I'm still struggling with the line for "unvaccinated".
Are you 100% sure that you did not got a false leak? With manipulated data?
This "unvaccinated" line is so desastrous and completely anti-intuitive, except for those who dislike thinking for themselves and therefore believe in all the nasty narratives of the vaxers, that you should hav…
I'm still struggling with the line for "unvaccinated".
Are you 100% sure that you did not got a false leak? With manipulated data?
This "unvaccinated" line is so desastrous and completely anti-intuitive, except for those who dislike thinking for themselves and therefore believe in all the nasty narratives of the vaxers, that you should have given much more answers on this. Or even have left it out, because the data are most likely totally unrelaible.
I noted that HenJin cited in one of his comments below ONS data and also a bit of Fentons/Neils work. Sufficient? Not for me.
I did and do not believe in the ONS data: I myself acknowledged Fenton on some falsified data until March 2020; he agreed and took it. Later ONS closed this issue by starting their counting with 1 April 2020. Even thereafter they used false population data, thus, manipulating the denominator. (link in another post belwo).
So, why should we have more confidence in the Czech data in this central aspect?
In contrast to all other mortality data we have, the unvaccinated appear to perform even worse in 2022.
And it's Fenton and Neil who used false population data and not ONS, because when they calculated the mortality rate for unvaccinated people, they added unlinked people to the denominator for unvaccinated population size, but they didn't add deaths in unlinked people to the numerator for unvaccinated deaths: https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1813583698459308056. The same trick has also been used by Joel Smalley and USMortality.
Barry Young's NZ data is missing unvaccinated people and about half of vaccinated people. But the half of vaccinated people who are included in his dataset have lower ASMR than the general NZ population, so it probably means that unvaccinated people have higher ASMR than vaccinated people (unless the vaccinated people who are included in Barry's dataset are not representative of all vaccinated people and the missing half of vaccinated people have much higher ASMR): sars2.net/moar.html#Excess_ASMR_compared_to_reported_mortality_data_in_New_Zealand.
Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
You may argue: Because they were not yet protected. However, it is antiintuitive to get such sharp peaks. And you could never explain the December surplus, as people were told to be protected. We know from the whole C19 crisis that misclassification on death certificates were very common, simply because encouraged by the WHO.
In the set without carehomes (Fig 3.1.2) the peak is even brighter.
Off course, you should also look at nonC19-mortality in Fig 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In principle the same. Initially increased mortality.
Essential point: The dutch statistician did not want to show us accumulated data. Most likely, as such figures would have clarified that the vaccinated never catch-up the initial disadvatange. The essential killing argument against the vaccines.
Further below the Dutch statisticians showed figures comparing „vacinated“ vs. „unvaccinated“, however, using the cheap trick, i.e. counting events in the initial phase after vaccination to the unvaccinated. The same cheap trick you used in with the Czech data.
The Czech data are totally unrealiable.
Apart from this, the interpretation of VAERS data (that Moderna would cause more deaths) is totally wrong.
I'm still struggling with the line for "unvaccinated".
Are you 100% sure that you did not got a false leak? With manipulated data?
This "unvaccinated" line is so desastrous and completely anti-intuitive, except for those who dislike thinking for themselves and therefore believe in all the nasty narratives of the vaxers, that you should have given much more answers on this. Or even have left it out, because the data are most likely totally unrelaible.
I noted that HenJin cited in one of his comments below ONS data and also a bit of Fentons/Neils work. Sufficient? Not for me.
I did and do not believe in the ONS data: I myself acknowledged Fenton on some falsified data until March 2020; he agreed and took it. Later ONS closed this issue by starting their counting with 1 April 2020. Even thereafter they used false population data, thus, manipulating the denominator. (link in another post belwo).
So, why should we have more confidence in the Czech data in this central aspect?
In contrast to all other mortality data we have, the unvaccinated appear to perform even worse in 2022.
Do you really believe this?
And it's Fenton and Neil who used false population data and not ONS, because when they calculated the mortality rate for unvaccinated people, they added unlinked people to the denominator for unvaccinated population size, but they didn't add deaths in unlinked people to the numerator for unvaccinated deaths: https://x.com/UncleJo46902375/status/1813583698459308056. The same trick has also been used by Joel Smalley and USMortality.
In the Dutch CBS data unvaccinated people also have much higher ASMR than vaccinated people: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/3-resultaten.
Barry Young's NZ data is missing unvaccinated people and about half of vaccinated people. But the half of vaccinated people who are included in his dataset have lower ASMR than the general NZ population, so it probably means that unvaccinated people have higher ASMR than vaccinated people (unless the vaccinated people who are included in Barry's dataset are not representative of all vaccinated people and the missing half of vaccinated people have much higher ASMR): sars2.net/moar.html#Excess_ASMR_compared_to_reported_mortality_data_in_New_Zealand.
And in this paper which looked at subsets of Czech record-level data released by two insurance companies, unvaccinated people had much higher CMR than vaccinated people within age groups: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971224000468.
CSV files published by the Czech MoH also show that unvaccinated people had a much higher rate of hospitalizations for COVID than vaccinated people: sars2.net/czech3.html#Hospitalizations_by_age_group_and_vaccination_status. And most excess deaths in 2021 to 2022 seem to have been caused by COVID, because I got about 25% excess deaths in 2021 when I included COVID, but it dropped down to only about 3% when I excluded deaths where underlying cause was listed as COVID: sars2.net/czech3.html#Yearly_deaths_in_the_Czech_Republic_by_underlying_cause_of_death.
Thank you for reminding me to the Dutch data.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/3-resultaten.
Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
You may argue: Because they were not yet protected. However, it is antiintuitive to get such sharp peaks. And you could never explain the December surplus, as people were told to be protected. We know from the whole C19 crisis that misclassification on death certificates were very common, simply because encouraged by the WHO.
In the set without carehomes (Fig 3.1.2) the peak is even brighter.
Off course, you should also look at nonC19-mortality in Fig 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In principle the same. Initially increased mortality.
Essential point: The dutch statistician did not want to show us accumulated data. Most likely, as such figures would have clarified that the vaccinated never catch-up the initial disadvatange. The essential killing argument against the vaccines.
Further below the Dutch statisticians showed figures comparing „vacinated“ vs. „unvaccinated“, however, using the cheap trick, i.e. counting events in the initial phase after vaccination to the unvaccinated. The same cheap trick you used in with the Czech data.
The Czech data are totally unrealiable.
Apart from this, the interpretation of VAERS data (that Moderna would cause more deaths) is totally wrong.
https://tkp.at/2024/08/06/spikevax-gefaehrlicher-als-comirnaty-steve-kirsch-greift-daneben/comment-page-1/#comment-168672
It appears that you are a vaxer.