Coronavirus Outbreak

[Ken]

Ken,

I think you're coming very close to lying when you keep accusing nett of posting disjoint population statistics. I have not seen him do that at all.

I have refrained from calling you a liar so far since I have thought you have been arguing in good faith. But you need to halt your accusations of other people being liars and being intentionally dishonest. One could very easily conclude you have been doing the same thing.

My example of Ohio vs Vermont COVID deaths was calculated using the same exact methodology as both the UK and Manitoba data that Nett posted previously. They all show COVID deaths as a percentage of total deaths without regard for population size.

None of these graphs are lying including mine. They all correctly reflect the data. But they are not a valid comparison of COVID interventions because they do not control for population size or show death rates per 100,000 population. Nett is not lying and I have not accused him of lying. What I have pointed out that none of the statistics that he has presented (until now) actually support the case that he is making. If he is an expert in statistics as he claims then he should know this.

Today he has finally presented data showing COVID death rates for one month in Manitoba, which has a total population of 1.36 million or about the same population size as Maine or the Memphis metro area. Are these data accurate? I have no reason to believe that they aren't. Is one month of data from a population size so small a large enough sample size to use to draw conclusions about vaccines that have been distributed to billions of people worldwide? I have no idea but I doubt it. Are there quirks in the data that would explain such results? For example, do the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations differ in age, health, behavior, etc? I don't know. I did check the actual COVID data portal for CA which is here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/ and found that Manitoba only had 3 COVID deaths in the past 2 weeks so it isn't like they are currently in the midst of a huge outbreak. This is what the current COVID portal looks like for Canada. I doubt there is enough data coming out of Manitoba to draw much in the way of conclusions. You can see to the right a graph of COVID deaths over time in Manitoba. They had a short spike in May that lasted a week or two but that is it.



If we scroll down on the current COVID portal for Canada we find the following summary of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for all of Canada. I wonder why Nett didn't show us this data instead of just Manitoba in May? Any ideas?



If we scroll further down the page we come to this interesting figure which shows the current age distribution of COVID deaths in Canada. They are almost entirely the elderly. Older men over age 60 or 70 are the most common victims until you get over age 80 in which case women are the majority, probably because there are a lot more women over age 80 in the population than men. What this means is that for Canada, any analysis of the effectiveness of vaccines should probably concentrate on these populations, not the young. I expect that Manitoba's May 2022 spike was also mostly among the elderly.

[silentreader]

Ken,

I think you're coming very close to lying when you keep accusing nett of posting disjoint population statistics. I have not seen him do that at all.

I have refrained from calling you a liar so far since I have thought you have been arguing in good faith. But you need to halt your accusations of other people being liars and being intentionally dishonest. One could very easily conclude you have been doing the same thing.

My example of Ohio vs Vermont COVID deaths was calculated using the same exact methodology as both the UK and Manitoba data that Nett posted previously. They all show COVID deaths as a percentage of total deaths without regard for population size.

None of these graphs are lying including mine. They all correctly reflect the data. But they are not a valid comparison of COVID interventions because they do not control for population size or show death rates per 100,000 population. Nett is not lying and I have not accused him of lying. What I have pointed out that none of the statistics that he has presented (until now) actually support the case that he is making. If he is an expert in statistics as he claims then he should know this.

Today he has finally presented data showing COVID death rates for one month in Manitoba, which has a total population of 1.36 million or about the same population size as Maine or the Memphis metro area. Are these data accurate? I have no reason to believe that they aren't. Is one month of data from a population size so small a large enough sample size to use to draw conclusions about vaccines that have been distributed to billions of people worldwide? I have no idea but I doubt it. Are there quirks in the data that would explain such results? For example, do the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations differ in age, health, behavior, etc? I don't know. I did check the actual COVID data portal for CA which is here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/ and found that Manitoba only had 3 COVID deaths in the past 2 weeks so it isn't like they are currently in the midst of a huge outbreak. This is what the current COVID portal looks like for Canada. I doubt there is enough data coming out of Manitoba to draw much in the way of conclusions. You can see to the right a graph of COVID deaths over time in Manitoba. They had a short spike in May that lasted a week or two but that is it.



If we scroll down on the current COVID portal for Canada we find the following summary of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for all of Canada. I wonder why Nett didn't show us this data instead of just Manitoba in May? Any ideas?



If we scroll further down the page we come to this interesting figure which shows the current age distribution of COVID deaths in Canada. They are almost entirely the elderly. Older men over age 60 or 70 are the most common victims until you get over age 80 in which case women are the majority, probably because there are a lot more women over age 80 in the population than men. What this means is that for Canada, any analysis of the effectiveness of vaccines should probably concentrate on these populations, not the young. I expect that Manitoba's May 2022 spike was also mostly among the elderly.

What time period does figure 5 and figure 7 cover?

[Ken]

The graph I posted is no more fake than the one you posted. The different columns represented different population sizes, just like they did on your graph of Manitoba and the previous one from the UK.

It does no good to post separate statistics for population sizes taken from different data sets because those numbers are constantly changing. If you want to legitimately calculate death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated then you need to use data that draws from the same statistical population for both the numerator and the denominator. And preferably data that is stratified by age since death rates vary greatly by age as do vaccination rates.

Data from the US is not granular enough to actually figure anything out. A lot of pro-vaccine people are complaining about this. Your WA data is just not worth looking at until they provide more detail.

Europe and Canadian data is just a lot better tracked, probably because they ave centralized universal healthcare (yay!). Unfortunately European countries and Canada has removed tables and graphs from their reports, because it "could be used to spread misinformation", ie: they didn't like what it was showing.

Moving on, I have provided population percentages for every graph I posted, and I never mixed statistical populations. That is what the MdPH dashboard did, and I called that out. If you think I did this, please reply with the post, and a detailed explanation of the populations I was mixing. I'm willing to admit if I was wrong. However, if you cannot do this, please stop with the red herrings

Can we can actually look at the data now?

This graph is age-adjusted from Manitoba's own data



No matter how you slice Manitoba's data, hospitalization and deaths are WORSE for vaccinated people. Boosters have a slight impact in hospitalization, and ICU admissions, but are still worse for deaths.

This is after ignoring the first 14 days after injection, which is when a lot of events occur.

If you don't want to accept this reality, that's fine, but please don't just lie about what I'm posting. This is the same statistical population, and it's age adjusted.

So what is this graph actually showing and why just May 2022?

I see death rates of about 0.15 per 100,000 person days for vaccinated and unvaccinated. The total population of Manitoba is only 1.36 million so that equates to 2 deaths per day for the entire province. That hardly seems like a large enough sample size from which to draw conclusions.

What do the data look like for months other than May and for all of Canada, not just Manitoba?

[Ken]

Ken,

I think you're coming very close to lying when you keep accusing nett of posting disjoint population statistics. I have not seen him do that at all.

I have refrained from calling you a liar so far since I have thought you have been arguing in good faith. But you need to halt your accusations of other people being liars and being intentionally dishonest. One could very easily conclude you have been doing the same thing.

My example of Ohio vs Vermont COVID deaths was calculated using the same exact methodology as both the UK and Manitoba data that Nett posted previously. They all show COVID deaths as a percentage of total deaths without regard for population size.

None of these graphs are lying including mine. They all correctly reflect the data. But they are not a valid comparison of COVID interventions because they do not control for population size or show death rates per 100,000 population. Nett is not lying and I have not accused him of lying. What I have pointed out that none of the statistics that he has presented (until now) actually support the case that he is making. If he is an expert in statistics as he claims then he should know this.

Today he has finally presented data showing COVID death rates for one month in Manitoba, which has a total population of 1.36 million or about the same population size as Maine or the Memphis metro area. Are these data accurate? I have no reason to believe that they aren't. Is one month of data from a population size so small a large enough sample size to use to draw conclusions about vaccines that have been distributed to billions of people worldwide? I have no idea but I doubt it. Are there quirks in the data that would explain such results? For example, do the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations differ in age, health, behavior, etc? I don't know. I did check the actual COVID data portal for CA which is here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/ and found that Manitoba only had 3 COVID deaths in the past 2 weeks so it isn't like they are currently in the midst of a huge outbreak. This is what the current COVID portal looks like for Canada. I doubt there is enough data coming out of Manitoba to draw much in the way of conclusions. You can see to the right a graph of COVID deaths over time in Manitoba. They had a short spike in May that lasted a week or two but that is it.



If we scroll down on the current COVID portal for Canada we find the following summary of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for all of Canada. I wonder why Nett didn't show us this data instead of just Manitoba in May? Any ideas?



If we scroll further down the page we come to this interesting figure which shows the current age distribution of COVID deaths in Canada. They are almost entirely the elderly. Older men over age 60 or 70 are the most common victims until you get over age 80 in which case women are the majority, probably because there are a lot more women over age 80 in the population than men. What this means is that for Canada, any analysis of the effectiveness of vaccines should probably concentrate on these populations, not the young. I expect that Manitoba's May 2022 spike was also mostly among the elderly.

What time period does figure 5 and figure 7 cover?

They don't actually specify but from the context it appears to be cumulative through June 19, 2022 for the first one and July 15, 2022 for the second one.

EDIT: If you go back on figure 5 and change the graph to display numbers you get a total of 18,008 deaths which suggests that they are only looking at about the past 12 months since Canada has experienced 42,171 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. On the other hand, if you add up the total deaths shown figure 7 you get n=42,278 which is very close to the total death figure for the entire pandemic and suggests that figure 7 is cumulative for the entire pandemic.

[nett]

So what is this graph actually showing and why just May 2022?

I see death rates of about 0.15 per 100,000 person days for vaccinated and unvaccinated. The total population of Manitoba is only 1.36 million so that equates to 2 deaths per day for the entire province. That hardly seems like a large enough sample size from which to draw conclusions.

What do the data look like for months other than May and for all of Canada, not just Manitoba?

May is just the latest report. That's enough deaths to draw statistical significance. Manitoba is not that populated, and COVID is not that deadly.

Are you saying Manitoba is reporting misleading data intentionally?

[Ken]

So what is this graph actually showing and why just May 2022?

I see death rates of about 0.15 per 100,000 person days for vaccinated and unvaccinated. The total population of Manitoba is only 1.36 million so that equates to 2 deaths per day for the entire province. That hardly seems like a large enough sample size from which to draw conclusions.

What do the data look like for months other than May and for all of Canada, not just Manitoba?

May is just the latest report. That's enough deaths to draw statistical significance. Manitoba is not that populated, and COVID is not that deadly.

Are you saying Manitoba is reporting misleading data intentionally?

No, I am just asking if data for just one month from one small province is adequate to draw conclusions about a the effectiveness of vaccines that have been distributed to billions of people around the world.

What do the previous months reports for Manitoba show?

[nett]

So what is this graph actually showing and why just May 2022?

I see death rates of about 0.15 per 100,000 person days for vaccinated and unvaccinated. The total population of Manitoba is only 1.36 million so that equates to 2 deaths per day for the entire province. That hardly seems like a large enough sample size from which to draw conclusions.

What do the data look like for months other than May and for all of Canada, not just Manitoba?

May is just the latest report. That's enough deaths to draw statistical significance. Manitoba is not that populated, and COVID is not that deadly.

Are you saying Manitoba is reporting misleading data intentionally?

No, I am just asking if data for just one month from one small province is adequate to draw conclusions about a the effectiveness of vaccines that have been distributed to billions of people around the world.

What do the previous months reports for Manitoba show?

They show a steady increase in the share of deaths in the vaccinated population. This is pretty consistent with waning efficacy, original antigenic sin, vaccine resistant, or even vaccine preferring variants like BA.5, and the rest of the problems with mRNA vaccines that the skeptic have pointed out.

The UK is showing the same trends, I posted that data before.

Moving on, I have provided population percentages for every graph I posted, and I never mixed statistical populations. That is what the MdPH dashboard did, and I called that out. If you think I did this, please reply with the post, and a detailed explanation of the populations I was mixing. I'm willing to admit if I was wrong. However, if you cannot do this, please stop with the red herrings

Are you going to respond to this?

[Josh]

What this means is that for Canada, any analysis of the effectiveness of vaccines should probably concentrate on these populations, not the young.

Ken, this isn’t statistically valid, unless you want to make arguments solely for the elderly to be vaccinated.

In any case, can you stop calling people who disagree with you liars?

[Ken]

The UK is showing the same trends, I posted that data before.

Moving on, I have provided population percentages for every graph I posted, and I never mixed statistical populations. That is what the MdPH dashboard did, and I called that out. If you think I did this, please reply with the post, and a detailed explanation of the populations I was mixing. I'm willing to admit if I was wrong. However, if you cannot do this, please stop with the red herrings

Are you going to respond to this?

This is the data you presented for the UK for which you did not provide a link to the original source and you did not provide population sizes so that one can calculate actual death rates for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. It is presented in EXACTLY the same way as the graph I made showing the percentages of COVID deaths in Ohio and Vermont

[Ken]

What this means is that for Canada, any analysis of the effectiveness of vaccines should probably concentrate on these populations, not the young.

Ken, this isn’t statistically valid, unless you want to make arguments solely for the elderly to be vaccinated.

In any case, can you stop calling people who disagree with you liars?

As we discussed upstream, there are multiple public health reasons to become vaccinated, not just to avoid death. But yes, most countries did concentrate their initial vaccination efforts on the most vulnerable populations which are the elderly and immuno-compromised and then slowly expanded their efforts into the rest of the population. Not necessarily so much to reduce the death rates among the young, but to bring the pandemic to a faster end.

I am not calling you or Nett a liar. I am saying that most of the data that Nett is presenting do not not actually support the claims that he is making. There is a difference. Lying goes to motive. I don't know if he is doing it intentionally or just mistakenly in his search to find data from somewhere, anywhere, that supports his argument that vaccinated people die from COVID at higher rates than the unvaccinated.