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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
Hard to rule out the possible effect that as each jab wave comes along, the very sickest are not jabbed as it would push them over the edge.
So you get an apparent increase in mortality in those left behind.
Eg if all healthy people who've had jab 1 move to jab 2, then the jab1-only population will be relatively very sick.
Of course they might still be sick because of jab 1!
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.
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.