In the course of updating my collection of US based dashboards, I noticed on the dashboard “Key Metrics Vax by County” (4th tab), several states seemed to have strong positive correlation between the adult (18+) population vaccinated and new cases per 100K in the last month.
May 17, 2022·edited May 17, 2022Liked by T Coddington
Hi, have you already taken a look into this new meta-study claiming no increased risk of stillbirth after vaccination? I noticed they didn't adjust for time-varying confounding and baseline risk: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30052-w
Thanks for pointing this out. I will need to spend some time on this, but at 1st glance I suspect it suffers from the same biases as I detailed in my posts on the UKHSA data.
I think it's worth taking a hard look at this Nature study. If they made serious mistakes, they will have to amend or retract it. The first published study that claimed everything was fine also blundered and had to post an embarrassing update (Shimabukuro in NEJM).
I agree that is a possibility. Generally speaking, I'm seeing mostly positive correlations for hospitalization admits with COVID as well, which should be less susceptible to this possible bias.
One state that jumps out in your analysis is VT. Very high vax rate as a state and very high recent case count. I’m surprised that it has a negative correlation
Just added a chart with VT. It's basically 0 correlation. I'm comparing counties within a state, not across states. So, VT as a state has had high case rates lately, but seems to have been true across all counties in the state.
OH was definitely near the top. I get the regression lines in the Tableau reports and unfortunately I don't know an easy way to export all the regression equations, R-squared and p-values, so I just recorded +/- correlations and p-value > or < 0.05 in my spreadsheet. A quick check however found CT, FL, and MD with stronger correlation(higher R-squared values) than OH. CA was also nearly as high as OH.
Nothing really solid. Suspicions or wild guesses would be if seasonality is hitting states differently and perhaps how natural immunity is playing in. I think there is reason to believe people who had infections before getting vaccinated have better immunity than those who are only vaccinated or were vaccinated before their 1st infection.
Hi, have you already taken a look into this new meta-study claiming no increased risk of stillbirth after vaccination? I noticed they didn't adjust for time-varying confounding and baseline risk: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30052-w
Thanks for pointing this out. I will need to spend some time on this, but at 1st glance I suspect it suffers from the same biases as I detailed in my posts on the UKHSA data.
Two more things:
Scotland again records a significant increase in neonatal deaths (second time already, but could be something else): https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/20137268.investigation-launched-amid-second-unusual-spike-neonatal-deaths-scotland/
Germany has already 61 official reports of vaccine injuries in breastfeeding babies (page 10): https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-20-bis-31-03-22.pdf
Is the German report available in English that you know of?
no but there is a German summary of the report than can be translated. it also mentions the 61 babies: https://corona-blog.net/2022/05/08/18-sicherheitsbericht-des-pei-296-233-nebenwirkungen-2-810-todesfaelle-und-weniger-informationen-denn-je/
are you guys still looking into this? important topic.
The UK Med Freedom Alliance critised the Nature study: https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/open-letter-from-the-uk-medical-freedom-alliance-to-professor-asma-khalil
I think it's worth taking a hard look at this Nature study. If they made serious mistakes, they will have to amend or retract it. The first published study that claimed everything was fine also blundered and had to post an embarrassing update (Shimabukuro in NEJM).
You're doing some great work here, thank you. 👍🏼💜
I've always been hesitant to look at case rates based on unreliable PCR tests, but it's all we have.
Devil's advocate: Maybe people who are more concerned about the virus are more likely to BOTH vax and obsessively test?
I agree that is a possibility. Generally speaking, I'm seeing mostly positive correlations for hospitalization admits with COVID as well, which should be less susceptible to this possible bias.
No tests, no cases. Imagine that.
One state that jumps out in your analysis is VT. Very high vax rate as a state and very high recent case count. I’m surprised that it has a negative correlation
Just added a chart with VT. It's basically 0 correlation. I'm comparing counties within a state, not across states. So, VT as a state has had high case rates lately, but seems to have been true across all counties in the state.
VT has been an odd duck throughout (but isn't it always?)
Wow, neat work! That coorelation in OH is really striking on the graph. Was OH the strongest correlation or was there another that was even higher?
OH was definitely near the top. I get the regression lines in the Tableau reports and unfortunately I don't know an easy way to export all the regression equations, R-squared and p-values, so I just recorded +/- correlations and p-value > or < 0.05 in my spreadsheet. A quick check however found CT, FL, and MD with stronger correlation(higher R-squared values) than OH. CA was also nearly as high as OH.
Thanks. That correlation is sppoky and confirms alot of the current theory.
Any thoughts as to why there are differences in correlation state to state? Those R squared values are quite strikingly high.
Nothing really solid. Suspicions or wild guesses would be if seasonality is hitting states differently and perhaps how natural immunity is playing in. I think there is reason to believe people who had infections before getting vaccinated have better immunity than those who are only vaccinated or were vaccinated before their 1st infection.