Is it anything to do with the fact that the UK govt considers you to be unjabbed for between 14 and 28 days after the jab? I've seen this referred to a lot by JohnDee's Almanac. It varies by health trust as well apparently. I don't know if you've factored this in.
For "Sums that don’t match" I believe the paragraph is combining two distinct categories. The first sentence is figures for "women who gave birth;" everything after is for "went on to conceive or deliver," in other words includes still-ongoing pregnancies.
The formulation in week 7 is different: it's about "first dose", not "were vaccinated". My explanation is that there are three things to count: (1) women (of course, women are not things, but I am not a biologist...), (2) vaccine doses, and (3) vaccine doses bucketed into pre-pregnancy/1st trimester/2nd trimester/3rd trimester/unknown. Sum total for (1) is 78,759, for (2) it is (at least) 78,759 + 50,359 + 941 = 130,059. Sum total for (3) is 103,626, right between (1) and (2). Many of the 2-dose women might have been vaccinated twice in the same trimester.
I think you're being pretty generous. The 1st sentence in week 8 says, "received at least one dose" and the prior to pregnancy mentions "first dose". Moreover, nowhere does it say vaccine doses. It says "women who were vaccinated", so you should not be counted twice for getting multiple doses, as that would still be a single woman. I suppose maybe you could count the same woman twice if she had doses in different trimesters (i.e. she was a woman vaccinated in 2nd trimester, and a woman vaccinated in 3rd)? 🤷♂️ Geez, this is either very sloppy data on their part, or very poor writing/explanation.
As a non-native speaker, I have trouble deciding if "were vaccinated" refers to receiving the blessing (as in "were being vaccinated") or to having reached the blessed state by then.
Oh, so it does. The hazard of trying to quote a screenshot. But I think I was accidentally correcting a mis-wording. It seems that the addition of the "went on to" clause in week 8 coincides with a change in category, and since the previous category already matched the clause, the clause was mis-worded. This could probably be cleared up with an email to the agency. *edit: I have sent an emal.
I've sent emails on both of these items. It's been a week since I emailed on item 1. Email about item 2 today, but I had tweeted item 2 to them a week ago as well. Was trying to see which might get a quicker response. The annoying part is that I want to wrap up a piece of analysis using this data, but if I can't trust it....
Ah, then I guess you are still 13 days out from the guaranteed reply to the first email, and my email was superfluous.
Now having read item 2, this could be an artifact of healthy user bias (which only shows clearly after the mid-2021 increase in vaxx uptake), and in fact imply a large risk increase for said users. The same paradox seems to take place in the Xie et al. VA myocarditis analysis, where uninfected+unvaccinated have a higher myocarditis rate than the historic control, but also lower than the uninfected+anyvaccinestatus https://unglossed.substack.com/p/technical-difficulties
On item 2... I'd be more open to that explanation if that continued in November and December. When I estimate the rates in those two months individually by using subsequent reports, I get 3.94 & 3.89 respectively. Why would Sept/Oct so different from those months?
Alternatively, suppose there was some fat fingered manual data entry & Jan-Aug was actually 3.90 (instead of 3.60 as reported)... then Sept/Oct is also 3.90 and also Nov/Dec.... basically a consistent stillbirth rate throughout year for unvaccinated.
Ok, I see that now too - the later reports should keep showing an increase in the overall rate but they don't.
So either a corrected typo in the original lower value, or a deliberate increase to 3.90 to hide a signal in the treatment group. The former might be more likely given that the UKHSA's other data is so unflattering for the vaxx (and equally likely to be inaccurate, imo). Either one gets to "can't trust."
It is clear that they have broad data inconsistencies -- comparing the table 5 from week 3 and table 6 from week 4, the total number of unvaccinated decreased by ~4500, and the total number of vaccinated increased by ~330, and the unknown category had 1382 in week3 and was omitted from week 4 report. Also the total number of women giving birth decreased by ~4800.
So there obviously was some complex update -- not clear what it was. Would be good to see an explanation as it is confusing for sure.
But there are likely a lot of little corrections and it might not be just one thing.
I received a reply blaming double-counting (though why this wasn't the case in earlier reports was not addressed):
Dear Brian Mowrey
Thank you for your email to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) dated 14 April 2022 regarding some pregnancy data found in our COVID-19 vaccine weekly surveillance reports. I work on the team that handles enquiries and have been asked to respond to your request.
Thank you for your interest in these reports. We are sorry if the information presented does not seem clear and will look to provide more explanation around the data when this is next updated.
I shall focus on an explanation of how the data are generated in the most recent report to December 2021.
In the overall period between January and December 2021 a total of 528,362 women gave birth of whom 102,089 had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine prior to delivery (68,952 of these women had received at least 2 doses and 4,456 women had received at least 3 doses). This figure is based on the number of women who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine at any point up until the time they gave birth.
There were 11,492 women who had received their first dose prior to pregnancy and went on to conceive and deliver by December 2021. There were 14,895 women who were vaccinated in the first trimester, 37,916 in the second and 45,980 in the third trimester. In addition, 28,994 women were known to have received dose one before giving birth but without enough information to establish which trimester.
The above figures include some women who have received more than one dose of vaccine and therefore a woman who received their first dose in the first trimester, and second dose in the second trimester appears in both the count for first trimester and the count for second trimester. This is why the numbers do not add up to the same total.
Now I see where the earlier and current versions of the text support a change here. Earlier: "There were 1,228 women who had received their first dose prior to pregnancy, 3,819 in the first trimester, 16,324 in the second and 19,530 in the third trimester. A further 17,264 women were known to have received dose one" - current: “women who were vaccinated in the..."
Is it anything to do with the fact that the UK govt considers you to be unjabbed for between 14 and 28 days after the jab? I've seen this referred to a lot by JohnDee's Almanac. It varies by health trust as well apparently. I don't know if you've factored this in.
For "Sums that don’t match" I believe the paragraph is combining two distinct categories. The first sentence is figures for "women who gave birth;" everything after is for "went on to conceive or deliver," in other words includes still-ongoing pregnancies.
it says "conceive and deliver"... I suppose that could still include your interpretation. If so, pretty poorly written. Also, the similar paragraph in week 7 report has matching sums: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055620/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_7.pdf
The formulation in week 7 is different: it's about "first dose", not "were vaccinated". My explanation is that there are three things to count: (1) women (of course, women are not things, but I am not a biologist...), (2) vaccine doses, and (3) vaccine doses bucketed into pre-pregnancy/1st trimester/2nd trimester/3rd trimester/unknown. Sum total for (1) is 78,759, for (2) it is (at least) 78,759 + 50,359 + 941 = 130,059. Sum total for (3) is 103,626, right between (1) and (2). Many of the 2-dose women might have been vaccinated twice in the same trimester.
I think you're being pretty generous. The 1st sentence in week 8 says, "received at least one dose" and the prior to pregnancy mentions "first dose". Moreover, nowhere does it say vaccine doses. It says "women who were vaccinated", so you should not be counted twice for getting multiple doses, as that would still be a single woman. I suppose maybe you could count the same woman twice if she had doses in different trimesters (i.e. she was a woman vaccinated in 2nd trimester, and a woman vaccinated in 3rd)? 🤷♂️ Geez, this is either very sloppy data on their part, or very poor writing/explanation.
As a non-native speaker, I have trouble deciding if "were vaccinated" refers to receiving the blessing (as in "were being vaccinated") or to having reached the blessed state by then.
Looks like my theory on the explanation here is correct. See update: https://inumero.substack.com/p/ukhsa-answers-one-of-my-questions
Oh, so it does. The hazard of trying to quote a screenshot. But I think I was accidentally correcting a mis-wording. It seems that the addition of the "went on to" clause in week 8 coincides with a change in category, and since the previous category already matched the clause, the clause was mis-worded. This could probably be cleared up with an email to the agency. *edit: I have sent an emal.
I've sent emails on both of these items. It's been a week since I emailed on item 1. Email about item 2 today, but I had tweeted item 2 to them a week ago as well. Was trying to see which might get a quicker response. The annoying part is that I want to wrap up a piece of analysis using this data, but if I can't trust it....
Ah, then I guess you are still 13 days out from the guaranteed reply to the first email, and my email was superfluous.
Now having read item 2, this could be an artifact of healthy user bias (which only shows clearly after the mid-2021 increase in vaxx uptake), and in fact imply a large risk increase for said users. The same paradox seems to take place in the Xie et al. VA myocarditis analysis, where uninfected+unvaccinated have a higher myocarditis rate than the historic control, but also lower than the uninfected+anyvaccinestatus https://unglossed.substack.com/p/technical-difficulties
On item 2... I'd be more open to that explanation if that continued in November and December. When I estimate the rates in those two months individually by using subsequent reports, I get 3.94 & 3.89 respectively. Why would Sept/Oct so different from those months?
Alternatively, suppose there was some fat fingered manual data entry & Jan-Aug was actually 3.90 (instead of 3.60 as reported)... then Sept/Oct is also 3.90 and also Nov/Dec.... basically a consistent stillbirth rate throughout year for unvaccinated.
Ok, I see that now too - the later reports should keep showing an increase in the overall rate but they don't.
So either a corrected typo in the original lower value, or a deliberate increase to 3.90 to hide a signal in the treatment group. The former might be more likely given that the UKHSA's other data is so unflattering for the vaxx (and equally likely to be inaccurate, imo). Either one gets to "can't trust."
It is clear that they have broad data inconsistencies -- comparing the table 5 from week 3 and table 6 from week 4, the total number of unvaccinated decreased by ~4500, and the total number of vaccinated increased by ~330, and the unknown category had 1382 in week3 and was omitted from week 4 report. Also the total number of women giving birth decreased by ~4800.
So there obviously was some complex update -- not clear what it was. Would be good to see an explanation as it is confusing for sure.
But there are likely a lot of little corrections and it might not be just one thing.
I received a reply blaming double-counting (though why this wasn't the case in earlier reports was not addressed):
Dear Brian Mowrey
Thank you for your email to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) dated 14 April 2022 regarding some pregnancy data found in our COVID-19 vaccine weekly surveillance reports. I work on the team that handles enquiries and have been asked to respond to your request.
Thank you for your interest in these reports. We are sorry if the information presented does not seem clear and will look to provide more explanation around the data when this is next updated.
I shall focus on an explanation of how the data are generated in the most recent report to December 2021.
In the overall period between January and December 2021 a total of 528,362 women gave birth of whom 102,089 had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine prior to delivery (68,952 of these women had received at least 2 doses and 4,456 women had received at least 3 doses). This figure is based on the number of women who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine at any point up until the time they gave birth.
There were 11,492 women who had received their first dose prior to pregnancy and went on to conceive and deliver by December 2021. There were 14,895 women who were vaccinated in the first trimester, 37,916 in the second and 45,980 in the third trimester. In addition, 28,994 women were known to have received dose one before giving birth but without enough information to establish which trimester.
The above figures include some women who have received more than one dose of vaccine and therefore a woman who received their first dose in the first trimester, and second dose in the second trimester appears in both the count for first trimester and the count for second trimester. This is why the numbers do not add up to the same total.
I hope you find this information useful.
Yours sincerely
Scott
Same. Just put this in a new post. The 2nd question posed in this thread is more important to be answered. The 3.60 number for the 1st part of the year is completely at odds with the numbers reported by ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales
The ONS shows a Q1 stillbirth rate of 4.2 for England and Wales.
Now I see where the earlier and current versions of the text support a change here. Earlier: "There were 1,228 women who had received their first dose prior to pregnancy, 3,819 in the first trimester, 16,324 in the second and 19,530 in the third trimester. A further 17,264 women were known to have received dose one" - current: “women who were vaccinated in the..."
I am sure all the numbers from govts are lies. No doubt.