Coronavirus Outbreak

[nett]

Considering the UK is 75% fully vaccinated, something is very wrong with this picture.



It's either a serious case of Simpson's paradox, or the vaccines are making people more susceptible to COVID death.

My personal opinion is that the narrow induced response to the spike protein is causing immune system dysfunction.

[nett]

Considering the UK is 75% fully vaccinated, something is very wrong with this picture.



It's either a serious case of Simpson's paradox, or the vaccines are making people more susceptible to COVID death.

My personal opinion is that the narrow induced response to the spike protein is causing immune system dysfunction.

Ken, or Judas Maccabeus. Since you think it's so obvious that the vaccines reduce death, what is your explanation of what's going on in the UK?

[Ken]

Ken, or Judas Maccabeus. Since you think it's so obvious that the vaccines reduce death, what is your explanation of what's going on in the UK?

You need to look at the death RATES not total deaths to do a meaningful comparison. Because the population sizes of vaccinated and unvaccinated are obviously different. And they are especially different for the most vulnerable populations which are the elderly. The charts you just published are meaningless because it is like saying more Catholics die of cancer than Mennonites. Well yes, that is obviously true because there are over 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the world compared to probably less than 1 million Mennonites. But the more important question is whether Catholics die from cancer at a higher RATE than Mennonites.

The UK does publish this information but it looks like it is just in downloadable table form, not easy to read graphs. But feel free to dive in and see how much the UK differs from the US if at all in terms of death RATES by vaccination status. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... d31may2022

[nett]

Ken, or Judas Maccabeus. Since you think it's so obvious that the vaccines reduce death, what is your explanation of what's going on in the UK?

You need to look at the death RATES not total deaths to do a meaningful comparison. Because the population sizes of vaccinated and unvaccinated are obviously different. And they are especially different for the most vulnerable populations which are the elderly. The charts you just published are meaningless because it is like saying more Catholics die of cancer than Mennonites. Well yes, that is obviously true because there are over 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the world compared to probably less than 1 million Mennonites. But the more important question is whether Catholics die from cancer at a higher RATE than Mennonites.

The UK does publish this information but it looks like it is just in downloadable table form, not easy to read graphs. But feel free to dive in and see how much the UK differs from the US if at all in terms of death RATES by vaccination status. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... d31may2022

Here we go again with basic statistics. I don't know I feed the troll, because I know you're not actually this obtuse.

Where in my post or graphic do you see anything about absolute numbers? It's only percentages, which represent a....rate. For April - May 2022, the UK was 75% fully vaccinated, but 95% of deaths were vaccinated people.

Looking at data from January 2021 until now is INVALID for showing vaccine efficacy, because it predates widespread vaccination.

[Ken]

Since you say you are a stats guy, I know you understand this and I know you understand that you are being deliberately deceptive. But for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread, here is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

• Say we have a population of 1,000,000 people.
• The population is 99% vaccinated which means that 990,000 people are vaccinated and 10,000 are not.
• One percent of the population dies of Covid which means that 10,000 people die, 9,000 of whom are vaccinated and 1,000 of whom are unvaccinated.
• This produces a death rate for unvaccinated individuals is roughly 10-times higher than for vaccinated. In other words, the vaccines are over 90% effective in reducing death which is frankly lower than we are seeing in most jurisdictions, but it makes the math easier. This will result in the following distribution of deaths:

Vaccinated: 9,000 deaths from a population of 990,000 equals a death rate of 909 people per 100,000 population or 0.9% death rate
Unvaccinated: 1,000 deaths from a population of 10,000 equals a death rate of 10,000 per 100,000 population or 10% death rate

You can, of course, make a graph like you did which shows that 90% of Covid deaths comes from the vaccinated population. Which is true.

Or you can make a graph of the death RATES for each population which will show that the vaccines are over 90% effective in reducing deaths and that being vaccinated results in a 10-fold reduction in the risk of dying of Covid. Which is also true.

Finally, you can also calculate how many lives were SAVED from the vaccine. If the death rate for unvaccinated in this example is 10% then 10% of the total population of 1 million equal 100,000. That means in our example of a hypothetical population of 1 million people, the vaccines saved 90,000 lives.

In our hypothetical scenario all of the following are simultaneously true

• 90% of Covid deaths are people who are vaccinated
• Covid death rates are over 10-times lower for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated
• The vaccines saved 90,000 lives.

Which of those statistics best describes the effectiveness of the vaccines?

[Ken]

Also two more points of correction in your post. You are a smart guy so I know you know this. But for the benefit of others...

First, percentages are not necessarily rates. The stacked bar-graph percentages in your graphs are showing parts of a whole. They would be better displayed as a pie graph. But they do NOT show death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. They show total deaths. To calculate death rates you need to know the size of each population and divide total deaths into the total population size for each subgroup.

Second, when it comes to Covid, the total vaccination rates are not particularly relevant since the disease does not kill evenly across the population. You are tremendously more likely to die if you are elderly and above 65 or 70 years old than if you are young. So the more relevant vaccination rate for the UK would be the vaccination rates for the most vulnerable population of over 65 or over 70 year olds. I believe that is closer to 99% for the UK. Throwing a bunch of unvaccinated kids under age 12 into the data distorts the results. You would really need to calculate separate vaccination and death rates for each 10-year age group to get a true picture of vaccine effectiveness for each subpopulation.

If most of your deaths are in the elderly and most of your unvaccinated population are young then you are comparing apples to oranges and not doing a useful calculation and it can look like the vaccines are less effective in reducing deaths than they really are.

[nett]

Since you say you are a stats guy, I know you understand this and I know you understand that you are being deliberately deceptive. But for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread, here is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

• Say we have a population of 1,000,000 people.
• The population is 99% vaccinated which means that 990,000 people are vaccinated and 10,000 are not.
• One percent of the population dies of Covid which means that 10,000 people die, 9,000 of whom are vaccinated and 1,000 of whom are unvaccinated.
• This produces a death rate for unvaccinated individuals is roughly 10-times higher than for vaccinated. In other words, the vaccines are over 90% effective in reducing death which is frankly lower than we are seeing in most jurisdictions, but it makes the math easier. This will result in the following distribution of deaths:

Vaccinated: 9,000 deaths from a population of 990,000 equals a death rate of 909 people per 100,000 population or 0.9% death rate
Unvaccinated: 1,000 deaths from a population of 10,000 equals a death rate of 10,000 per 100,000 population or 10% death rate

You can, of course, make a graph like you did which shows that 90% of Covid deaths comes from the vaccinated population. Which is true.

Except, it's 95%, and the vaccination rate during the period was 75%

Or you can make a graph of the death RATES for each population which will show that the vaccines are over 90% effective in reducing deaths and that being vaccinated results in a 10-fold reduction in the risk of dying of Covid. Which is also true.

That would be true, except back in the real world, the numbers are flipped from your nonsense scenario, which means it shows the opposite. Keep in mind NHS Stopped publishing that graph, because it might encourage "misleading information"

Finally, you can also calculate how many lives were SAVED from the vaccine. If the death rate for unvaccinated in this example is 10% then 10% of the total population of 1 million equal 100,000. That means in our example of a hypothetical population of 1 million people, the vaccines saved 90,000 lives.

In our hypothetical scenario all of the following are simultaneously true

• 90% of Covid deaths are people who are vaccinated
• Covid death rates are over 10-times lower for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated
• The vaccines saved 90,000 lives.

Which of those statistics best describes the effectiveness of the vaccines?

That's a nice hypothetical, now back to reality.

How can I get you to acknowledge that the UK was 75% vaccinated. Not 99%, not 90%, 75%

75 is less than 95, you get the picture yet? Should I try a bat signal, carrier pigeon?

Again just in case I wasn't clear:

For period of the graph I posted, the UK was 75% fully vaccinated

Let me try to say this another way:

When the endpoint (death) rate in the sample (vaccinated) population exceeds the endpoint rate in the control (unvaccinated) population with statistical significance, you now have a correlation that treatment (vaccine) is associated with increase risk of death.

when the difference is 95% vs 75%, and you have a rapidly changing endpoint rate in the sample population, but very little change in the sample population itself, you can be sure something is up.

I think you're intentionally just posting massive walls of text to try to distract from the fact you are and have always been on the wrong side. Your use of flipped, and ridiculous numbers is pretty telling. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, why did you post a theoretical scenario that is the OPPOSITE of the UK to try to prove your point?

[Josh]

Ken, you’re proposing cherry picking statistics. Any reasonable analysis should include young people down to age 6 months since they’re vaccinated too.

[nett]

Also two more points of correction in your post. You are a smart guy so I know you know this. But for the benefit of others...

First, percentages are not necessarily rates. The stacked bar-graph percentages in your graphs are showing parts of a whole. They would be better displayed as a pie graph. But they do NOT show death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. They show total deaths. To calculate death rates you need to know the size of each population and divide total deaths into the total population size for each subgroup.

Second, when it comes to Covid, the total vaccination rates are not particularly relevant since the disease does not kill evenly across the population. You are tremendously more likely to die if you are elderly and above 65 or 70 years old than if you are young. So the more relevant vaccination rate for the UK would be the vaccination rates for the most vulnerable population of over 65 or over 70 year olds. I believe that is closer to 99% for the UK. Throwing a bunch of unvaccinated kids under age 12 into the data distorts the results. You would really need to calculate separate vaccination and death rates for each 10-year age group to get a true picture of vaccine effectiveness for each subpopulation.

If most of your deaths are in the elderly and most of your unvaccinated population are young then you are comparing apples to oranges and not doing a useful calculation and it can look like the vaccines are less effective in reducing deaths than they really are.

That's theoretically possible, but the age data doesn't play that out. All of the cohorts have similar differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated. So healthy unvaccinated young people are not throwing it out of whack. You can download the data set and see it yourself, or you can look at the older graphs they published. They stopped publishing the graphs in the last release, don't know why.

[Ken]

Ken, you’re proposing cherry picking statistics. Any reasonable analysis should include young people down to age 6 months since they’re vaccinated too.

Since Covid death rates are hugely stratified based on age, the best analysis of vaccine effectiveness should also be stratified based on age. Otherwise you risk distorting your results. And all the analyses that are stratified by ages show that vaccines are effective for each age cohort.

If you want to analyze vaccine effectiveness for children then you need to look at the rates of infection, hospitalization, and death for both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Mixing in data from the elderly will just distort the results.

If you want to analyze vaccine effectiveness for elderly you need to look at the rates of infection, hospitalization, and death for both vaccinated and unvaccinated elderly. Mixing in data from children will just distort the results.