It's certainly another way of doing it and that is something we might look at in the coming days. Bearing in mind that the overall increase in NZ mortality is about 12% up on 2020 this should put our curves roughly equal rather than showing a reduced mortality in the vaccine cohort. Again, if you add a factor for missing death data this …
It's certainly another way of doing it and that is something we might look at in the coming days. Bearing in mind that the overall increase in NZ mortality is about 12% up on 2020 this should put our curves roughly equal rather than showing a reduced mortality in the vaccine cohort. Again, if you add a factor for missing death data this would put the vaccine cohort at higher mortality than the expected mortality - but this would merely reflect the increased mortality that needs investigation (because the demographic explanation is flawed).
You are correct on both points. Death registrations lag behind actual week of death by about 5%. The weekly death figures that drive the data on the stats NZ Covid Data portal take a month, or more to settle.
Also, the excuse of demographics doesn't cut it. For example, the population of 95+ year Olds only goes up by about 200 a year For the 90-94, it's about 2000 per year, hardly a massive rise, yet the deaths among these rocketed between 20-21, then 21-22. Even 2023 is looking bad, which is amazing when you think of the cull that has occurred over the past 3-years. The harvest effect usually sees a big drop off in years following high death rates. We also need to be sure we are defining death rates correctly. Are we using the mean population for annual rates? When I spoke to Stats NZ, they were using the mean quarterly population in some of their reports I'll dig deeper on that one. I know the STMF meta data uses an annual mean population estimate.
It's certainly another way of doing it and that is something we might look at in the coming days. Bearing in mind that the overall increase in NZ mortality is about 12% up on 2020 this should put our curves roughly equal rather than showing a reduced mortality in the vaccine cohort. Again, if you add a factor for missing death data this would put the vaccine cohort at higher mortality than the expected mortality - but this would merely reflect the increased mortality that needs investigation (because the demographic explanation is flawed).
You are correct on both points. Death registrations lag behind actual week of death by about 5%. The weekly death figures that drive the data on the stats NZ Covid Data portal take a month, or more to settle.
Also, the excuse of demographics doesn't cut it. For example, the population of 95+ year Olds only goes up by about 200 a year For the 90-94, it's about 2000 per year, hardly a massive rise, yet the deaths among these rocketed between 20-21, then 21-22. Even 2023 is looking bad, which is amazing when you think of the cull that has occurred over the past 3-years. The harvest effect usually sees a big drop off in years following high death rates. We also need to be sure we are defining death rates correctly. Are we using the mean population for annual rates? When I spoke to Stats NZ, they were using the mean quarterly population in some of their reports I'll dig deeper on that one. I know the STMF meta data uses an annual mean population estimate.