I must admit that as much time as I have spent looking at the UKHSA reports & in particular the section on vaccination and pregnancies, I have never spent much time on the included bar charts.
Where did they file the women who either miscarried or gave birth prematurely *within two weeks of the shot*? Depending on the biases of the bean-counters, they could have gone in any of those columns...
I wouldn't rate the graphs as solid evidence of a high rate among the dosed-before-group. But at the same time, this is the group I have anticipated might show a fuller impact from injection, whereas the potential auto-immune response from the vaxx might be attenuated if received during pregnancy. So these numbers could be bad. We won't know until someone actually publishes them.
There could also be some math funniness with the still-pregnant groups adding to the denominators but I wasn't able to model it out as easily as I thought, so that's a wild guess.
I'm with you-- I really want to see solid data tracking this. The CDC's data seemed to indicate that women who got vaxd in early pregnancy had a higher rate of fetal death than those vaxd in the third trimester, so... it'd be really useful if somebody, somewhere, could publish some data on women who got pregnant after the vax. I'm just as curious about what's going on with women who've been *trying* to get pregnant after the vax. I feel like that data's out there by now. Is anyone going to release it?
My guess: the rates depicted (3.78 for unvaccinated, 3.90 for vaccinated) are not the raw frequencies but the expected values of some distribution produced by a model. The 95% confidence interval for "all women" seems compatible with the 95% confidence intervals for the two subcategories.
Where did they file the women who either miscarried or gave birth prematurely *within two weeks of the shot*? Depending on the biases of the bean-counters, they could have gone in any of those columns...
I don't think we know that.
I wouldn't rate the graphs as solid evidence of a high rate among the dosed-before-group. But at the same time, this is the group I have anticipated might show a fuller impact from injection, whereas the potential auto-immune response from the vaxx might be attenuated if received during pregnancy. So these numbers could be bad. We won't know until someone actually publishes them.
There could also be some math funniness with the still-pregnant groups adding to the denominators but I wasn't able to model it out as easily as I thought, so that's a wild guess.
I'm with you-- I really want to see solid data tracking this. The CDC's data seemed to indicate that women who got vaxd in early pregnancy had a higher rate of fetal death than those vaxd in the third trimester, so... it'd be really useful if somebody, somewhere, could publish some data on women who got pregnant after the vax. I'm just as curious about what's going on with women who've been *trying* to get pregnant after the vax. I feel like that data's out there by now. Is anyone going to release it?
FOI request might sort this out.
I'm in the US, don't know how this works in the UK. If it's relatively easy, I'd give it a try.
Yes: just a letter asking for information held by government.
My guess: the rates depicted (3.78 for unvaccinated, 3.90 for vaccinated) are not the raw frequencies but the expected values of some distribution produced by a model. The 95% confidence interval for "all women" seems compatible with the 95% confidence intervals for the two subcategories.