Deadly Delta - for the fully vaxed over 50s.
If you go to page 17 of this PHE stats page:
You will find that the proportion of people dying following Delta variant infection is ten times greater when they’ve had 2 doses of vaccine if you are over 50. The figure is so striking it requires explanation, or excuses. h/t Jarek Carnelian in an OffG article.
158 deaths following >21 days after first dose plus after 2 doses, compared to 71 deaths of unvaxed. (but not from same number of cases?) Under 50s appear to have less deaths when vaxed, but then they get the blood clots… but may also be getting a different vaccine! It doesn’t say.
They didn’t use the over/under 50 breakdown but just used the totals:
They write:
"The above table shows that of the 71,932 alleged cases of the Delta variant in people who are unvaccinated, just 92 sadly died. This translates to 0.1% of cases.
The above table also shows that of the 10,834 alleged cases of the Delta Covid variant in people who are fully vaccinated, 118 people sadly died. This translates to 1.09% of cases.
The means the data published by Public Health England shows us that people who have received two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine have a 990% higher chance of dying due to the Delta Covid variant than people who are unvaccinated."
Those with two doses were ten times as likely as those unvaxxed to die but the population from whom this data/table is drawn is not ‘all people’ but people who were admitted to hospital?
A possible explanation could be that the vaccine suppresses less serious symptoms that might cause people to be admitted to hospital. This could distort the base population. OTOH we have no info to say that this is the case - numbers vaccinated would have been helpful.
It definitely needs explained! The bare data suggest that people catching covid after being double jabbed get a more serious bout of the disease than the unvaxxinated.
There is an interesting quote from a professor looking at the same data:
"Whereas a much bolder statement is made by Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Chair, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge:
…
“Many more fully-vaxxed over-50s have died with the Delta variant (118) than unvaxxed under 50s (21), but this is expected due to the very strong risk-gradient with age: an unvaxxed 30 year-old has a lower risk than a fully vaxxed 60-year-old.” …
“Around a quarter of the deaths are in unvaccinated over-50s, who presumably will have been offered the vaccine. Communities with lower vaccine uptake will be hit hard in current wave” "
The good professor’s comment is at odds with the data he is purporting to explain.
Thanks Evvy… and this striking rate of deaths is something I’ve already shared, without checking on the other charts in the PHE doc to see how many people caught the Delta in each age group to calculate the proportion of cases to deaths. Seeing the figures displayed together now saves me some of the trouble, even though the figures themselves leave a lot of information out that we need - as you say.
However - and I can hardly bare to realise it, but must - there is a statistical error in grouping all the ages together rather than splitting them into two groups, which is because a far smaller proportion of under 50 year olds have had both shots of vaccine (apart from the fact that they won’t have had the same vaccine as over 50s)
The problem is that the proportion of fully vaxed over 50s who died with Delta is far LESS than the proportion of unvaxed over 50s who died with it. In the first case it is 116 out of 5,234 or about 1 in 50, whereas in the unvaxed group it is 71 out of 1,267 or about 1 in 14.
This is in contrast to stats for the under 50s, where only one tenth of those infected with Delta had received 2 doses. Although just 2 of them died, this was not statistically different from the proportion dying unvaxed, viz 21 out of 70,664 vs 2 out of 5,600.
I’d like confirmation of my comprehension of this table, as its conclusions are very important. Here in OZ we are now being told that anyone who has had just one shot of AZ should go ahead and get their second, as if the first one hasn’t killed them, the second one won’t (that’s not quite how they put it, though should have!) I thought these statistics showed definitively that the advice was dangerous, but now I have to think again.
Of course the reasoning over the lack of safety of the vaccinations remains unchanged. Also worth pointing out that the different age groups will be delineated mostly by the different vaxing pattern, as though some older people will have had mRNA, most younger people will only have had Pfizer following AZ TTP warnings.
Can you hear ferrets? Remember that story bandied about recently of an earlier attempt to develop an mRNA vaccine which seemed to show excellent results when tried on experimental ferrets?
They were all doing fine after their injections with the gravy that was being tested on them. Jubilation amongst the ferret-hurters! “We’ve found a vaccine that works against coroni!”
All was well until the ferrets encountered the wild virus against which they were all now allegedly immunised. They all died.
Assuredly the poor entranced fools taking these damned poison-stabs are the experimental ferrets of this scam. And as we see, many are now dying. WTF does it take to waken folk from this deliberate mass entrancement!
Yes, ferrets and mink also are an intermediate host for Coroni, and perhaps part of the SARS-2 virus’ engineering.
Thinking of my caution on the interpretation of the stats above, it nevertheless remains clear that out of 12,000 odd over 50s infected with the Delta, 150 of those who died were vaccinated, and 116 with both doses. The claim the vaccine doesn’t prevent you catching it but DOES prevent hospitalisation and death is clearly false, or in other words, a LIE. as you say RG, WTF!
Hi folks, there’s a lot of data splitting going on here, and yet there are big data dark matter holes as pointed out.
Just to add to these :
are there more covid cases both outside hospital and , or with other types of covid than delta?
why just record deaths up to 28 days after data is collected, vaccine damage could result in pathogenic priming months or even years after jabs as could deaths following initial heart damage due to jabs.
no attempt has been made to identify cohorts of people receiving valuable alternative forms of treatment as opposed to jabs ( obviously in different countries ).
the ons numbers in their table 12 show a few deaths due to being jabbed as opposed to death with covid of a jabbed person, where are these in the table posted?
what happened to all those “cases” where there were no deaths, any life changing effects? how did the jabbed compare with the unjabbed? how many asymptomatic cases were there , with jab or without jab?
is there any evidence to suggest that jabs caused the delta variant and shedding occurred from jabbed to non-jabbed, did any data gatherer bother to look?
out of all these specimens did anyone happen to get a photo of either the variant or the original?
Great questions CJ. This is essentially a covid analysis from PHE - aimed at the ‘logic’ that if the vaccine stops or reduces covid infections/deaths it MUST be good, whatever the other consequences.
As @Karen says it’s poorly presented. It drowns the reader in unnecessarily big pages that scatter the connected numbers which disorients folk Ilike me) and also omits the numbers of vaccinations in the groups.
Yes the unvaxed vs vaxed figures do seem to be misleading.
Here is all the relevant data in one place, I’ve hidden the four emergency rows (we weren’t discussing them) and the columns with the unknown vaccination status:
The best comparison for unvaxed was against two doses. Theres the 118 and 92 deaths for 2 doses and unvaxed respectively. Naturally enough the Off-Guardian commenter Jarek related those to the total number of delta cases in these categories (the 10834 and 71932 respectively).That leads to the 1.09% and 0.13% respectively (118/10834 etc). Rounded to one decimal place that gives us his 1% deaths in vaxed and 0.1% deaths in unvaxed. Hence his ‘990% increase in deaths in the vaxed’
But this impressive figure is misleading! A key variable needs to be included - age - because not only are almost all the unvaxed <50, but most of the deaths are >50.
The numbers of deaths in the vaxed/unvaxed in the <50 and >50 subgroups need to be related to the numbers of vaxed and unvaxed overall in these age groups (5234 and 1267 respectively).
When you do this you get, for the over 50s, 2.22% of the vaxed died and 5.60% of the unvaxed died.
It’s intuitively surprising that a seemingly ten times figure (the 990%) can ‘vanish’ but that figure was using the wrong denominators as a base. I think in terms of statisitcs it’s a great example of confounding of the two-variable analysis (deaths and vax status) by a third variable (age).
Anyway, this means that the vaccine deaths were 60% lower than the unvaxed.
That would still be very worthwhile if the vaccine was safe and there were no ways of treating covid. However the experimental vaccines were sold on the premise reductions were up in the ninety percents, which helped quash public and political disquiet.
It’s clearly a limitation that we are confined to data from delta cases, and don’t have the number of vaxed and unvaxed.
@Karen’s comment about drilling down into badly presented data is apt. Time might be better spent looking for good data!
Last thought for the night - what if all the over 50 jabbed were under 52 and all the over 50 unjabbed were over 90 , or vice versa - would we not see a completely different picture?
Stats !!!
Yeah <50 and > 50 might not be the best especially as over 60 for example would have given us a bigger ‘under group’. Maybe there’s a raw data set in the PHE report. I’m not sure if it had been >60 whether it would have looked better for the unvaxed - I wouldn’t have thought so but OTOH I wouldn’t expect PHE to choose an age range that was unflattering for the vaccines!
Enough - goodnight!
Only my morning here, but for later - “the devil is in the detail” - that we don’t have, and the question of these two different age groups is crucial to analyse the reasons for differences. Also missing is which vaccine they had, which must have a big bearing - it is even possible that most of the people over 50 who died got the Pfizer and were over 80, while those who died under 50 were under 40 and got the Pfizer. I think the danger of death following CV infection is mostly from the mRNA treatments, not AZ?
The fact remains however that the number of double jabbed people over 50 who died is apparently linked to the vaccine, ergo “caused” by the vaccination rather than the virus.
I’m with you @CJ1 . I couldn’t even make head or tail of the chart. However, one of the things I’ve been banging on about for ages, is the basis of stats. In my completely unscientific mind, every official body is making the presentation of figures as obtuse as possible. Bit like the spontaneous abortions (the definition of a spontaneous abortion is it occurs in the 1st trimester), yet they included many in the study, that hadn’t had their jab until after the 1st trimester was done and dusted.
For me, the figures seem to be almost meaningless (apart from total deaths), unless we know:
a) Ages
b) Comorbodities
c) Did they die “with” or “of” Covid
d) Finally the crunch. Was the diagnosis done by PCR and if so how many effing cycles
Here’s my suggestion for a study. Take a random group of people who are not going to take the jab. Take another random group of people who are going to take the jab and have the same average ages as the control group. Record illness and deaths in the first group for any 28 day period. Compare this to illness and deaths in the second group 28 days after the 1st jab. As that meerkat ad on TV says, “Simples”.
My analysis for what its worth is this and I know this ain’t science, but … Everyone I know who gets the flu shot, gets flu. I’ve been on aeroplanes, travelled, mixed in bars and restaurants and I’ve had it once in over 30 years and no shots.
And I apologise if it sounds like I’m raining on the parade of those of you who love the detailed analysis
Not at all Pat - your analysis and proposals are spot on. I would say you are simply proposing a randomised control trial, but importantly not a double blind - which is more or less what Didier Raoult did in his first study. By making trials double blind, the researchers themselves obscure detail that is important - detail that may be observed by someone looking for “symptoms” of one thing or another that may give insight into differences that wouldn’t be picked up in simple statistics.
One of the things that I’m inclined to focus on of this kind is the likelihood that more people will go to hospital if they believe the infection is dangerous - as I believe was the case in India. It goes back to why the Amish don’t seem to have much infection - because they don’t watch TV.
As has been said and is flaming obvious, we simply cannot trust the PHE even to provide straightforward stats on this highly contentious subject.
But as I said before, one thing stands out in these figures whatever the detail, and that is that 160 odd people over 50 died despite being vaccinated, for some reason. Even though this was less in proportion to “cases” than the unvaxed lot, it should surely have been close to zero, as if the vaccine can’t even prevent death what bloody use is it!
Exactly, PatB - how would one interpret the death stats if say, those over fifty all had serious co-morbidities whilst those under fifty were all previously perfectly healthy?
To offer one scenario: isn’t it possible that patients having their history taken, and whose symptoms may not match the wide spectrum of Coroni ills, who report that they are jabbed - doubly or otherwise - don’t have the privilege of a PCR test?
The “vaccination status unknown” folks may never have had a history taken. This can happen for lots of reasons eg at shift handovers. The night shift leave it for the early shift but the early shift think it’s already been done.
There’s something else to consider here also. I heard - from the BBC heart of darkness itself - at least two months ago that around 85% of the UK ?adult population was found to have antigens against CoV2 - but that the proportion of these who had antibodies from vaccination was unknown - but over 50% at the time. My question has been for the last year and a half on how many people have antibodies ergo natural immunity gained from infection? It must have been a year ago that a survey found I think, 17% of those in part of London had antibodies - at a time when tested cases for the whole country were only a couple of hundred thousands.
Whatever the level of naturally gained immunity, and therefore the percentage originally infected, it is evident that many of those vaxed will already have had the virus, and so the vaxing is not just unnecessary but grossly negligent, given its dangers. There should have been an antigen test - like the BCG - done to check whether people “need” vaccination before they are spiked, but to do one now would be more difficult and expensive I presume.
What this means however, is that if vaccinated people catch COVIDelta, they are probably the ones who never had COVID. Conversely, many of those for whom the vaccine appears to work are actually saved by their immunity to the whole virus conferred by natural infection!!
Equally it probably goes without saying, that those unvaxed who caught COVID in the Delta survey had not previously been infected with the virus, which would have given them immunity to it. These poor people may well have been ones who saved themselves from infection but were also afraid or wary of vaccine treatment. We are only talking about 1200 odd people here over 50 out of the total 250,000 infected with Delta, who themselves were a curious subset of the population.
On the same thread, I just read this article from the WSWS Andre Damon:
Unspeakably bad. But with an interesting statistic:
The surge in sections of the country with the lowest vaccination rates has been accompanied by a troubling growth in so-called “breakthrough” infections among vaccinated people. According to official figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 791 fully vaccinated people have died from COVID-19 in the US so far, and 5,000 have been hospitalized.
