great analysis. could you re-run the analysis based on the vaccination rate in people 65+? If there is still no correlation, this would be really worrisome. But it's clear that vaccination rates in 30-year-olds or 15-year-olds will have no impact on mortality.
One thing which will be significant is natural resilience to severe outcomes conferred by prior infection, including those whose infections were so mild the first time that they were not aware of ever being infected.
Hi, early on in the above you state you are looking at Covid deaths (whatever that phrase actually means). Later you just refer to deaths but am I right to assume you are looking at Covid deaths throughout?
I am going to be bold and suggest this is not that useful and it would in fact have been more interesting to look at all-cause differences (preferably separating different age groups).
This would get round the issue of "what is a Covid death?" and also would reflect possible increased mortality from that-which-cannot-be-mentioned.
This is important especially if (as seems likely) the mere presence of virus is less contributory to death in 21 than 20.
On the government's narrative we have a deadly pathogen circulating and vaccines have been incredibly effective in reducing mortality. If this doesn't feed through to substantially reduced all-cause mortality the burden shifts to them to explain WTAF is going on?
"Difficult to trust the data" is a certainty. But we always make the best of what we have, and work to improve it. There is no perfect data. Investors rely on information to base decisions, but we assume it's all suspect. It's not particularly important, though, since most investments are more emotional than analytical. Which isn't really different from pandemic response.
great analysis. could you re-run the analysis based on the vaccination rate in people 65+? If there is still no correlation, this would be really worrisome. But it's clear that vaccination rates in 30-year-olds or 15-year-olds will have no impact on mortality.
One thing which will be significant is natural resilience to severe outcomes conferred by prior infection, including those whose infections were so mild the first time that they were not aware of ever being infected.
Hi, early on in the above you state you are looking at Covid deaths (whatever that phrase actually means). Later you just refer to deaths but am I right to assume you are looking at Covid deaths throughout?
I am going to be bold and suggest this is not that useful and it would in fact have been more interesting to look at all-cause differences (preferably separating different age groups).
This would get round the issue of "what is a Covid death?" and also would reflect possible increased mortality from that-which-cannot-be-mentioned.
This is important especially if (as seems likely) the mere presence of virus is less contributory to death in 21 than 20.
On the government's narrative we have a deadly pathogen circulating and vaccines have been incredibly effective in reducing mortality. If this doesn't feed through to substantially reduced all-cause mortality the burden shifts to them to explain WTAF is going on?
Best
Jonathan
"Difficult to trust the data" is a certainty. But we always make the best of what we have, and work to improve it. There is no perfect data. Investors rely on information to base decisions, but we assume it's all suspect. It's not particularly important, though, since most investments are more emotional than analytical. Which isn't really different from pandemic response.