By The Exposé on August 25, 2022 •
1 in every 73 COVID-19 Vaccinated People were Dead by May 2022 in England according to UK Government
1 Like
Thanks Rich, extraordinary stats. Despite summer coming up in OZ, they are ramping up the “threat” from some new vars of Omicron, and the need to mask up/get “antivirals” viz Paxlovid to keep up the value of Pfizer shares. What was wrong with Ivermectin? I’ve forgotten… Or HCQ? People need antivirals because the vaxes don’t work! But you still need your booster, even though it is not effective against even the last BA5 variant.
1 Like
A: Donald Trump
1 Like
A: Donald Trump
B: They were efficacious
1 Like
And 3: Too cheap
As I was writing that, a passe’ chief health officer appeared to give his nightly message - "there are treatments available, speak to your doctor…take the anti-viral as soon as symptoms appear…
I think the Goverment bought 300,000 doses, at around $1100 a course of ?5 pills. And NO-ONE ever mentions the Horse Wormer, or that other stuff Trump took, nor Monsieur HCQ imself de Marseilles.
My wife has now been taking HCQ for four months for a rheumatic pain condition and it has gone away! During this time people have been getting COVID like the plague, but she hasn’t had anything. But neither have I… or have I ? I bought a RAT once just in case, but never used it.
Anyway, in our household it’s been Russia for six months…
cheers D
3 Likes
There’s a big caveat about this ONS data, which I leave to the end.
(Edit of spelling) Separate from this, I think the bar charts showing deaths by one jab, two jabs etc and unvaccinated are misleading. The categories are not well-defined because they are affected/altered by the deaths that they are counting; I posted about this here:
Mortality lowest amongst un'vaccinated', according to official government figures - The Expose - #3 by Evvy_dense
The big bars in each month for one/two jabs represent much smaller numbers of people than the last one (three jabs). To make an effective comparison of jabbed vs unjabbed you would need to do some kind of weighting of the jabbed. But for an at-a glance job, you could compare the first, unvaxed, in green, vs the last, three jabs, in red (bearing in mind the true jabbed totals would need to include the two middle bars which have high percentage deaths [for reasons noted above] but lower numbers in them). This is crude but you can still observe time trends - the unvaccinated were definitely having a lower rate of non-covid deaths than the jabbed in May; and, in most of the age groups, April as well. This is not a ‘waning efficacy’ issue as its non-covid deaths - may reflect the signal from elsewhere that adverse booster effects are cumulative.
The ‘1 in 73 died who have been jabbed’ may be right, however as about 1% of the population dies every year it would need a bit more work to make something of this. The data is to May 2022 so what is the effective time period? Bear in mind that for a few months after the start of the vaccine rollout in Dec 2021 most people hadn’t had the jab.
If the effective time period (eg, the average considering some got jabbed at the start and some much later in 2021) is about a year then the 73% dying in that period would be an overall increase of around 30%. Personally I would be surprised if the increase is that small.
This data is available on the ONS links given by the Expose.
There are strange goings-on in this data set. For much of the period it shows NON_COVID deaths from jabs much lower than unjabbed. This is a strange effect, probably partly ‘healthy vacinee’ which is akin to ‘healthy worker’ effect from epidemiology whereby comparing occupational risks of workers with the general population always flatters the occupational exposure because workers are a healthier population anyway. People of working age in jobs were pushed much harder to get jabbed than those not in jobs; also social or economic class also influences vaccination.
But the ‘healthy vacinee’ effect wouldn’t on its own show such a drastic vaccination benefit for non-covid deaths; this has been ironically termed the ‘immortal effect’. This leads on to the big caveat referred to at the beginning - that the ONS data is probably biased in a more serious way.
The big caveat
As Norman Fenton has explained, the size of the unvaccinated population is not a simple thing to calculate, as you have to subtract the vaccinated, and this remainder is very sensitive to the vaccinated population and how it is defined and counted. Fenton says they took the lowest possible estimate of the number of unvaccinated (the Expose smelt a rat here as well) this may have halved the true population in size thereby artificially doubling the presented ‘risk’ of being unvaxed.
However with or without this caveat and the other issues, the data shows a trend in whatever is being counted.
Cheers
1 Like