Wouldn't the confounder be the magical 2 week delay in labelling someone as vaccinated? Despite what the ONS say in their data, they do not and they cannot account for that. Norman Fenton et al proved they couldn't truly get the raw data because the who guidelines of 2 weeks before labelling someone was universal and he could see it in the data, that would be my interpretation.
Wouldn't the confounder be the magical 2 week delay in labelling someone as vaccinated? Despite what the ONS say in their data, they do not and they cannot account for that. Norman Fenton et al proved they couldn't truly get the raw data because the who guidelines of 2 weeks before labelling someone was universal and he could see it in the data, that would be my interpretation.
I think the ONS do in fact count people as vaccinated immediately after vaccination, and the various supposed anomalies presented by Fenton can be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect: https://sars2.net/rootclaim.html#Fenton_and_Neils_miscategorization_bias. There is also a low number of deaths in the weeks following vaccination in the record-level datasets from New Zealand, Czech Republic, and United States.
In the Czech data the mortality rate of unvaccinated people also goes up when the first dose is rolled out, but it's because of the healthy vaccinee effect. There's a very low number of deaths in the weeks following vaccination in the record-level datasets from the Czech Republic, New Zealand, and United States. It shows that Fenton et al.'s misclassification hypothesis is not needed to explain why the mortality rate of people with n-1 doses shoots up when the nth dose is rolled out.
(Edit: Apparently it wasn't Kirsch who deleted my comments, but all of my comments from all Substack blogs were deleted because my account got flagged for some reason.)
Yeah the same thing happens in the Czech data even though there's no Fentonian cheap tricks involved. See my first link.
Also read this: https://sars2.net/uk.html#Problems_with_Fenton_and_Neils_n_1_dose_misclassification_hypothesis. Fenton speculated that reason why the mortality rate of people with two but not more doses shot up when the third dose is rolled out was because people who died soon after getting the third dose were misclassified under the second dose. But if you look at people with two or more doses, their mortality rate remains stable when the third dose is rolled out, even though it should also shoot up if there was a huge number of people dying after the third dose.
I am sure this would make it even worse. A spike in death and disability happens after the vaccination; the cynic might say this was the reason for that two-week hiatus.
Wouldn't the confounder be the magical 2 week delay in labelling someone as vaccinated? Despite what the ONS say in their data, they do not and they cannot account for that. Norman Fenton et al proved they couldn't truly get the raw data because the who guidelines of 2 weeks before labelling someone was universal and he could see it in the data, that would be my interpretation.
I think the ONS do in fact count people as vaccinated immediately after vaccination, and the various supposed anomalies presented by Fenton can be explained by the healthy vaccinee effect: https://sars2.net/rootclaim.html#Fenton_and_Neils_miscategorization_bias. There is also a low number of deaths in the weeks following vaccination in the record-level datasets from New Zealand, Czech Republic, and United States.
I think Fenton and Clare Craig are probably controlled opposition: https://sars2.net/turbo.html#Appendix_Is_the_Fenton_circle_controlled_opposition.
Every time they rolled out the vaccine to the different age groups, the unvaccinated died in that age group. It's obvious.
Either Kirsch or his moderator deleted all of my comments, but see these pages: https://sars2.net/rootclaim4.html#Ratio_between_unvaccinated_and_vaccinated_ASMR_in_ONS_data, https://sars2.net/rootclaim.html#Fenton_and_Neils_miscategorization_bias, https://sars2.net/uk.html#Problems_with_Fenton_and_Neils_n_1_dose_misclassification_hypothesis.
In the Czech data the mortality rate of unvaccinated people also goes up when the first dose is rolled out, but it's because of the healthy vaccinee effect. There's a very low number of deaths in the weeks following vaccination in the record-level datasets from the Czech Republic, New Zealand, and United States. It shows that Fenton et al.'s misclassification hypothesis is not needed to explain why the mortality rate of people with n-1 doses shoots up when the nth dose is rolled out.
Fenton's cheap trick paper was completely demolished here by Peter Hegarty: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387220055_A_DETAILED_ANALYSIS_OF_CLAIMS_OF_MISCATEGORIZATION_BIAS_IN_STUDIES_OF_COVID-19_VACCINE_EFFECTIVENESS.
(Edit: Apparently it wasn't Kirsch who deleted my comments, but all of my comments from all Substack blogs were deleted because my account got flagged for some reason.)
Yeah the same thing happens in the Czech data even though there's no Fentonian cheap tricks involved. See my first link.
Also read this: https://sars2.net/uk.html#Problems_with_Fenton_and_Neils_n_1_dose_misclassification_hypothesis. Fenton speculated that reason why the mortality rate of people with two but not more doses shot up when the third dose is rolled out was because people who died soon after getting the third dose were misclassified under the second dose. But if you look at people with two or more doses, their mortality rate remains stable when the third dose is rolled out, even though it should also shoot up if there was a huge number of people dying after the third dose.
I am sure this would make it even worse. A spike in death and disability happens after the vaccination; the cynic might say this was the reason for that two-week hiatus.