Thanks! Yeah I had seen your article before you even mentioning it here, the data is overwhelming. I had actually tried to get you an email with the data a few week prior to your article from 'this blogs name' @protonmail.com. I am back on here today since there is additional data I don't think has been discussed yet. Have you seen Table 9 in the latest release from ONS? It is somewhat beyond words. I don't know how it could be released without a team addressing it. I charted up the data here: https://excessburden.substack.com/p/covid-19-non-covid-19-and-all-cause?s=w
Can I just say that I think it's amazing that you are reaching out to someone else who has analysed this data. This is what science is about... being happy to fine-tune one's own work based on someone else's findings. I really miss those pre Trusted News Initiative days where scientific debate didn't have to happen in silos.
I currently see no "touch points" between the pro vaccine and vaccine cautious scientists. I just wish long form debates could happen between both sides of the argument, based on rigorous data analysis and evaluation of hypotheses as to "mechanics" in the fields of virology and immunology.
E.g. It's so difficult trying to make an informed decision as to getting your child vaccinated or not. Everything is a risk/reward consideration... and I am still unsure how the balance ultimately tips. I was double jabbed myself (AZ) but for my daughter who already had a mild form of Delta (Oct 21) I find it extremely difficult to distill a conclusion from all the contradictory data. All Cause Mortality is just one of the factors I am looking at in order to weigh my decision... and it is all utterly mind scrambling.
it's easy. the risk benefit is negative for all ages. the fact that there is no ACM analysis provided by the government tells you everything you need to know.
The fact that the medical community refuses to demand such an analysis tells you everything you need to know.
It can't possibly be enough to overcome the stats for the younger groups, but isn't it likely that there is some ACM bias against the vaccinated because "high risk" individuals were more likely to get the vax, and to get the vax early? I don't see that you accounted for that in your article. Maybe there's not a way to quantify it in the data. But the UK has a higher than 80% double-vax rate, so the bias from that can't be very large.
That is a fair point. I also noticed some really odd data for Belgium where the cumulative incidence of hospitalisations (per 100k, in the above 65 age group) was almost 3 times as high for the double vaccinated compared to the non vaccinated. The boosted (likely more vulnerable and elderly) actually fared a little better than the non vaccinated.
See page 25 of this PDF (in Flemish/Dutch but the graph is rather self-explanatory)
As I said below, the mortality spike in Jan 2021 in the 70+ cohort among the unvaccinated either means 1) "unvaccinated" includes those within 14 days of their first jab or 2) that group was too ill to be vaccinated. I remember at the time all of the reports about nursing home deaths following the vaccination campaigns, so the January 2021 data among the 70+ either have huge confounders, or they are manipulated. It has been shown by many others that "unvaccinated" includes those receiving their first jab, but less than 14 days ago (or in this case, most likely 21 days ago). That issue cannot be resolved from the data provided -- if the data themselves are lies, then you can't distinguish anything. But the long term data (months after the most recent jab) show an alarming signal, as you say. Those cannot be gamed in the same way.
Joel Smalley showed that the shape of the mortality curve from early November to late January, could only be modelled by a Gompertz curve which was deviling in early December (COVID) and another Gompertz curve starting around 20 Dec and peaking on 12 Jan, the highest mortality day I believe ever recorded in the UK during the pandemic. The second Gompertz curve, which made zero sense as a COVID wave following right on the tail on the first Gompertz curve, meant it was due to another process - the vax the second wave were essentially vax deaths, not COVID deaths.
How is this not headline news every day until it's fully understood? Great analysis. If you know of similar analyses from other countries, please share.
Hi, I wrote to my MP (Greg Clark) about this and this is his response:
"I have no doubt that the ONS figures are accurate.
They seem to show that deaths from Covid are high among the unvaccinated, and that deaths from all causes are highest among the vaccinated. This latter is unsurprising since more older people (who are more susceptible to stroke, heart disease etc) are vaccinated than young people (who are relatively healthy).
It seems to me that the figures are consistent with what one would expect."
How would you respond to this, please? Aren't the ONS figures age standardised, for starters? It strikes me he's being overly simplistic (and probably hasn't read the detail), but I'd like to challenge him again if possible!
I thought about that while making the charts, and I don't think it does make sense. For each individual point on the chart, the grid spacing on both sides is an equal number of mortalities. So if there were 1,000 unvaccinated mortalities, going to 0x is 1000 less mortalities, going to 2x is an 1000 additional mortalities.
It could be that this can be completely explained by temporal delays in reporting of vaccination data, during an ongoing vaccination campaign.
The Fenton effect can show itself at lower VE for double jabbed, and higher VE for boosted, since you transfer people from the double jabbed cohort to the boosted cohort.
Wouldn't this make the 18-39 chart much worse? Shouldn't there also be spikes in unvaccinated mortalities in 18-39, 40-49, 50-59 that we don't see? Also all the spikes are in non-COVID mortalities, the COVID mortalities charts are fairly smooth although still having nearly equalized or passed to unvaccinated for 1 or 2 doses. Don't they expect the opposite?
I am working on a follow up that addresses this in a manner that at least to me as an amateur, makes sense. From what I have charted so far, it at best reduces but does not eliminate the effect. At worst... well stay posted.
In the long term, what you call the Fenton effect disappears. If you look at the mortality rate for the unvaccinated 70+ cohort in January 2021 (when the vax campaign was in full swing), that spike makes no sense whatsoever unless 1) unvaccinated include patients vaccinated within 14 days of the first dose (a sleazy trick that every health authority pulls), or 2) that group was too ill to be vaccinated.
Nice work. I've added this article to my article at https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/uk-government-data-shows-nobody-should?s=w can you have a look at what I did?
Thanks! Yeah I had seen your article before you even mentioning it here, the data is overwhelming. I had actually tried to get you an email with the data a few week prior to your article from 'this blogs name' @protonmail.com. I am back on here today since there is additional data I don't think has been discussed yet. Have you seen Table 9 in the latest release from ONS? It is somewhat beyond words. I don't know how it could be released without a team addressing it. I charted up the data here: https://excessburden.substack.com/p/covid-19-non-covid-19-and-all-cause?s=w
Can I just say that I think it's amazing that you are reaching out to someone else who has analysed this data. This is what science is about... being happy to fine-tune one's own work based on someone else's findings. I really miss those pre Trusted News Initiative days where scientific debate didn't have to happen in silos.
I currently see no "touch points" between the pro vaccine and vaccine cautious scientists. I just wish long form debates could happen between both sides of the argument, based on rigorous data analysis and evaluation of hypotheses as to "mechanics" in the fields of virology and immunology.
E.g. It's so difficult trying to make an informed decision as to getting your child vaccinated or not. Everything is a risk/reward consideration... and I am still unsure how the balance ultimately tips. I was double jabbed myself (AZ) but for my daughter who already had a mild form of Delta (Oct 21) I find it extremely difficult to distill a conclusion from all the contradictory data. All Cause Mortality is just one of the factors I am looking at in order to weigh my decision... and it is all utterly mind scrambling.
it's easy. the risk benefit is negative for all ages. the fact that there is no ACM analysis provided by the government tells you everything you need to know.
The fact that the medical community refuses to demand such an analysis tells you everything you need to know.
It can't possibly be enough to overcome the stats for the younger groups, but isn't it likely that there is some ACM bias against the vaccinated because "high risk" individuals were more likely to get the vax, and to get the vax early? I don't see that you accounted for that in your article. Maybe there's not a way to quantify it in the data. But the UK has a higher than 80% double-vax rate, so the bias from that can't be very large.
That is a fair point. I also noticed some really odd data for Belgium where the cumulative incidence of hospitalisations (per 100k, in the above 65 age group) was almost 3 times as high for the double vaccinated compared to the non vaccinated. The boosted (likely more vulnerable and elderly) actually fared a little better than the non vaccinated.
See page 25 of this PDF (in Flemish/Dutch but the graph is rather self-explanatory)
https://covid-19.sciensano.be/sites/default/files/Covid19/COVID-19_Weekly_report_NL.pdf
As I said below, the mortality spike in Jan 2021 in the 70+ cohort among the unvaccinated either means 1) "unvaccinated" includes those within 14 days of their first jab or 2) that group was too ill to be vaccinated. I remember at the time all of the reports about nursing home deaths following the vaccination campaigns, so the January 2021 data among the 70+ either have huge confounders, or they are manipulated. It has been shown by many others that "unvaccinated" includes those receiving their first jab, but less than 14 days ago (or in this case, most likely 21 days ago). That issue cannot be resolved from the data provided -- if the data themselves are lies, then you can't distinguish anything. But the long term data (months after the most recent jab) show an alarming signal, as you say. Those cannot be gamed in the same way.
Isn't that mortality spike just the COVID-19 wave? It makes sense to me that it is there.
Joel Smalley showed that the shape of the mortality curve from early November to late January, could only be modelled by a Gompertz curve which was deviling in early December (COVID) and another Gompertz curve starting around 20 Dec and peaking on 12 Jan, the highest mortality day I believe ever recorded in the UK during the pandemic. The second Gompertz curve, which made zero sense as a COVID wave following right on the tail on the first Gompertz curve, meant it was due to another process - the vax the second wave were essentially vax deaths, not COVID deaths.
Can we revisit this approach with the latest data? Is the UK still recording stats in this format?
a "non-effective vaccine" is therefore not a vaccine, it is a poison
How is this not headline news every day until it's fully understood? Great analysis. If you know of similar analyses from other countries, please share.
Τι να πω ρε παιδιά αρχίζω και φοβάμαι.. Κώστας από Διακόπτον..
Hi, I wrote to my MP (Greg Clark) about this and this is his response:
"I have no doubt that the ONS figures are accurate.
They seem to show that deaths from Covid are high among the unvaccinated, and that deaths from all causes are highest among the vaccinated. This latter is unsurprising since more older people (who are more susceptible to stroke, heart disease etc) are vaccinated than young people (who are relatively healthy).
It seems to me that the figures are consistent with what one would expect."
How would you respond to this, please? Aren't the ONS figures age standardised, for starters? It strikes me he's being overly simplistic (and probably hasn't read the detail), but I'd like to challenge him again if possible!
Thanks
I think you need to read Norman Fenton's blogspot and papers on ResearchGate. Looks like misclassification.
I really appreciate the congenial dialogue in the comments. Thx for sharing your data.
what Table is the figure at the top of the article from?
Could you provide the last chart in log scale?
I have no idea if this makes sense but the range 0 to 1 should be magnified.
I thought about that while making the charts, and I don't think it does make sense. For each individual point on the chart, the grid spacing on both sides is an equal number of mortalities. So if there were 1,000 unvaccinated mortalities, going to 0x is 1000 less mortalities, going to 2x is an 1000 additional mortalities.
Be very careful. What you might be seeing could be the Fenton effect at work: https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vaccine-efficacy-statistical-illusion.html?m=1
It could be that this can be completely explained by temporal delays in reporting of vaccination data, during an ongoing vaccination campaign.
The Fenton effect can show itself at lower VE for double jabbed, and higher VE for boosted, since you transfer people from the double jabbed cohort to the boosted cohort.
Wouldn't this make the 18-39 chart much worse? Shouldn't there also be spikes in unvaccinated mortalities in 18-39, 40-49, 50-59 that we don't see? Also all the spikes are in non-COVID mortalities, the COVID mortalities charts are fairly smooth although still having nearly equalized or passed to unvaccinated for 1 or 2 doses. Don't they expect the opposite?
Good points. I will think about that.
I agree it looks like the Fenton Effect (is that the official name for it now?). The full analysis can be found here.
https://forum.carte-coronavirus.fr/uploads/short-url/xIRaTAGoZsiCdMwSg13SRA5X1Ap.pdf
I am working on a follow up that addresses this in a manner that at least to me as an amateur, makes sense. From what I have charted so far, it at best reduces but does not eliminate the effect. At worst... well stay posted.
In the long term, what you call the Fenton effect disappears. If you look at the mortality rate for the unvaccinated 70+ cohort in January 2021 (when the vax campaign was in full swing), that spike makes no sense whatsoever unless 1) unvaccinated include patients vaccinated within 14 days of the first dose (a sleazy trick that every health authority pulls), or 2) that group was too ill to be vaccinated.
I know about the trick with the 14 days, since within 14 days people are much, much more susceptible to Covid.
I just wanted to mention that VE calculation can be tricky as long as the vaccination campaign has not stopped.
What about 18-39? Since each death is such a large percent, wouldn't you expect that effect to be larger there instead of non-existent?