ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 5

The semi-open posts I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a huge number of comments, so I'm opening another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before:

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here.

3. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Public Health England bulletin 22 is out. Worth a look. Saw a link to it on TAE. Actually surprised there is not more chatter about it. Looks like the 3rd and final fictional reason to get vaxxed is starting to fall by the way side. In short, the number of deaths attributed to delta for vaxxed is starting to exceed non-vaxxed in both number and CFR. Last few sentences from TAE before 'read more...' is:

what does this mean in terms of the risk of death if infected with the Delta Covid-19 variant? Well it means the risk of death increases significantly in those who have been fully vaccinated. 536 deaths have occurred among 219,716 confirmed cases in the unvaccinated population since February. This is a case fatality rate of 0.2%. Whereas 1,091 deaths have occurred among 113,823 cases among the fully vaccinated population. This is a case fatality rate of 1%.

I downloaded the pdf from PHE and the data is there, hidden in plain sight. I wonder why the 'investigative' teams over at CNN and BBC are not all over this? (J/K).

One complicating factor here is how likely the vaccinated are to catch delta vs. the unvaccinated. If they're 5x more likely to die but 0.2x as likely to catch it, then the numbers even out and what we're looking at are the people for whom the vaccine was ineffective. In that case, a plausible reason for the numbers is that those most likely to die of the disease (because of, say, a problem with their immune systems) are also most likely to not develop immunity from the vaccine.

Just ballparking the stats here, according to the NYT (so take that for what it's worth) the vaccination rate in the UK is 72% for one dose, 65% for two:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html

I'll go with the 72% figure for now. So there are about 2.5 vaccinated people to every unvaccinated person in the UK. Now, we saw that the total cases among the vaccinated were about half the total cases among the unvaccinated, so overall, which works out to right around 5x as many cases among the vaccinated adjusted for proportion of the population.

So the data is at least consistent with the idea that this is an affect of the vaccines preventing cases, rather than vaccines making the virus more deadly.

The other factor is age, for example, 97% of the unvaccinated people in the data-set in the 'variants of concern' bulletin cited (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201) were under 50, compared with 55% of the double-jabbed.

So, looking at over-50's only, the death rate in unvaxxed is around 6.5% (437 out of 6724), while the rate in the double-jabbed is around 2% (1054 out of 51420). And as the previous poster remarked, that's only among people who have tested postive. If you take into account the lower infection rate in the vaccinated population (for example, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report), then it's looking even better.

Could you provide a link to the pdf, or to TAE? I don't know what TAE is, and searching for "PHE Bulletin 22" doesn't provide anything useful.

Not the OP, but I think this is what they're referring to:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201

Specifically:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf

TAE = theautomaticearth.com, a news aggregator.

Thank you : )

Official numbers for jabs are available on the dashboard https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
see also tabs for cases, deaths, etc.

This is probably one of the most crucial data sets I’ve seen yet - and straight from the horse’s mouth! Thanks for providing this. And you are right, no wonder the majority of investigative teams aren’t all over it…

Figures like this keep coming up. They are drastically skewed by the fact that 100% of cases in children, who very rarely die, are among the unvaxxed, whereas the large majority of cases in the elderly, who often die, are among the vaxxed. When two groups are wildly different in ways unrelated to the intervention you wish to test, you cannot draw any conclusions. (If you have patient-level data, you can correct for age, though you'll never be able to correct for health and comorbidities, or behavior. But here that hasn't been done.)

Then what of this? Here it's broken down by age.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243546

Thanks for this. I was going to bring up the same issue as above.

One of the problems with the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed data is that it can be skewed by age, no question. We need to see age-controlled data to know what's really going on.

That is disturbing. It suggests that the vaccine is only really effective among precisely the people who need it least.

That said, I'm not sold on it actually making the 40-79 y.o. population more likely (as opposed to equally-likely) from these numbers. If you include all age ranges, you'd see a negative correlation between vaccines and COVID cases, and if you include only the 40-79 range, you risk cherry-picking.

My knowledge of statistics is sadly not sophisticated enough to allow me to correct for those problems and test the hypothesis.

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 5

PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22

Re: PHE bulletin 22