That’s an interesting observation if true. That overwhelmingly implies the vaccines contributed to the deaths.
By the way, there was a puzzling report from the CDC released recently that appeared to show the vaccinated had 1/3rd the death rate in all-cause mortality than the unvaccinated. This is extremely unlikely to be correct because the all-cause mortality includes even the large number of accidental deaths, which should have no connection to vaccination status.
The unusual aspect of the report is that this unexpected result came when counting by “person-days”. If instead you counted just by total deaths, then the all-cause mortality rates were about the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. So somehow counting by “person-days” somehow skewed the data.
Could the fact most of the vaccinated deaths occurred so soon after vaccination be what skewed the “person-days” calculation? That would be odd if it did, since it would mean a bad feature of the vaccine had the result of incorrectly implying the vaccine improved mortality.
It so happens that the states with low vax rates are also those with high mortality rates in general, regardless of COVID (ie primarily Southern states), while states that always had lower mortality (ie New England & Pac NW) also had high vax rates.
The fact that I can identify that confounder & the CDC doesn't is either a sign of their incompetence or their attempt to mislead.
I suppose your right. In my head I had assumed it may be negative for all cause deaths, but at worst be zero for COVID. My lack of imagination and knowledge of biology probably prevented me from considering a worse outcome.
It would be helpful to be able to look at all-cause deaths for these groups -- all-cause is the relevant information, not "covid" deaths. How do the vaccinated (any number of doses) compare to never-vaccinated?
Thank you for that analysis. Multiple studies have shown that at about 6 months past vaccination the efficacy as measured by infection rates has waned to be no better than being unvaccinated. But the *assumption* has been the decline will just stop there. Recent data from the UK however showed that past about 9 months, the effectiveness will have declined to be BELOW that of being unvaccinated. That is, past this time the vaccine *increases* the chance of being infected.
The data was criticized however for its lack of accuracy. But a study from Sweden corroborates this conclusion: after about 9 months the vaccine *increases* the rate of infection. That both countries independently saw this effect raises the possibility that ADE, previously discounted for the COVID vaccine, may now be occurring.
Actually, the Swedish data shows this happening at a somewhat shorter time frame. The key distinction between the studies is the Swedish study looked at persons time since vaccination, while the UK data only counted by time since vaccinations started.
But the UK approach clearly can obscure the decline since people vaccinated recently will still be counted in this late time frame. If instead using the Swedish approach, the UK numbers may be even worse.
The Swedish study is discussed in this substack post:
swedish study shows covid vaccines drop below zero efficacy on spread by about 200 days
This is now THE most important question that every country must now investigate in their own data: is it the case that 9 months post vaccination your chance of being infected is greater than the unvaccinated?
It is extremely important to find this out since in prior attempts to create coronavirus vaccines in animals, all the attempts failed with the animals all dying due to ADE.
I also wonder if we can fairly compare vaxxed to unvaxxed anymore, since unvaxxed is a group who are obviously highly suspicious of the public health authorities at this point, and may not be presenting to hospital/doctors as soon, or at all, if they can avoid it, if they suspect they have COVID, whereas vaxxed may run to healthcare immediately. We also know for a fact that in the US, although perhaps not in the UK, the hospitals are doctoring the data (forgive the pun), in order to make unvaxxed deaths more prominent and vaxxed deaths less so (basing this on the leaked video of Novant health admin in Wilmington, NC discussing ways to juice the numbers).
If I understand your point, you are suggesting the unvaxxed may not be getting as good of treatment and therefore sadly inflating their death numbers as well?
Ratio is interesting. Note too that rates in the unvaxed have decreased, notably since 34-37. So the unvaxed are doing better at the same time as the vaxxed are getting worse. It's quite variable in the older groups, less so in 40-59 where the popn size of unvaxed will be larger.
In fact it almost looks like efficacy reduction is the main factor over 60 but under 60 it's the reduction in rate in he unvaxed, so... natural immunity?
Your last point reminds me of a thought I've had before. One day 1, suppose you start with 200 people and half get vaxxed. If they are protected for a limited time, then at some point they "re-enter" the danger zone. During that time, some of the unvaxxed get infected, recover and now are immune. Now, going forward the vaxxed look to have a higher rate because we've reduced the number of vulnerable people in unvaxxed group through natural infection. Does this make sense?
I don't know if this is enough to move the needle, but certainly plausible, i think.
The Swedish pair matched study looked exactly like this. Vax does it's job in the beginning, "1000" unvaxed cases Vs 100 within vaxed. After several months, unvaxed less than 100 whiles breakthroughs more than 200... Numbers for illustration only
What jumps out at me is that the vast majority died within 2 weeks after being double vaxxed.
That’s an interesting observation if true. That overwhelmingly implies the vaccines contributed to the deaths.
By the way, there was a puzzling report from the CDC released recently that appeared to show the vaccinated had 1/3rd the death rate in all-cause mortality than the unvaccinated. This is extremely unlikely to be correct because the all-cause mortality includes even the large number of accidental deaths, which should have no connection to vaccination status.
The unusual aspect of the report is that this unexpected result came when counting by “person-days”. If instead you counted just by total deaths, then the all-cause mortality rates were about the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. So somehow counting by “person-days” somehow skewed the data.
Could the fact most of the vaccinated deaths occurred so soon after vaccination be what skewed the “person-days” calculation? That would be odd if it did, since it would mean a bad feature of the vaccine had the result of incorrectly implying the vaccine improved mortality.
Robert Clark
Robert- I didn't read the entire CDC report, but I'm 99.9% certain what they found was related to the phenomenon I discussed here: https://inumero.substack.com/p/dog-bites-man?r=tv61s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=
It so happens that the states with low vax rates are also those with high mortality rates in general, regardless of COVID (ie primarily Southern states), while states that always had lower mortality (ie New England & Pac NW) also had high vax rates.
The fact that I can identify that confounder & the CDC doesn't is either a sign of their incompetence or their attempt to mislead.
Thanks for that. What the CDC should have done is use a Kaplan-Meier curve to represent mortality after the vaccine:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimator
Actually instead of hitting the floor of zero, note that there is NO FLOOR at all.
For VE against illness, in the UK that is already deeply negative. VE against death may also become deeply negative.
I suppose your right. In my head I had assumed it may be negative for all cause deaths, but at worst be zero for COVID. My lack of imagination and knowledge of biology probably prevented me from considering a worse outcome.
Yes, we will see as time goes on. Boosters will muddle this picture.
"Boosters will muddle this picture." A cynic might say that's a feature not a bug for the public health leaders :)
I agree, they just want to postpone the reckoning and get rid of the control group. Deaths be damned
It would be helpful to be able to look at all-cause deaths for these groups -- all-cause is the relevant information, not "covid" deaths. How do the vaccinated (any number of doses) compare to never-vaccinated?
Yes, I'm just not aware of all cause deaths by vaccination status being available. The aggregate numbers would not suggest a big impact.
Thank you for that analysis. Multiple studies have shown that at about 6 months past vaccination the efficacy as measured by infection rates has waned to be no better than being unvaccinated. But the *assumption* has been the decline will just stop there. Recent data from the UK however showed that past about 9 months, the effectiveness will have declined to be BELOW that of being unvaccinated. That is, past this time the vaccine *increases* the chance of being infected.
The data was criticized however for its lack of accuracy. But a study from Sweden corroborates this conclusion: after about 9 months the vaccine *increases* the rate of infection. That both countries independently saw this effect raises the possibility that ADE, previously discounted for the COVID vaccine, may now be occurring.
Actually, the Swedish data shows this happening at a somewhat shorter time frame. The key distinction between the studies is the Swedish study looked at persons time since vaccination, while the UK data only counted by time since vaccinations started.
But the UK approach clearly can obscure the decline since people vaccinated recently will still be counted in this late time frame. If instead using the Swedish approach, the UK numbers may be even worse.
The Swedish study is discussed in this substack post:
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
This is now THE most important question that every country must now investigate in their own data: is it the case that 9 months post vaccination your chance of being infected is greater than the unvaccinated?
It is extremely important to find this out since in prior attempts to create coronavirus vaccines in animals, all the attempts failed with the animals all dying due to ADE.
Robert Clark
I also wonder if we can fairly compare vaxxed to unvaxxed anymore, since unvaxxed is a group who are obviously highly suspicious of the public health authorities at this point, and may not be presenting to hospital/doctors as soon, or at all, if they can avoid it, if they suspect they have COVID, whereas vaxxed may run to healthcare immediately. We also know for a fact that in the US, although perhaps not in the UK, the hospitals are doctoring the data (forgive the pun), in order to make unvaxxed deaths more prominent and vaxxed deaths less so (basing this on the leaked video of Novant health admin in Wilmington, NC discussing ways to juice the numbers).
If I understand your point, you are suggesting the unvaxxed may not be getting as good of treatment and therefore sadly inflating their death numbers as well?
Ratio is interesting. Note too that rates in the unvaxed have decreased, notably since 34-37. So the unvaxed are doing better at the same time as the vaxxed are getting worse. It's quite variable in the older groups, less so in 40-59 where the popn size of unvaxed will be larger.
In fact it almost looks like efficacy reduction is the main factor over 60 but under 60 it's the reduction in rate in he unvaxed, so... natural immunity?
Your last point reminds me of a thought I've had before. One day 1, suppose you start with 200 people and half get vaxxed. If they are protected for a limited time, then at some point they "re-enter" the danger zone. During that time, some of the unvaxxed get infected, recover and now are immune. Now, going forward the vaxxed look to have a higher rate because we've reduced the number of vulnerable people in unvaxxed group through natural infection. Does this make sense?
I don't know if this is enough to move the needle, but certainly plausible, i think.
The Swedish pair matched study looked exactly like this. Vax does it's job in the beginning, "1000" unvaxed cases Vs 100 within vaxed. After several months, unvaxed less than 100 whiles breakthroughs more than 200... Numbers for illustration only