you say «i know of no reason that a Covid vaccine would reduce your chances of dying of something other than Covid, therefore the logical conclusion is that the full vaccinated are a generally healthier group than the unvaccinated.».
but i believe the lower mortality in the full vaxed is a result of the mortality increase between the 1st and 2nd dose, which serves as a kind of culling.
I hadn't realized the magnitude of absolute (not rate) of deaths among the partially vaxxed until I just looked at it again. Huge number of deaths from mid-Feb to mid-Apr in this group, essentially subtracting those folks from eventual "fully vaxxed" population. Definitely would make the fully vaxxed numbers better.
Isn't this the headline from you data? "I hadn't realized the magnitude of absolute (not rate) of deaths among the partially vaxxed until I just looked at it again. Huge number of deaths from mid-Feb to mid-Apr in this group ..." Do you have the absolute numbers where one can compare the total number of deaths from, say, the same period in 2019 (pre-COVID) to Feb, March, April 2021? Thanks for your research and posts!
Discovered that they changed the age groups in 2020 (more granular), so it will be difficult to do direct comparisons, except for total deaths (not age adjusted). Sigh. I will write to the ONS to see if they can provide more granular data for 2019 and earlier.
Hi there! Fascinating theory. Are you able to direct me to data that supports it? It's not contained in the HSA report, is it? Forgive me if I overlooked it.
Mathew Crawford attributes the unusual health of the fully-vaccinated group to survivorship bias and the 'dry tinder' effect, as mentioned by another commenter. If vaccination weeds out susceptible individuals by the same types of mechanisms that Covid causes deaths wouldn't the doubly-vaccinated population tend to be more robust, at least initially?
Thank you! Your analysis fits my personal experience, but I could have made an argument either way. It's counter-intuitive that healthy people with low risk would take an experimental jab using experimental tech. Perhaps an indicator of the success of the psy-op?
Have you seen this article by Justin Hart? If ~60% of those who are jabbed have claim prior infection, it would have serious implications for VE. How much of what is claimed as vaxx protection is really immunity from infection?
What I don't see is that the vaxxed group would be more likely to have had prior infection than the unvaxxed, did I miss it? Without knowing the relative numbers, I don't think we can conclude what it means for VE? And no, I don't know of similar UK data. Anyone help us out here?
When I've posted the UKHSA data, some push back and claim the unvaxxed are likely C19 recovered Given the refusal to acknowledge immunity from infection in the US, I don't think we can make that claim. I always assumed it was a wash, but the ~60% figure for the vaxxed was a surprise. There are many confounds (self-identification, high PCR cycles, bad tests), and we can't rule out that vaxx after infection/recovery might damage immunity...but it would be interesting to know how many vaxxed and unvaxxed are recovered even with all the confounds. I only know of a few recovered people...and they're all vaxxed. The one person I know who hasn't vaxxed after infection never intended to vaxx.
I’ve always thought this must be a factor, the Cleveland Clinic study of hospital workers showed no infection from people who’d had Covid & then been vaccinated. It would be interesting to know how many people had prior infection before vaccination. I suspect this wasn’t recorded as they don’t want to actually know.
This would explain the maniacal denial of natural immunity and push to get the covid-recovered vaxxed, as doing so boosts the *apparent* VE, when really it is natural imminity's beneficial boost to the vaxxed population at work, masking the uselessness of vaxx.
I just stumbled across this excellent video that - among other things - compares all-cause mortality rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed in the UK. An attempt is made to explain the unusual spikes in the data. Ultimately they conclude that "the data provides no real evidence that the benefits of the Covid vaccines outweigh the risks."
What is your estimation of the veracity of death certificates in the UK? Here in the US, death certificate procedures were completely and officially rewritten in March/April 2020 to make sure that COVID deaths would be the predominant cause of death in any tangentially related case.
You got me thinking... if there is currently a bias in reporting, incentives would tend to favor over-reporting unvaccinated Covid deaths, and under-reporting vaccinated Covid deaths. If that were true, then the unvacccinated non-Covid deaths above (right plot, light blue line) would be higher, and the vaccinated non-Covid deaths (red line) lower. I.e. there would be more distance between those 2 lines, possibly indicating a greater overall health advantage among the vaccinated. Does this follow?
According to the few whistleblowers who did break ranks, all UK deaths were encouraged to be recorded as covid, no matter what the true circumstances. The Midazolam scandal caused a great number of "covid" deaths in care homes, much like the Remdesivir deaths in US hospitals.
It includes several helpful plots with the various vaccination categories:
(unvaccinated => <21 days after 1st dose => >21 days after 2nd dose => vaccinated)
I think it important to keep in mind the flux between the categories and consider both their relative and actual size when reviewing the death rates for the same periods of time.
Interestingly, just as the successive age-groups were prioritised in the UK vaccine rollout, so too can the rises and peaks in the >21 dose category be seen successively staggered.
Not only are they time lagged to match the order of the rollout but they appear to peak after the vast majority have received the 2nd dose and moved in to the next category, vaccinated.
The numbers in the >21 days after 1st dose category really start to dwindle round mid April and since the start of June represent a smaller group than the unvaccinated. My suspicion is that those who remain longer in the >21 days after 1st dose were mostly, and for whatever reason, in too poor health to receive the second dose, so therefore the higher death rates are perhaps to be expected.
Nevertheless, there is still something really nagging about this large discrepancy that I can't put my finger on.
The fully vaccinated group does not reach 1 million individuals until week 11. The precise details of the UK roll-out will be really important in that period, for both the fully-vaccinated and unvaccinated group. I am speculating but a sensible roll-out would have targeted the vulnerable, institutionalised elderly but bypassed terminal/palliative/end of life care patients. While you want to treat those at greatest risk first there is no point treating those literally on the brink of death, and it is likely some bureaucrat will also have realised that this would risk making bad-looking numbers during a period of intense scrutiny, so made efforts to control what was probably a pretty haphazard start to vaccine roll-out.
You still have normal winter mortality to deal with, and without fully understanding the age-adjustment it is difficult to see whether either overall or not-covid deaths are within expectations.
The "between jabs" group is genuinely concerning. Some of these will be, as you say, second jab refusers, but I think most are just logistics (double jabbers with >21 days between doses) - see the rapid decline in this population after week 19. Is there any possibility that the mortality spike is an artefact of calculating the populations and unknown death dates to week ends so we are somehow dividing the right number of deaths by too little time "at-risk"? Why does the mortality spike from week 16? That is when the population starts to fall but presumably we now have younger people coming into the "between jabs" group. I can only agree "more research is needed".
What we really need is a "modified intent to treat" analysis for all death from time of first dose, irrespective of what happened afterwards. The treatment and control populations are still gong to be very different at every timepoint, but is it possible to do this with the available data?
I don't think that's possible with the available data, but unraveling these mysteries is part of the fun 😉. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, don't hesitate to offer.
My primary sources for all cause data currently are:
1. UK Data- This includes all cause mortality by vax status, but the very large age groups
2. US Data- includes smaller age groups, but not vax status
There are thousands of us random folks who are willing and able to investigate this data free of charge, but not able to get sufficient data to do the job completely. Therefore we are left looking for "clues".
Thanks for showing how relative health might affect the data-- this supposition was counterintuitive to me (in part because the covid vax campaign has been like the flu vax campaign on steroids-- my assumption was that everyone and anyone at risk or elderly had mostly been covid jabbed at this point).
On the one hand I want to thank you for pointing me to these posts. On the other hand, I'm really mad at you 😡 for making me feel my analysis is so much inferior to Bartram's (at least the 1st link above, haven't made my way through others yet).
No problem, I took it that way -- but thanks for making sure! (I've seen a lot of hard feelings from people misinterpreting, especially things that were supposed to be sarcasm and were taken as genuine, so much craziness it can be hard to tell.)
hi! and thank you for your work.
you say «i know of no reason that a Covid vaccine would reduce your chances of dying of something other than Covid, therefore the logical conclusion is that the full vaccinated are a generally healthier group than the unvaccinated.».
but i believe the lower mortality in the full vaxed is a result of the mortality increase between the 1st and 2nd dose, which serves as a kind of culling.
i've read it's called a 'dry tinder' effect.
I hadn't realized the magnitude of absolute (not rate) of deaths among the partially vaxxed until I just looked at it again. Huge number of deaths from mid-Feb to mid-Apr in this group, essentially subtracting those folks from eventual "fully vaxxed" population. Definitely would make the fully vaxxed numbers better.
Isn't this the headline from you data? "I hadn't realized the magnitude of absolute (not rate) of deaths among the partially vaxxed until I just looked at it again. Huge number of deaths from mid-Feb to mid-Apr in this group ..." Do you have the absolute numbers where one can compare the total number of deaths from, say, the same period in 2019 (pre-COVID) to Feb, March, April 2021? Thanks for your research and posts!
Started looking at the data here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
Discovered that they changed the age groups in 2020 (more granular), so it will be difficult to do direct comparisons, except for total deaths (not age adjusted). Sigh. I will write to the ONS to see if they can provide more granular data for 2019 and earlier.
Hi there! Fascinating theory. Are you able to direct me to data that supports it? It's not contained in the HSA report, is it? Forgive me if I overlooked it.
Mathew Crawford attributes the unusual health of the fully-vaccinated group to survivorship bias and the 'dry tinder' effect, as mentioned by another commenter. If vaccination weeds out susceptible individuals by the same types of mechanisms that Covid causes deaths wouldn't the doubly-vaccinated population tend to be more robust, at least initially?
Thank you! Your analysis fits my personal experience, but I could have made an argument either way. It's counter-intuitive that healthy people with low risk would take an experimental jab using experimental tech. Perhaps an indicator of the success of the psy-op?
Have you seen this article by Justin Hart? If ~60% of those who are jabbed have claim prior infection, it would have serious implications for VE. How much of what is claimed as vaxx protection is really immunity from infection?
Really curious if there is similar UK data.
https://covidreason.substack.com/p/reminder-over-60-of-the-vaccinated
What I don't see is that the vaxxed group would be more likely to have had prior infection than the unvaxxed, did I miss it? Without knowing the relative numbers, I don't think we can conclude what it means for VE? And no, I don't know of similar UK data. Anyone help us out here?
When I've posted the UKHSA data, some push back and claim the unvaxxed are likely C19 recovered Given the refusal to acknowledge immunity from infection in the US, I don't think we can make that claim. I always assumed it was a wash, but the ~60% figure for the vaxxed was a surprise. There are many confounds (self-identification, high PCR cycles, bad tests), and we can't rule out that vaxx after infection/recovery might damage immunity...but it would be interesting to know how many vaxxed and unvaxxed are recovered even with all the confounds. I only know of a few recovered people...and they're all vaxxed. The one person I know who hasn't vaxxed after infection never intended to vaxx.
I’ve always thought this must be a factor, the Cleveland Clinic study of hospital workers showed no infection from people who’d had Covid & then been vaccinated. It would be interesting to know how many people had prior infection before vaccination. I suspect this wasn’t recorded as they don’t want to actually know.
This would explain the maniacal denial of natural immunity and push to get the covid-recovered vaxxed, as doing so boosts the *apparent* VE, when really it is natural imminity's beneficial boost to the vaxxed population at work, masking the uselessness of vaxx.
*immunity🥴
I just stumbled across this excellent video that - among other things - compares all-cause mortality rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed in the UK. An attempt is made to explain the unusual spikes in the data. Ultimately they conclude that "the data provides no real evidence that the benefits of the Covid vaccines outweigh the risks."
https://youtu.be/6umArFc-fdc
Thanks, will take a look
What is your estimation of the veracity of death certificates in the UK? Here in the US, death certificate procedures were completely and officially rewritten in March/April 2020 to make sure that COVID deaths would be the predominant cause of death in any tangentially related case.
You got me thinking... if there is currently a bias in reporting, incentives would tend to favor over-reporting unvaccinated Covid deaths, and under-reporting vaccinated Covid deaths. If that were true, then the unvacccinated non-Covid deaths above (right plot, light blue line) would be higher, and the vaccinated non-Covid deaths (red line) lower. I.e. there would be more distance between those 2 lines, possibly indicating a greater overall health advantage among the vaccinated. Does this follow?
I have no idea. I'm in US as well 😄
According to the few whistleblowers who did break ranks, all UK deaths were encouraged to be recorded as covid, no matter what the true circumstances. The Midazolam scandal caused a great number of "covid" deaths in care homes, much like the Remdesivir deaths in US hospitals.
Hello T Coddington, have you seen this analysis by William M Briggs using the same data from UK but age-specific?
Vax Has Slight But Waning Edge In Old But Harms The Young
https://wmbriggs.com/post/38161/
It includes several helpful plots with the various vaccination categories:
(unvaccinated => <21 days after 1st dose => >21 days after 2nd dose => vaccinated)
I think it important to keep in mind the flux between the categories and consider both their relative and actual size when reviewing the death rates for the same periods of time.
Interestingly, just as the successive age-groups were prioritised in the UK vaccine rollout, so too can the rises and peaks in the >21 dose category be seen successively staggered.
Not only are they time lagged to match the order of the rollout but they appear to peak after the vast majority have received the 2nd dose and moved in to the next category, vaccinated.
The numbers in the >21 days after 1st dose category really start to dwindle round mid April and since the start of June represent a smaller group than the unvaccinated. My suspicion is that those who remain longer in the >21 days after 1st dose were mostly, and for whatever reason, in too poor health to receive the second dose, so therefore the higher death rates are perhaps to be expected.
Nevertheless, there is still something really nagging about this large discrepancy that I can't put my finger on.
Would much appreciate your thoughts.
The fully vaccinated group does not reach 1 million individuals until week 11. The precise details of the UK roll-out will be really important in that period, for both the fully-vaccinated and unvaccinated group. I am speculating but a sensible roll-out would have targeted the vulnerable, institutionalised elderly but bypassed terminal/palliative/end of life care patients. While you want to treat those at greatest risk first there is no point treating those literally on the brink of death, and it is likely some bureaucrat will also have realised that this would risk making bad-looking numbers during a period of intense scrutiny, so made efforts to control what was probably a pretty haphazard start to vaccine roll-out.
You still have normal winter mortality to deal with, and without fully understanding the age-adjustment it is difficult to see whether either overall or not-covid deaths are within expectations.
The "between jabs" group is genuinely concerning. Some of these will be, as you say, second jab refusers, but I think most are just logistics (double jabbers with >21 days between doses) - see the rapid decline in this population after week 19. Is there any possibility that the mortality spike is an artefact of calculating the populations and unknown death dates to week ends so we are somehow dividing the right number of deaths by too little time "at-risk"? Why does the mortality spike from week 16? That is when the population starts to fall but presumably we now have younger people coming into the "between jabs" group. I can only agree "more research is needed".
What we really need is a "modified intent to treat" analysis for all death from time of first dose, irrespective of what happened afterwards. The treatment and control populations are still gong to be very different at every timepoint, but is it possible to do this with the available data?
I don't think that's possible with the available data, but unraveling these mysteries is part of the fun 😉. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, don't hesitate to offer.
Why can't we look at all cause mortality of 50-59 year olds, instead of 18-59?
My primary sources for all cause data currently are:
1. UK Data- This includes all cause mortality by vax status, but the very large age groups
2. US Data- includes smaller age groups, but not vax status
There are thousands of us random folks who are willing and able to investigate this data free of charge, but not able to get sufficient data to do the job completely. Therefore we are left looking for "clues".
Thanks for showing how relative health might affect the data-- this supposition was counterintuitive to me (in part because the covid vax campaign has been like the flu vax campaign on steroids-- my assumption was that everyone and anyone at risk or elderly had mostly been covid jabbed at this point).
Do you know of any data on the apparent increase in cardiac issues / clotting in sportsmen and women.
The UK has had four collapse in the last four days and of course the media remains silent.
I do not. My best(?) attempt at trying to investigate whether "other" health issues were increasing (US based data) was in this post: https://inumero.substack.com/p/looking-at-ed-visits-vs-vaccinations?r=tv61s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
Thank you for that post. The apparent connection between the red and green data sets is quite striking.
Bartram also has some analysis of this, along similar lines.
https://bartram.substack.com/p/on-the-impact-of-the-vaccines-on
There's also some statistical artifacts of the lag from infection to death that overstates VE during the initial vax program.
https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-the-delay-between
https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-the-delay-between-6e5
On the one hand I want to thank you for pointing me to these posts. On the other hand, I'm really mad at you 😡 for making me feel my analysis is so much inferior to Bartram's (at least the 1st link above, haven't made my way through others yet).
that was a joke of course.
No problem, I took it that way -- but thanks for making sure! (I've seen a lot of hard feelings from people misinterpreting, especially things that were supposed to be sarcasm and were taken as genuine, so much craziness it can be hard to tell.)