Again, the real value of the vaccine appears to be that it lessens the severity if you are infected.
More than 2,500 fully vaccinated over 50s have died from COVID-19 in the past month in England, new data shows.
In a report published by the UK Health Security Agency analysis revealed 2,683 fully vaccinated over 50s have died within 28 days of positive COVID test in the last four weeks.
Some 511 unvaccinated people died in the last four weeks of COVID-19.
The figures reflect the fact that the vast majority in this age group has had at least two COVID vaccines.
Death rates among the unvaccinated are significantly higher.
For people aged over 80, the unvaccinated have a death rate of 125.4 per 100,000 compared to the vaccinated 54.9 per 100,000 in the past four weeks.
For 70-79 the gap is even wider, with the unvaccinated death rate at 103.8 per 100,000 compared to 16.2 for the vaccinated.
“Death rates among the unvaccinated are significantly higher.”
How long before mar calls you out on that?
No matter how you look at it, more people died when vaccinated than unvacvinated.
And the more variants that come along, the less effective the vaccine.
Unlike the flu shot, which evolves over time, the Chinese virus vaccines have not changed and will become less and less effective.
“No matter how you look at it, more people died when vaccinated than unvacvinated.” Absolutely nonsense.
“Death rates among the unvaccinated are significantly higher.” Are you calling Owen a liar?
To LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy, the question “Which is larger? 2,683 or 511?” requires months of navel-gazing and evasions.
Yet he has a kaaahllllege degreeee!
See Leroy, this is why your smooth brain should stick to percentages… they’re more effect at spreading your fear and FUD. I’m confident he received a kaaahllllege degree in Stain Collecting and is praying for fjb to cancel his student loans.
Reading comprehension problems again Le Roi? Or os it the 2nd grade math that troubles you?
And Syolen Valor Le Roi, you still have not told is your military experience, where goten a vaccination
I know this will be problematic for you folks, but think big picture here, not just one study from the UK. Are you seriously trying to say that more vaccinated folks are dying of COVID than folks that haven’t been vaccinated? Remember, think big picture. mar, have someone explain to you what that means.
And read again, if you can, this info from the article:
“Death rates among the unvaccinated are significantly higher.
For people aged over 80, the unvaccinated have a death rate of 125.4 per 100,000 compared to the vaccinated 54.9 per 100,000 in the past four weeks.
For 70-79 the gap is even wider, with the unvaccinated death rate at 103.8 per 100,000 compared to 16.2 for the vaccinated.
Stain Collector Leroy just don’t understand. Poor feeble minded Leroy.
““No matter how you look at it, more people died when vaccinated than unvacvinated.” Absolutely nonsense.”
That part is true, from the article. I never mentioned death rates or said the vaccinated died more unvacvinated percentage wise.
You just made something up in hopes to try and make look bad.
So, your hate for me makes you look like a fool.
But the bottom line is that vaccinated die of Covid, they die from the vaccine and they can get nasty side effects from the vaccine. And I will trust my natural immunity over the vaccine any day.
So mar, you said, ““No matter how you look at it, more people died when vaccinated than unvacvinated.”. Well I looked at it from the larger perspective, and concluded, along with the entire medical community world-wide, that you are 100% wrong.
Spin away, little guy.
Well, you cannot fix stupid and Le Roi cannot be fixed.
Now he is trying to cover up for his stupidity.
Nice try, but another fail.
No mar, I pointed out your mistaken assumption. And again you blame others for your errors.
Hey Leroy, Fauci issued an urgent warning…. that you’re wrong.
https://news.yahoo.com/dr-fauci-just-issued-urgent-201846228.html
Let me know if you want more links… I have dozens of sources.
No, Stolen Valor Le Roi, you were so full of hate, vile stupidity and you wanted to try and make me look bad.
But you were a complete failure, as you usually are.
j:
No he didn’t say I was wrong, he said get the booster. Read it for yourself.
And nowhere did he agree with the claim mar made, “No matter how you look at it, more people died when vaccinated than unvacvinated.”
And for all you folks interested in religious freedom, here is the latest from disgraced former General flynn, ““If we are going to have one nation under God — which we must — we have to have one religion,” Flynn said in San Antonio at a stop for the far-right “ReAwaken America” tour. “One nation under God, and one religion under God.”
Not only is he a chronic scofflaw, now he wants to take away religious freedoms in the US. Looks like he hasn’t much use for the Constitution.
And what does Flynn have to with this discussion other than you deflecting from your stupidity, hatefulness and lying?
And saying you were in the military when you never were is very shameful.
Your dog hangs head in shame when he sees you.
>No he didn’t say I was wrong, he said get the booster
And just yesterday you were bragging about being a “bigger picture” guy. You’re just an idiot.
>Looks like he hasn’t much use for the Constitution.
So on one hand you are worried about people not having having much use for the constitution (Flynn idiocy) and on the other hand you dont have much use for the constitution (you agree with and support Biden’s vaccine mandate) .
I see the big picture here is that you’re just a biased hack who can’t outthink a wet paper bag. It must be confusing for you… just keep collecting stains, you do have that skill to be proud of.
Pull the maga hats off your faces and look at the big picture, kiddies. You are letting your knee-jerk adoration of the previous administration blind you to any sort of common ground on any subject.
And you even argue with statements you made (and probably didn’t understand) just to prove your blind devotion to craziness.
Carry on.
And Lying, Pervert Boy, Stolen Valor Dumbass Le Roi still adds nothing to the conversation.
Next year is getting closer so the Uneduxated Math Dummy Le Roi might someday add something relevant to the conversation instead of his usual hateful, vile, uneducated posts.
Once in a Blood Moon, Pervert Boy Le Roi adds to the conversation.
The Big Picture includes a 60X increase in the rate of pro athletes having “events” related to The Vaxx.
It also includes the increase in ‘all-cause’ deaths this year–the Year of The Vaxx.
Not to mention the increasingly desperate tyrannical moves made by President Thunderbutt towards apartheid-by-vaxx.
You have YOUR ‘big picture,’ and we have ours.
From the CDC website:
Will a COVID-19 vaccine alter my DNA?
No. COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. Both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines deliver instructions (genetic material) to our cells to start building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. However, the material never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept.
Swedish researchers, published Oct.13:
SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro
DNA damage repair occurs mainly in the nucleus to ensure genome stability. Although SARS–CoV–2 proteins are synthesized in the cytosol [1], some viral proteins are also detectable in the nucleus
….
NHEJ repair and homologous recombination (HR) repair are two major DNA repair pathways that not only continuously monitor and ensure genome integrity but are also vital for adaptive immune cell function.
….
Overexpression of Nsp1, Nsp5, Nsp13, Nsp14, and spike proteins diminished the efficiencies of both HR and NHEJ repair.
….
To confirm the existence of spike protein in the nucleus, we performed subcellular fraction analysis and found that spike proteins are not only enriched in the cellular membrane fraction but are also abundant in the nuclear fraction, with detectable expression even in the chromatin–bound fraction
….
DNA damage repair, especially NHEJ repair, is essential for V(D)J recombination, which lies at the core of B and T cell immunity
….
Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARS–CoV–2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination.
You can slog through the whole thing here: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
Last week in a different B&S thread I stated that forced jabs are a direct physical assault on you by a controlling g’vment. That was before discovering this research.
not to mention Fraudci’s recent admission that the Vaxx doesn’t work.
So did everyone just look at the post above and read just what they wanted to read? From above:
“More than 2,500 fully vaccinated over 50s have died from COVID-19 in the past month in England, new data shows.”
“Some 511 unvaccinated people died in the last four weeks of COVID-19.”
Supports the conservative comments and shoves apparently hard to swallow facts in Le Roi’s mouth. Also from above:
“Death rates among the unvaccinated are significantly higher.”
Supports Le Roi’s liberal commentary with facts from the same article, seemingly showing up the conservative commentary.
Expected result among analytic people: Both agree that the article misleads because it uses both rates and facts that appear to contradict.
Result: Name calling and polarization based on political view. C’mon people!!! How are you calling each other idiots for using facts in the same post? Normally it is because you out of hand dismiss each other’s sources, but here it is the SAME SOURCE!.
But I have to add to Le Roi, remember those back and forth comments a few months ago where you tried to be-rate me for pointing out that percentage rates and real facts could be used to create polar opposite results? You went on with stupid sarcasm on how my use of rates in that case was ridiculous, pretty much just because it disproved the liberal point of view. You went on about how facts are facts and they don’t contradict just because you use the rate instead of the real numbers. And since then I have seen you use/misuse rates whenever they prove the liberal point.
Here is a perfect example of how rate shows a different result than factual numbers and all you can all do is pound each other for not recognizing the same truths. As Le Roi is so fond of saying, you can all do better.
No rates here: As of November 7, 2021, there were 2,725,582 adverse events in 634,609 adverse event reports, including 8,284 deaths, 9,726 life-threatening events, 9,580 permanent disabilities, 363 congenital anomalies or birth defects, 38,818 hospitalizations, 79,615 ER visits, and 121,100 doctor’s office visits attributed to the covid vaccines.
That’s from VAERS.
Now you are introducing new and possibly unrelated facts to the post so I am not convinced there is a relationship. The above post is about vaccinated vs unvaccinated deaths in the UK in the last month (as of the article). What parameters do your last statistics encompass, what numbers concern vaccinated and unvaccinated? I don’t see how your last comment. Does it defend this earlier comment by you?
“To LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy, the question “Which is larger? 2,683 or 511?” requires months of navel-gazing and evasions.
Yet he has a kaaahllllege degreeee!”
If the number 2683 is out of 10 million and the number 511 is out of 5,000, the 511 is the larger number by rate. The article clearly states that the unvaccinated number is the higher rate of death. Are you denying this?
“I don’t see how your last comment RELATES. I missed a word there, sorry.
“Death rates among the unvaccinated are significantly higher.”
Except, in the context of the article, which is “the last four weeks”, that simply isn’t true.
Indeed, this statement is demonstrably false: “For people aged over 80, the unvaccinated have a death rate of 125.4 per 100,000 compared to the vaccinated 54.9 per 100,000 in the past four weeks.)
The data from UKHSA proves the falsity: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029606/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-43.pdf
(note: for the purpose of expediency I have left out deaths with vax not identifiable (5) and those with one jab only (40)).
Week 39-42 Age ≥80 Second dose ≥14 days before specimen date:
Deaths within 28 days of a positive test, Age: ≥80 Total: 1724 Not Vaxed: 157 Vaxed: 1527
Deaths within 60 days of a positive test, Age: ≥80 Total: 1397 Not Vaxed: 143 Vaxed: 1209
Given the UK has a population of 68.3 million, the Not Vaxed death rate was 0.43 and the Vaxed death was 4.00 “four the last four weeks”.
So where did the article authors get their, “unvaccinated have a death rate of 125.4 per 100,000 compared to the vaccinated 54.9 per 100,000” ? The only guess, since those numbers are nowhere in the UKHSA report, is that those rates are calculated from the very beginning of the CCPVirus invasion when there were no “vaccines”.
The report does however, allude to those rates with the statement, “The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals”, even though the same publication shows the shifting tide.
If you do read the report you will notice several attempts to talk down the actual numbers. Including the statement just above, you will see others like:
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
…and…
The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not an appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
This is because the UKHSA had been publishing actual numbers (not guess work like the ONS) on the rising infections and deaths of the so-called “vaccinated” and some higher up wankers didn’t like the truth on bit. So they told UKHSA to “more effectively highlight how behavioural differences could have skewed the figures”
In other words, UKHSA was told to hide the decline (of the vaxed).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10155799/Stats-watchdog-scolds-PHE-replacement-data-misuse-supports-anti-vaxxers.html
In other words, UKHSA was told to hide the decline (of the vacinated)
Tuerqas, when I made my post, I used the facts in the article, more vaccinated people died of Chinese virus than the non-vaccinated.
And I never mentioned the rate but Stolen Valor Le Roi decided he wanted to put me to shame and twist my words.
Perhaps, more non=vaccinated died by percentage than the vaccinated.
But how many of those vaccinated suffered side effects from the vaccine?
We also don’t know the comorbities that we’re involved.
But we do know that that 2,683 are dead and the vaccine did not help them.
And the 511 who were not vaccinated, would the vaccine helped them and that is unknowable.
I’m playing LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy. “Relatability” is out.
In reverse order:
Dad, Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Mar, so did Le Roi… I think you see what I mean, though, so ’nuff said.
MJM, first you do see my point, though, right? Your first comment was bashing Le Roi for being right per the information presented in the article. Your second comment was terrific. I have seen the Swedish data before that contradicts the latest CDC lie ‘for our own good’. It does exactly what anti-vaxxers and a large number of doctors and nurses believe, it alters human DNA. Your last excellent comment should have been your first as it concerns the post, if you see what I mean, and deserves thoughtful responses. Here is mine.
You took raw numbers from your attachment and they are not comparable. The good numbers to take are the per 100,000 numbers on page 19 and we can see what the article probably did. They likely disregarded the four different categories and just took the best one to influence the public to their point of view.. The numbers are slightly different because I think the above article is based on weeks 40-43 and your report is weeks 39-42.
If you are willing to be that dishonest, a conservative could use the column 1 only data to say that vaxxed had a 432.5/100,000 death rate while the unvaxxed were only 333.8/100,000 and a lib could use column 4 data to show a smaller death rate of 55.5/100,000 while the the unvaxxed died at a rate of 128.5/100,000. The categories are a bit confusing, they should have also had a single base rate/100,000 as well. I didn’t see one and I don’t know if there is overlap in these categories. If they are all different, you might be able to add them together to get a final vaxxed death rate of 590/100,000 and an unvaxxed rate of 693/100,000 for Ukes over 80. Even without the added numbers of people who died from vaccine complications, it is not nearly the life saving numbers libs are promising. Certainly not enough to have my DNA altered for it. The other age category numbers are more favorable to the vaxxed, though. I just looked at over 80 because it concerned the biggest contradiction (probably mis-representation would be a better term) in the above article.
The thing is we can use statistics to our benefit, 99% of the time.
If you want to get the vaccine, great.
You take a risk.
You choose to not get the vaccine, you take a risk.
You choose to wear a mask, stupid but I don’t care.
You choose you not to wear a mask, chances are very , very good, you are going to survive, as long as no one sneezes on you.
But to force people to wear a mask and get a vaccine is anti-American. We do have rights and liberties.
But most liberals want to deny you your liberties and they want to make choices for you.
That is a disgusting concept.
Now isn’t that the difference between the politicians? They all want the power, but Dems have gone for the throat of Americans by choosing to attempt to put a continual assault on American freedoms in the questionable name of public good, playing directly on the mob mentality through fear. Republicans are not willing to go down the road, but neither are they willing to take a stand to stop it. After all they inherit the power gains every time they get elected.
Many freedom assaults are repelled, but many have been successful and every success weakens individual abilities to fight the next attack on other liberties. I am glad I am older. I am not interested in a PC state. I am hoping to retire to the Bahamas in the next 5-10 years.
“I am hoping to retire to the Bahamas in the next 5-10 years.”
Hood luck with that and avoid the hurricanes.
And with so-called,the Bahamas might be under water by then from the melting glaciers and icebergs.
>I am hoping to retire to the Bahamas in the next 5-10 years.
Hell of a good idea. Mine is to get a 42′ + sailboat to live on and spend a lot of time in that area of the world. I only wish I could have started that journey 5-10 years ago! Soon.
‘Good luck with that and avoid the hurricanes.
And the Bahamas might be under water by then from the melting glaciers and icebergs.’
I put my life where my belief is on that, I guess…:)
If you live on a boat, it really doesn’t matter if they are under water – except that it will make for some cool snorkeling.
Tuerqas, I have no idea what you are talking about when you write, “Your first comment was bashing Le Roi for being right per the information presented in the article. ”
My first comment was not a response to anything Nortumous had written. It addressed Owen’s tag line, “the real value of the vaccine appears to be that it lessens the severity if you are infected.”
As to my second comment, the point was to demonstrate that the x/100000 statics are unclear about what they encompass as well as show how they are now being pushed for propaganda purposes.
(hopefully this will remain formatted, otherwise it will be spaghetti…)
As published by UKHSA: Deaths within 28 days of pos test, 2-jabs, age 80+
Week 38 Unvaxed: 198 Rate: 156/100000 Vaxed: 1,272 Rate: 49.5/100000
Week 39 Unvaxed: 189 Rate: 149.4/100000 Vaxed: 1,288 Rate: 50.1/100000
Week 40 Unvaxed: 161 Rate: 128.1/100000 Vaxed: 1,179 Rate: 45.9/100000
Week 41 Unvaxed: 94 Rate: 74.8/100000 Vaxed: 957 Rate: 37.3/100000
Week 42 Unvaxed: 134 Rate: 106.7/100000 Vaxed: 1,373 Rate: 53.4/100000
Then along comes Week 43.
What happens? Director Ed Humpherson of The Office of Statistics Regulation tells UKHSA hours before publication of the Week 43 report to play with the numbers. So UKHSA removes tell-tale graphs that have been showing for eight months the rising cases/rates of infections of the vaxxed and throws labels of “unadjusted” on everything.
Not satisfied, Mr. Humpherson writes UKHSA head Dr. Jenny Harries a few days later and tells her…
Thank you for the constructive meeting on Thursday 28 October to discuss the UK Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) COVID-19 vaccine surveillance statistics. We focused on the risk that the data presented on rates of positive cases for those who are vaccinated and those who are unvaccinated have the potential to mislead – and indeed we noted that these data have been used to argue that vaccines are ineffective.
We welcome the changes you have made to the Week 43 surveillance report, published on 28 October. It is also very good that you are working closely with my team and with the relevant teams in the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
There is, however, considerable room for further improvement. It remains the case that the surveillance report includes rates per 100,000 which can be used to argue that vaccines are not effective. I know that this is not the intention of the surveillance report, but the potential for misuse remains. In publishing these data, you need to address more comprehensively the risk that it misleads people into thinking that it says something about vaccine effectiveness. This is not just about the choice of denominator. It is about recognising that the comparison of case rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups is comparing datasets with known differences – including, potentially, the greater propensity of people who are vaccinated to come forward for tests. So the data reflect a behavioural phenomenon, not just a feature of how well vaccines work. I do not think your surveillance report goes far enough in explaining this crucial point. [Humpherson has no real clue what “behavioural phenomeno”, if any, is actually going on. Here he is fishing for ways to skew the data to a certain narrative, data be damned]
Turning to the choice of denominators, the denominator used by UKHSA is based on the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS). These data almost certainly overcount the eligible population, and so lead to large systematic biases in the case rates in the unvaccinated groups. [“Almost certainly”, but no real evidence]
One possibility would be to only publish rates in the vaccinated population, which are known accurately, but I recognise your concern that you are already publishing rates for both groups. The alternative would be to use the ONS population estimates, which are used in the main coronavirus dashboard but which may be flawed for some age groups, as you have pointed out. Given these multiple uncertainties, it is good that you are working with colleagues in the ONS on the best denominator to use in these calculations. In the meantime, you should consider setting out these uncertainties more clearly, including by publishing the rates per 100,000 using both denominators, and making clear in the table, perhaps through formatting, that the column showing case rates in unvaccinated people is of particular concern.
I recognise that you want to maintain transparency and consistency, but these qualities should not be at the expense of informing the public appropriately.[or, “as we want it presented”]
As I stated in the previous post, from the Week 43 Report on you find in them all kinds of disclaimers/explainers/propaganda all of which are based on the BS “potentially” and “almost certainly” demands of Mr.Humpherson.
As such, I will trust the raw numbers over “almost certainly” any day.
Of course, if the Bahamas no longer exit because of climate change, you better like fish because there would not be any place to buy any goods.
Fish for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. Or of course, seaweed is also a delicacy you can get used to.
MJM, my sincerest apologies. I would have sworn you had an initial comment that was a just a bash on Le Roi. I must have seen one of Mar’s as yours and my eyes suck worse than I thought.
On the fun commentary, wow that letter from Mr. Humpherson on killing transparency in the name of propaganda was transparent (available). They are obviously not very good at opacity, good for them. I see what you are saying now.
“MJM, my sincerest apologies. I would have sworn you had an initial comment that was a just a bash on Le Roi. I must have seen one of Mar’s as yours and my eyes suck worse than I thought.”
Yeah, your eyes suck because my response after Le Roi ‘s did not bash him.
Maybe you are one who needs some reading comprehension classes.
When you try and play both sides, Tuerqas, you will get burned by both sides.
You should know this by now.
Funny, I don’t feel burned and I would not say I am playing both sides in the least. Most of your commentary before my first comment was aimed at Le Roi in a derogatory fashion. Now it isn’t and I call that a win. (Probably helps that le Roi is gone from this post:). I never said your first comment was Le Roi negative, I just summarized that most of it was, and in this case it was factually un-justified (as he was citing info from the same article you did). Disagree?
“must have seen one of Mar’s as yours and my eyes suck worse than I thought.”
Yeah, I disagree.
Should be, I agree.
my sincerest apologies
Baa. No problemo, capitán. Normally I would snark at Nortumous off the bat. :D. But I tend to investigate beyond headlines before commenting.
I have been trying to figure out where the x/100000 stats are coming from. None of it makes sense. To wit:
1) Death rate based on total UK population
2) Death rate based on populations vaxed and unvaxed
3) Death rate based on age group population
4) Death rate based on age group+vaxed and age group-not vaxed.
Going back to my original example:
Week 39-42 Age ≥80 Second dose ≥14 days before specimen date:
Deaths within 28 days of a positive test, Age: ≥80 Total: 1724 Not Vaxed: 157 Vaxed: 1527
Deaths within 60 days of a positive test, Age: ≥80 Total: 1397 Not Vaxed: 143 Vaxed: 1209
Total deaths, four weeks: vaxed: 2736 Unvaxed: 300
UK Population: Total: 68.3million
Vaxed: 70% (rounded up from 69% for ease and clarity)
Unvaxed: 30% (rounded down for same reason)
Age 80+ UK population: 2,355,600 (2020)
So…
Four week death rate:
1) Death rate based on total UK population, Not Vaxed: 0.43 Vaxed: 4.00
2) Death rate based on populations vaxed and unvaxed Not Vaxed: 1.46 Vaxed: 5.72
3) Death rate based on age group population Not Vaxed: 12.73 Vaxed: 116.14
4) Death rate based on age group+vaxed and age group+not vaxed. Not Vaxed: 42.5 Vaxed: 176.63
For #4 I am assuming the same overall vax rates (70%v/30%nv), but it is likelier that the elders are far more vaxed than the younger as the UK focused on the most vulnerable (like Florida).
If anyone can show errors in my calcs, much obliged. Even better if you can explain how the UK heath orgs can state the exact opposite of the above results.
“I have been trying to figure out where the x/100000 stats are coming from. None of it makes sense. To wit:”
I am glad I am not the only one. One other thing I cannot figure out: Are the 28 day deaths and 60 day deaths different people? I am starting to think that the 28 day people are part of the 60 day grouping.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the grids on page 10 and 11 show that the age group of 80+ have been at about 95% vaccinated since week 20 including their second dose. So yeah, I thought the number split of the population should be 95% vaxxed and 5% unvaxxed for that older group. So if the over 80 population is 2,355,600 per your number above, that 80+ vax pool is 2,237,820 and 80+ nonvax pool is 117,780. Now I admit I can’t remember how to get the per 100,000 ratio, but that means the ratios are 1 in 717 (.0014) for the death rate among the vaxxed and 1 in 392 (.0025) for the death rate among un-vaxxed. That is just among the over 80 stat. Is that wrong?
Are the 28 day deaths and 60 day deaths different people?
I would say so. Note in my example that the 60 day totals are less than than 28 day totals. If the 60 day totals included the 28 day deaths, well then the 60 day totals would = the total deaths I used.
I can’t remember how to get the per 100,000 ratio
(deaths/population)*100000. “population” can be subsets, like “age 80+ vaxed”
So, if using your 95%v/5%nv….
vaxed = (2736/2237820)*100000 = rate 122.26
nvaxed = (300/117780)*100000 = rate 254.71
That’s closer to Owen’s linked article (unvaxed 125.4 vaxed 54.9), at least in ratio…. sorta.
Getting closer.
You guys are over thinking the 100,000 number is coming from. 156/100000 vs 49.5/100000…. 156 vs 49.5 sounds so much worse than 1.56 vs .495
That’s it, done, nothing more to think about.
Just like the recent headline about Minnesota ICU bed availability. Only 49 beds currently available in the entire state… No one mentions that there are only 366 beds in total in the state, and generally speaking hospitals have their ICU beds in the 75-80% occupancy rate. So now it’s critical some how that the beds are 86% occupied? Fear, nothing more.
Jus havn some fun with numbers, Jason.
And you reiterate the point of Ed Humpherson, director of The Office of Statistics Regulation, that “ … showing case rates in unvaccinated people is of particular concern.”
>And you reiterate the point of Ed Humpherson, director of The Office of Statistics Regulation, that “ … showing case rates in unvaccinated people is of particular concern.”
And we all know now why the FDA is expecting a recent FOIA request for all Pfizer Covid vaccine data to be completed around 2076. Of course they can approve a vaccine in less than 180 days but then need 50+ years to send that data to others – makes perfect sense – to a simp like Leroy.