Why do they keep releasing such bogus numbers. Don't they have any more working brain at ONS that can figure that vaccines cannot lower non-Covid deaths ?
"I am surprised that throughout the report, there is no mention whatsoever, let alone an attempt to explain why the over 30s vaccinated should have a substantially lower non-COVID mortality rate than the unvaccinated."
1) They cleverly analyzed the 20-39 together averaging out the higher ASMR in the 20s vaccinated with higher ASMR in 30s unvaccinated.
2) They dropped the most consequential moments of the weeks after vaccination and only showed 21 days after each vaccine dose.
3) They arbitrarily decided to bin people into "Good Health", "Poor health", "Poorest health".
This last one is really bad because you are telling people that if your loved one died, it's probably because they were in bad shape and that the vaccine would have worked for them if they had just been healthier. Really? Then what's the justification to use the vaccine to protect them? More importantly, if we can't know who is in good heath or poor health, how will the vaccine be contraindicated for this group? On the contrary, they are advertising to this group?!!
People should demand that they explain what the parameters of these "health" indicators are or if it's simply "Didn't react well to the vaccine, so must be of poor health, like Sergio Aguero".
Now if I was on twitter, I would ask Prof. Pagel and Dr. Gurdasani if they have any interest in finding out why the children who are vaccinated are dying at 73x the rate from Covid after vaccine. I bet they don't want ONS to do a similar graph for the 10-19s age group because they cooked denominators will show even more glaringly than the "poorer health" graphic I linked where unvaccinated magically start dying during vaccination of different group. (As your paper with Prof. Fenton and group showed).
The end point isn’t the only issue. Anything with a beginning point before May 1, 2021 is highly questionable due to the age stratification if the roll out. The May 1 date backs up infections to April 1. Anything before that is crap from a statistical perspective because it’s far too easily manipulated.
I am a proponent of choice. The case for mandates has been dead. The case for recommending vaccines for the masses under 30 has been dead. That doesn't mean they should be barred, but they shouldn't be coerced, or if healthy, even encouraged to get it.
Additionally - The deaths from December 7th to Jan 1st have to be counted, when almost holocaust levels of deaths happened rapidly, almost entirely "clearing out" the seniors.
Prof. Jonathn Sterne did suggest during FDA meeting on September 17th for USA Boosters before the Israeli Ministry of health made a presentation, that basically confirmed the hunch many people have had that something is wrong about the unvaccinated cohort being compared to the vaccinated as on day 1 of the injection, the all-cause mortality was 50% lower on the 0th day of injection.
Note once again, the hump of death post vaccine is present even in this dataset of 80+.
Basically seen everywhere on earth from Israel to UK. This dataset cannot therefore be presented to the public without time-series information from 0th day of injection. Aggregation will hide the advancing of mortality in one group.
I'm losing my mind thinking about what they are doing without any regard for consequences. It's like they are a deterministic finite automaton with every path leading to maximizing vaccine uptake, no matter what. I am writing a short note and putting it out the world right now after I read that JCVI recommended 5-11 year old "vulnerable" be offered vaccine. I don't know if it will ever be read by anyone, but the least I can do is put it out there. I will use this analysis of ASMR by age group and link it if you don't mind. I'm not a writer but I just want to let parents know that this information is pertinent to their children's health outcomes and it's not been properly analyzed or explained.
They do add the bodies en route to final vaccination phase, but they also add THE TIME SPENT IN PREVIOUS RESPECTIVE CATEGORY. The more you spend, the better for the final ratio. As if there is difference when the death happened. "Ever vaccinated" should collect the corpses but not the time spent. 19M would become 11M population years.
Somebody used trench - bunker visualization. In trench your survival changes are 1,5, in bunker 0,9. To get there you have to cross battlefield with mines (corona) and cross-fire (death by other reason). You have several phases, the first one is 14meters (days) out of trench. Got hit, yuo died in trech. First bushline is vax etc. Noe the risks vary inbetween 2-5 inbetween these phases, i.e. higher. Ever vaxed means that you like to measure meters advanced before falling? Is it not the way that a death is a death, just add the corpses to bunker deaths without adding the time spent on the battlefield? This is what really counts...?
They like very much to use ever vaxed or rather the last phase like 2nd shot or booster, and compare it to trench. Omitting everything on the battlefield.
So, calculating ever vaxed and crediting for the time spent inbetween unvaxed and final phase, is credit for nothing. Even for cases, in my opinion.
Maybe you can cook up something from this, me not.
How does one explain two covid and two non-covid deaths in children aged 10-14 within 21 days of the first jab? Especially when only 12-15 were allowed vaccination leaving only 60% of that age band eligible for the shot.
Another reason why ASMR calculations are a way to obfuscate the data.
It's not clear to me why the pretenders of child protection are hardly talking about this.
Could it be that they are counting stillbirths or deaths of newborns due to various birth defects as unvaccinated?
That would account for both the higher age-adjusted mortality due to non-covid reasons and perhaps would be a reason why they are reluctant to release the age stratafication data.
Perhaps check their math on “age standardisation.” How do they “standardise?” It may not take many newborn deaths to skew the numbers, depending on their methods.
I went to the link and that is not what the tables are showing at all. I am opposed to these injections, but if the figures are to be believed, they are showing a much higher percentage showing up at hospitals who are unvaccinated and who are Covid positive. Am I missing something?
This is exactly what the data in the reports show. I'm not talking about death rates (that have been normalized for the population). I'm talking about the actual people who actually died.
Why do they keep releasing such bogus numbers. Don't they have any more working brain at ONS that can figure that vaccines cannot lower non-Covid deaths ?
Thank you for noting this
"I am surprised that throughout the report, there is no mention whatsoever, let alone an attempt to explain why the over 30s vaccinated should have a substantially lower non-COVID mortality rate than the unvaccinated."
If you look at this really despicable "explanation" for the increased overall all cause mortality in the age group 20-39 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1721/fig4wrapper/index.html,
You will notice they did 3 things to obfuscate.
1) They cleverly analyzed the 20-39 together averaging out the higher ASMR in the 20s vaccinated with higher ASMR in 30s unvaccinated.
2) They dropped the most consequential moments of the weeks after vaccination and only showed 21 days after each vaccine dose.
3) They arbitrarily decided to bin people into "Good Health", "Poor health", "Poorest health".
This last one is really bad because you are telling people that if your loved one died, it's probably because they were in bad shape and that the vaccine would have worked for them if they had just been healthier. Really? Then what's the justification to use the vaccine to protect them? More importantly, if we can't know who is in good heath or poor health, how will the vaccine be contraindicated for this group? On the contrary, they are advertising to this group?!!
People should demand that they explain what the parameters of these "health" indicators are or if it's simply "Didn't react well to the vaccine, so must be of poor health, like Sergio Aguero".
Now if I was on twitter, I would ask Prof. Pagel and Dr. Gurdasani if they have any interest in finding out why the children who are vaccinated are dying at 73x the rate from Covid after vaccine. I bet they don't want ONS to do a similar graph for the 10-19s age group because they cooked denominators will show even more glaringly than the "poorer health" graphic I linked where unvaccinated magically start dying during vaccination of different group. (As your paper with Prof. Fenton and group showed).
The end point isn’t the only issue. Anything with a beginning point before May 1, 2021 is highly questionable due to the age stratification if the roll out. The May 1 date backs up infections to April 1. Anything before that is crap from a statistical perspective because it’s far too easily manipulated.
Indeed. And even with that too, the case for vaccinating under 30s is completely destroyed?
I am a proponent of choice. The case for mandates has been dead. The case for recommending vaccines for the masses under 30 has been dead. That doesn't mean they should be barred, but they shouldn't be coerced, or if healthy, even encouraged to get it.
Additionally - The deaths from December 7th to Jan 1st have to be counted, when almost holocaust levels of deaths happened rapidly, almost entirely "clearing out" the seniors.
Prof. Jonathn Sterne did suggest during FDA meeting on September 17th for USA Boosters before the Israeli Ministry of health made a presentation, that basically confirmed the hunch many people have had that something is wrong about the unvaccinated cohort being compared to the vaccinated as on day 1 of the injection, the all-cause mortality was 50% lower on the 0th day of injection.
https://youtu.be/WFph7-6t34M?t=4554
Note once again, the hump of death post vaccine is present even in this dataset of 80+.
Basically seen everywhere on earth from Israel to UK. This dataset cannot therefore be presented to the public without time-series information from 0th day of injection. Aggregation will hide the advancing of mortality in one group.
I am losing count of the FOI requests I have submitted to get hold of the December data!
I'm losing my mind thinking about what they are doing without any regard for consequences. It's like they are a deterministic finite automaton with every path leading to maximizing vaccine uptake, no matter what. I am writing a short note and putting it out the world right now after I read that JCVI recommended 5-11 year old "vulnerable" be offered vaccine. I don't know if it will ever be read by anyone, but the least I can do is put it out there. I will use this analysis of ASMR by age group and link it if you don't mind. I'm not a writer but I just want to let parents know that this information is pertinent to their children's health outcomes and it's not been properly analyzed or explained.
I'd be honoured. Thank you.
Hi, maybe this is survival bias...
They do add the bodies en route to final vaccination phase, but they also add THE TIME SPENT IN PREVIOUS RESPECTIVE CATEGORY. The more you spend, the better for the final ratio. As if there is difference when the death happened. "Ever vaccinated" should collect the corpses but not the time spent. 19M would become 11M population years.
Somebody used trench - bunker visualization. In trench your survival changes are 1,5, in bunker 0,9. To get there you have to cross battlefield with mines (corona) and cross-fire (death by other reason). You have several phases, the first one is 14meters (days) out of trench. Got hit, yuo died in trech. First bushline is vax etc. Noe the risks vary inbetween 2-5 inbetween these phases, i.e. higher. Ever vaxed means that you like to measure meters advanced before falling? Is it not the way that a death is a death, just add the corpses to bunker deaths without adding the time spent on the battlefield? This is what really counts...?
They like very much to use ever vaxed or rather the last phase like 2nd shot or booster, and compare it to trench. Omitting everything on the battlefield.
So, calculating ever vaxed and crediting for the time spent inbetween unvaxed and final phase, is credit for nothing. Even for cases, in my opinion.
Maybe you can cook up something from this, me not.
rgds JR
Could you point to the source of the 10-14 and 15-19 data please.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
It's in the dataset. They completely ignored it in the bulletin.
How does one explain two covid and two non-covid deaths in children aged 10-14 within 21 days of the first jab? Especially when only 12-15 were allowed vaccination leaving only 60% of that age band eligible for the shot.
Another reason why ASMR calculations are a way to obfuscate the data.
It's not clear to me why the pretenders of child protection are hardly talking about this.
Could it be that they are counting stillbirths or deaths of newborns due to various birth defects as unvaccinated?
That would account for both the higher age-adjusted mortality due to non-covid reasons and perhaps would be a reason why they are reluctant to release the age stratafication data.
I don't think there are enough deaths to make the difference? Thankfully.
Perhaps check their math on “age standardisation.” How do they “standardise?” It may not take many newborn deaths to skew the numbers, depending on their methods.
I did! They standardise on European Standard Population 2013 and only included from age 10.
Hi Joel. Is there aconvenient way to get UK data by 5 year bins? Would like to add it to my analysis. https://orwell2024.substack.com/p/age-adjusted-all-cause-mortality?r=zp558&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I have asked them for it (directly, not FOI). They provide it in the accompanying data but not broken down by month or anything.
Despite the spinning by the agencies, the UKHSA data shows that 3 of every 4 people who died of C19 for the last several months were fully vaxxed.
UKHSA week 39 report (weeks 35-39), deaths within 28 days of a PCR+
Fully vaxxed 76.3% (2293/3005)
Unvaxxed 19.5% (586/3005)
UKHSA week 50 report (weeks 46-49), deaths within 28 days of a PCR+
Fully vaxxed 75.4% (2201/2920)
Unvaxxed 21.2% (618/2920)
Keep in mind that the week 50 report has any booster death benefit baked in.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
I went to the link and that is not what the tables are showing at all. I am opposed to these injections, but if the figures are to be believed, they are showing a much higher percentage showing up at hospitals who are unvaccinated and who are Covid positive. Am I missing something?
This is exactly what the data in the reports show. I'm not talking about death rates (that have been normalized for the population). I'm talking about the actual people who actually died.
==============
UKHSA COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, Week 39
Page 16, Table 4. COVID-19 deaths (a) within 28 days
Add the columns for age 50-59, 60-60, 70-79, and 80+ for Total, Not vaccinated, and Second dose ≥14 days before specimen date...and do the math.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf
========
UKHSA COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, Week 50
Page 37, Table 10. COVID-19 deaths (a) within 28 days
Add the columns for age 50-59, 60-60, 70-79, and 80+ for Total, Not vaccinated, and Second dose ≥14 days before specimen date...and do the math.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf
=========
The Week 51 report dropped yesterday. You can do the same analysis...Table 10 a on page 38.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports