Deaths by COVID Vaccination Status - NIMS version

Necessary, safe, effective? A somewhat different insight than the ONS data...

Much was made of the eagerly awaited update to the ONS bulletin on England Deaths by Vaccination Status, which ultimately showed substantial benefits for those who took the COVID jab (even in terms of non-COVID mortality, ahem). I did a brief analysis here, highlighting the lingering anomalies that are still not addressed:

England Deaths by Vaccination Status

My fellow, independent forensic data analysts dived a lot deeper (which I’m sure you’ve all read, the likes of Fenton, Craig, Chudov, gato, US Mortality Ben, etc.) and the general conclusion was that population estimates and biases due to the way the subset was constructed meant it was not representative of the population.

My cursory analysis relied on comparing the ONS data percentage of deaths in the ever vaccinated to the NIMS (National Immunisation Management System) vaccinated population (which I understand is the data that feeds the UK Coronavirus Dashboard from where I downloaded the vaccination data).

In the meantime, I have been waiting for UKHSA to provide me with an extract from NIMS including all deaths by COVID vaccination status, which they finally provided under a Freedom of Information request today¹. There remain a couple of clarifications of the data that I have requested but here is my preliminary analysis.

To start, here is the caveat UKHSA sent with the data:

Please note that crude reporting of vaccination status of cases, hospitalisations and deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation².

UKHSA uses the data on the vaccination status of people who have died to produce monthly COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance reports. The reports cover an extensive range of measures of vaccine effectiveness, including demonstrating effectiveness against infection, transmission, hospitalisation and mortality.

In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations or deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated. This may be even more notable if vaccination has been prioritised to individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease, as in the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme, in particular when looking at severe disease outcomes such as hospitalisations or deaths.

Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19 and because vaccination has been prioritised to those most at risk.

Everybody got that? There is actually a lot of sense in it and I certainly wouldn’t want to “misinterpret” the data. In fact, it reads like an argument in favour of not intervening for those for whom there is little COVID risk, doesn’t it, i.e. everyone who is not old or frail?

Moreover, I maintain that the burden is on those who forced this intervention on the population to demonstrate that it is necessary, safe and effective.

If the data does not show this, if it cannot overcome the potential confounding factors articulated by UKHSA, in spite of the alleged efficacy rates of up to 100% against COVID mortality then there is no evidence, and therefore no justification, for the intervention.

In accordance with the UKHSA caveat, here are COVID deaths in England stratified for the under 50s and over 50s:

Indeed, COVID is not a public health concern for the under 50s (notwithstanding that little spike immediately after the mRNA injections at any rate, ahem). So, I think we can summarily strike off the “necessary” part for that age cohort right away, can’t we?

Let’s also make a note of when COVID was actually a concern for the over 50s too: mid-Dec 2020 to mid-May 2021 and then (rather surprisingly give that it was summer, ahem) first week of June 2021 and forever more, apparently. I’m making a note to observe the one year window till June 2022 anyway so that we can crunch some numbers.

Well, isn’t that peculiar? According to a simple plot of the NIMS mortality data against the vaccinated population data, the only time the ever-vaccinated proportion of all-cause deaths is below the proportion of NIMS population that was vaccinated (which would indicate mRNA injection benefit) is for a brief period at the end of March 2021 when there was virtually no COVID.

And even then, the vaccinated population curve appears to have a weird spike in it, suggesting that perhaps that data point isn’t real anyway. And to boot, to make an allowance for the age-confounding, I only took the over 50s vaccinated population, even though I counted deaths of all ages.

And then, what about the strange reoccurrence of COVID in summer 2021? Was it the pandemic of the unvaccinated they promised?

Ahem, nope.

At the start of perpetual COVID in June 2021, the ever-vaccinated are already dying 1 point higher than their population rate. And by a year later, that has risen to 3 points.

Maybe, I’ve just misinterpreted this (or the NIMS data is not representative of the population) but I’m really not seeing the evidence for effectiveness. In fact, the case for unsafe is strongest, isn’t it?

I don’t know about you but I certainly wouldn’t risk my life on it!

Still, nice to have some unadulterated data for a change.

And here’s to the 10% of us over 50s who remain “hesitant” (only 10%???!)!

Obviously not this one…

Remember, this is what we should expect of a safe and effective intervention - a chart like this, with disproportionate deaths in the unvaccinated during periods of COVID mortality:

Instead, we got this, the exact opposite:

Either this NIMS data is legit and the “vaccine” causes more death, especially when there is heightened COVID mortality or it’s distorted by the fact that moribund people are more likely to be vaccinated and more likely to die anyway. In other words, in the best case scenario, the “vaccine” doesn’t work.

What we never get is evidence that unequivocally supports the Safe and Effective™ narrative. And that’s the only thing that matters.

---

Addendum

Subsequent to some positive exchanges with Sarah Caul on Twitter, I’ve run some sanity checks over the data.

I observe that given the very close proximity in changes and magnitude of vaccinated deaths (in NIMS) and vaccinated NIMS population that this data passes an initial sanity check.

Furthermore, I checked the data for second and third doses too:

My interpretation of the above is that, once again, the data passes the initial sanity check. However, there is evidence here of what appears to be dose-dependent effectiveness, followed by detriment (or negative effectiveness).

After consultation with my peers, we believe the most plausible explanation for this is the “healthy vaccinee” hypothesis. The benefit for dose 2 (the first “fully vaccinated” point), is only apparent from May 2021, well after COVID has dissipated. This is most likely due to the fact that the younger, healthier people were vaccinated last and therefore, were less likely to suffer the ill-effects of the vaccine.

This phenomenon appears to continue into dose 3 which, in my opinion, might be indicative of survivorship bias. In other words, only the strongest presented for the first booster. But, ultimately, it seems that dose eventually catches up with them too.

1. Unfortunately not age-stratified like I asked.

2. In other words, you should only rely on us torturing the crude data until it fits the narrative.