5 Filters

BOMBSHELL UK data destroys entire premise for vaccine push

Covid
#1

BOMBSHELL UK data destroys entire premise for vaccine push

The media can read just as well as me (maybe), but somehow it is left to me to report this.

Chris Waldburger

Aug 21

This is an absolute game-changer.

1 Like
#2

Yesterday evening, on the main BBC news programme, they were pushing for pregnant women to take the jab.

These cockroaches will all be going to the gallows.

#3

Thanks for this Rich.
Despite the caveat about deaths in higher ages whereas the ‘unvaccinated’ are younger, it’s getting more difficult to explain this recurring comparison. It compares the percentage of deaths in vaxxed vs that in the unvaxxed; the former beng five times the latter, but the vaccine effectiveness (still claimed to be 90% maybe reduced a tad for the Delta variant), let’s say it’s supposed to be 80% then that means if the groups were the same size, then four times as many unvaxxed should die of covid as vaxxed - the opposite way round to what is showing.
If the explanation is purely that the vaxxed are older than the unvaxxed (and it’s naturally they who mainly die), then the difference in covid death rates for the two age groups would need to be of the order of a factor of twenty. This might seem conceivable, except for one thing:

This is the table from which the comparison in the post was drawn.
Only the bottom is of interest, the ‘Deaths within 28 days of positive specimen’ bit.

The under 50s are hardly represented.- ie the comparison of vaxxed deaths vs unvaxxed deaths is drawn mainly from the population of those over 50. This makes the likelihood of the difference being due to ages less likely.

In order to resolve this it would be necessary to have the average age of vaxxed and unvaxxed, and the corresponding covid death rates.
I didn’t find vaccination data by age for the UK when I looked, but it’s maybe around somewhere.

(Post edited, see new post below)

#4

On reflection, this should be simpler due to the small numbers in age <50. If we only look at 50+ then there are two obvious ranges: 50-69, and 70+
Here is a table of covid fatality rates, probably from the US.

image
image831×1021 93.9 KB

Link: COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex and Age | American Council on Science and Health

The third column is the death rates; we want to compare the groups 50-70 and 70+.
I’ve found 2018 UK population data in the same age groups
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/tablea21principalprojectionukpopulationinagegroups

Putting them together with the er, US case fatality rates (taking advantage of the Special Relationship :slightly_smiling_face:) should allow us to get estimates of the death rates in the two age groups 50-69 and 70+.

Age Bands Number of Deaths Ages Popn, thousands
<1 2 ———— ————
1-4 1 0-4 3914
5-9 1 5-9 4139
10-14 5 10-14 3859
15-19 11 15-19 3669
20-24 34 20-24 4185
25-29 70 25-29 4527
30-34 117 30-34 4463
35-39 195 35-39 4372
40-44 369 40-44 3993
45-49 694 45-49 4507 Mean % Weighted av
50-54 1,284 50-54 4674 0.207 50-69 0.48
55-59 2,186 55-59 4294 0.323
60-64 3,231 60-64 3673 0.456
65-69 4,596 65-69 3396 1.075
70-74 7,633 70-74 3252 3252 1.674 70+ 4.54
75-79 11,066 75-79 2236 2236 3.203
80-84 15,374 80-84 1673 3282 8.292
85-89 16,547 85-89 1024 Ratio 9.48
90+ 17,404 90-94 448
80820 95-99 123
100 & over 13

To the right are the death rates for the age groups of interest (tacked on from the previous table) and the weighted averages - using the new populations in the age groups. So the 0.48 is the covid death rate for 50-70 and the 4.54 is the covid death rate for 70+.
(the duplicate numbers in the middle appear because the new table had a top group 80+ rather than 80-84 etc so the total population was needed for the 80+, that’s the 3282).

The ratio of the death rate for the 70+ to the 50-69 is 9.48, lets just call it 10.
Had it been 20, then as noted at the beginning, the vaccine efficacy (in preventing covid deaths) would have been 80%. This corresponds to a ratio of 4 unvaccinated deaths to to 1 vaccinated death.
It’s all multiplicative I think, so the ratio being 10 represents the ratio of 2 unvaccinated deaths to 1 vaccinated death.

This calculation is fairly rough but if it’s reasonable (and passes the watchful eye of @PontiusPrimate) then this is an efficacy of about 50% in terms of reducing deaths.

Not so unreasonable. The original 90% (actually this was only applied to PCR cases anyway) is likely to have been unrealistic because the trials consisted of idealized, healthy people.
We also know the efficacy has been falling (it wanes anyway), is likely to have been higher intially, especially pre-delta variant, and so will now be lower than 50%, as that is the average for the period. That chimes pretty well with what we have seen in other posts/news.

This is a separate question entirely from non-covid adverse outcomes and deaths.
There is also the issue of the deaths only being counted after the vaccine has had time to work, the 21 days; there have been analysis pointing to increased deaths after a few days after vaccination (including covid deaths). Just as before, these things have to be weighed against the benefits of the vaccine (like we have two little pans for the pros and cons :slightly_smiling_face:) but whatever the benefits were they defintely seem a fair bit less now - especially with the loss of faith that is being seen lately in the vaccine reducing transmission.

2 Likes
#5

Loved the crack about the “special relationship” @Evvy_dense

The gap between date of jab #2 (plus X days) and date when it “wears off” seems to be shrinking to, hmmmm, roughly the length of a flu season. So could there, possibly, stick with me here, be a teeny chance that the medicinal compound will become an annual late summer ritual to get the professional class through the sneezy months, while truckers, binmen, shelf stackers and the rest of us muddle along as best we can?