat shorter time period. The key difference was the Swedish study counts weeks since a person was vaccinated, while the the UK data only counts time since vaccination began.
Doing it the UK way clearly obscures a decline in effectiveness since it will include also the recently vaccinated.
We are left with the worrisome conclusion that if the UK data was counted properly by time since vaccinated we might also get even worse numbers.
This issue is so important every country should present the data on vaccine effectiveness past an approximate 9 month point since someone was vaccinated.
Thank you!
So I went through the stats myself and while I saw that if you are vaccinated you are more likely to get the Covid (This is per 100K). If you look at the rates of death per 100K you are appear to be less likely to die or go to the hospital. Is there a reason you didn't use rates per 100K of cases and rates per 100K of deaths? Instead you seem to use rates and then switch to totals.
I used the same approach to cases, as I did to deaths.
The case rates among vaccinated are about twice higher than among the unvaccinated (depending on age group).
The death rates among vaccinated are about 3 times lower (for relevant age groups) than among the vaccinated.
It shows that vaccines have some degree of protection from death. That protection, though, is dropping every week.
So I used Table 5 from page 20 of the UK PDF. And the rates of unvaccinated are higher in every category except for cases.
(Since I am a random reader, I wanted to give you my background. I am pro-choice, I am pro-exercise and dieting as the best course for staying healthy and I am anti-lockdown). I just am skeptical of everything so want to make sure I understand even the people on my side.
What about VAERS In the US and the Yellow card system in UK? All age groups!
Not an avarage age of 80 plus/minus.Checkout Jessica Rose YouTube Channel
for honest data on VAERS and add all that to the equation.Thanks for posting this vital imformation.
"Over 85% of cases in the UK are among the vaccinated". This is a tricky stat to unwind. For example, suppose the vax was a placebo and did nothing - if 85% of the country was vaxxed then you'd expect 85% of cases to be among the vaccinated. The real data we need is "amongst those who were vaxxed, what % got sick" vs "amongst those who were not vaxxed, what % got sick". I wonder if this info can be extracted from that data above.
This is EXACTLY what my report discusses! The case rates in vaxxed vs case rates in UNvaxxed
I've looked through these reports and have them saved on my drive/iCloud in case they get deleted some day. But what's interesting is that the reports didn't always include information about cases, hospitalizations, and deaths per 100k until their Week 36 report. One has to wonder why they (and the Scottish equivalent) started including this data in these reports when they weren't before, and didn't have to? Are the people making these reports seeing concerning trends which they want disclosed, while all of the other governments try to cover this up?
I am not sure also. But I know that doing this reporting requires a lot of bravery and dedication. They wanted to show what is going on, their careers be damned. They deserve our utmost respect. Never mind their paragraphs with disclaimers.
We all see past them anyways, so if the disclaimers have to stay up for them to keep publishing the data, it's a very small price to pay
In my opinion, they normalized per 100,000 because they thought it might make the jabs look better and quiet their critics. It didn't work. I followed the Public Health England reports for delta over the summer. The ratio of infections in the unvaxxed to vaxxed dropped from 7.4 in mid-June to 1.6 in mid-September (when they discontinued the reports). I suspect they thought normalizing the case data would dilute the effect...but it has just gotten worse. The UKHSA reports have claimed the same effectiveness in every report (week 39 through week 44) while the rate of infection in the fully vaxxed has nearly doubled in some age cohorts.
Never mnd their disclaimers, it is the data that is truly precious...
If anyone is interested, the CDC Director just made a very concerning statement:
‘“We’re actively encouraging vaccination in all of our employees and doing outreach in order to get our agency vaccinated,” Walensky responded.’
She could have just said, "We do not disclose personal medical information," or something to that effect. Instead she says something much worse. By her own admission, not even the CDC employees working for the fake news propaganda mill that is the CDC are getting vaccinated? Enough of them are not vaccinated that they have to do outreach to get their own employees vaccinated? But they want YOU to get vaccinated. They want YOU to take the vaccine while pregnant. Clown world
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/cdc-director-refuses-tell-senators-how-many-cdc-employees-are-fully-vaxxd
I wonder if they will lose their jobs...
Thanks for the analysis. Yes, it is amazing that the UKHSA continues to publish this report, albeit with lower and lower details.
Science is a bitch. You think you have a nice hypothesis that makes sense (vaccines!). You take that to data and discover that the data does not agree. Good scientists discard the hypothesis and move on.
Shows how very few have the mental predisposition to be scientists. It is not the analytical prowess that dictates success, but the brutal disregard for confirmation bias; almost a pathological bent to always looking for evidence to disprove oneself.
There is one thing that constantly comes as a surprise to me. People tend to gravitate to sites, groups, etc. that align with their own ideas and thinking, that's natural, and I am not an exception. But whenever I wonder off that circle and stumble upon a vaccine-related discussion, things are very different. A local parent group on facebook turns into a bunch of angry wasps whenever anyone says anything negative about the vaccines. Same goes for ycombinator news, which should be (in theory) full of fairly intelligent people. Every covid discussion there turns into a disaster. I read through a few but now avoid those on purpose. Americans are very used to trusting the government.
Yes, a lot of them get very emotional and reject all evidence and get angry.
Part of it is buyers remorse I am sure. I already heard that from a few friends - "if I had to decide this again..."
the commissars in cdc will call this "misinformation"....
Yeah, MISinformation is true information, that may MISlead the reader, into undesirable conclusions.
Hi Igor,
1) I wonder what the numbers would look like if they included also the deaths caused by the vaccination. Do you have estimates?
2) If you look at the "cases", the vaccines seem to have a bad influence indeed, but how reliable are these "case numbers"? Do they refer to really sick people, or just people who had a positive PCR test? And how randomly were the tested persons selected from the population? Do you have any idea?
Koen, the answer to all these questions is "I do not know". But the questions are very good questions.
The "deaths caused by vaccination" number is unobtainable. As for cases, I suspect that most are symptomatic. This was a part ofthe reason why I excluded under-18s, because they are over-tested in schools.
hello!
and thank you for your work here.
would you be willing to have a look at the open french hospitalization / ICU / death / PCR / vax data?
here --> https://data.drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/explore/dataset/covid-19-anciens-resultats-nationaux-issus-des-appariements-entre-si-vic-si-dep-/table/
it's interesting that they differentiate between unvaxed, partial and full vaxed, and give the population numbers for each.
but the data seems to be majorly ‘confounded’.
for instance, just averageing the daily registered deaths over the month of june 2021, the general in-hospital death rate of full vaxeds was 6,8 times HIGHER than the unvaxed, which is to be expected, since the elderly got vaxed first.
but since, as the portion of the full vaxed grew, it's become an absurd reversal.
for the july 2021 set, the general in-hospital death rate of full vaxeds appears 2,5 times LOWER than the unvaxed. in august, 4,3 times LOWER.
i believe this only means that the vaxed group is acquiring more of the healthy, young individuals under the state coercive policies. but these absurdly impressive hospitalization and death rate reductions are being credited to the c19 shots.
i'd really like to know what you think.
thank you for your help :)
Could you do a write up on the study from Sweden that also shows *negative* efficacy after about 9 months:
swedish study shows covid vaccines drop below zero efficacy on spread by about 200 days.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-study-shows-covid-vaccines
Actually it found it started happening in a somewhat shorter time period. The key difference was the Swedish study counts weeks since a person was vaccinated, while the the UK data only counts time since vaccination began.
Doing it the UK way clearly obscures a decline in effectiveness since it will include also the recently vaccinated.
We are left with the worrisome conclusion that if the UK data was counted properly by time since vaccinated we might also get even worse numbers.
This issue is so important every country should present the data on vaccine effectiveness past an approximate 9 month point since someone was vaccinated.
Robert Clark