I tried doing the same as you, but instead of comparing unvaccinated to the "2 shots more than 6 months ago", I compared unvaccinated to the sum of *all* vaccinated. Then I get very different results for the first 4 of 5 columns in your 'Summary of the data' section (apologies for formatting):
I tried doing the same as you, but instead of comparing unvaccinated to the "2 shots more than 6 months ago", I compared unvaccinated to the sum of *all* vaccinated. Then I get very different results for the first 4 of 5 columns in your 'Summary of the data' section (apologies for formatting):
Age Group Unvaxed ACM rate vaxed ACM rate vax/unvaxed ACM rate
10-14 5 12 2.4
15-19 13 16 1.2
20-24 20 21 1.1
25-29 33 27 0.8
30-34 52 41 0.8
35-39 82 62 0.8
40-44 131 95 0.7
45-49 252 154 0.6
50-54 456 240 0.5
55-59 709 385 0.5
60-64 1241 631 0.5
65-69 2214 1016 0.5
70-74 3895 1661 0.4
75-79 7683 2881 0.4
80-84 17284 5248 0.3
85-89 29287 9501 0.3
90+ 49449 20507 0.4
Doesn't column 4 for all ages 25+ make it difficult to use *this data* to argue against the jabs? Thanks!
I think the issue doesn’t even need the “absurd results” test. Every day a person has x% chance of dying, depending on a huge list of factors (including simple bad luck). Probability of death has to be measured over a specific period of time; over 120 or so years the ACM rate for vaxed and unvaxed rises to 100%.
If you look at deaths over a month, including folks who were vaccinated during the middle of the month… well, they survived ~15 days unvaxed, then ~15 days vaxed… that isn’t comparing chance of death over the same time period. It’s like noting that the total life expectancy of the average 60 year old is higher than the life expectancy of everyone. Duh. If you hit 60, you didn’t die before then (at birth, as a child, etc.), so you are likely to live to an older age than the average for the population as a whole. But that 60th birthday party didn’t make you healthier.
Then you add in that critically ill folks generally are not eligible for vaccination due to their precarious state…. You need to compare over ACM over a set time period with the “intervention” occurring PRIOR to the measured period.
My understand - and correct me if I am wrong - is that the data we are talking about does not clearly do that - that there is no attempt towards equalization of the window of time within which ACM is measured in both groups (over x number of days in that status) nor any cleanup of the impact of ineligibility for vax for already critically ill.
Unvaxxed includes folks who died at any time over X period. However, in order to be recently vaccinated or boosted, you need to have survived until that time - and that very survival until recent vaccination invalidates the statistical comparison - they have had fewer days to potentially die, and also the mere act of survival puts them in a cohort less likely to die, generally (both statistically and by the fact that if at deaths door, unlikely to get vaccinated at that point - contra-indicated).
To meaningfully use that all-vaxed status data, you would need to know exactly when people were vaxed and then consider their days of not dying while they were unvaxxed in the unvaxxed category, as opposed to the vaxed - much more complicated data.
By using numbers of vaxed > 6 months ago, you reduce the impact of the noted issue because you are now comparing rate of death over not necessarily the same time period, but over at minimum a period of ~180 days.
Dear Steve,
I tried doing the same as you, but instead of comparing unvaccinated to the "2 shots more than 6 months ago", I compared unvaccinated to the sum of *all* vaccinated. Then I get very different results for the first 4 of 5 columns in your 'Summary of the data' section (apologies for formatting):
Age Group Unvaxed ACM rate vaxed ACM rate vax/unvaxed ACM rate
10-14 5 12 2.4
15-19 13 16 1.2
20-24 20 21 1.1
25-29 33 27 0.8
30-34 52 41 0.8
35-39 82 62 0.8
40-44 131 95 0.7
45-49 252 154 0.6
50-54 456 240 0.5
55-59 709 385 0.5
60-64 1241 631 0.5
65-69 2214 1016 0.5
70-74 3895 1661 0.4
75-79 7683 2881 0.4
80-84 17284 5248 0.3
85-89 29287 9501 0.3
90+ 49449 20507 0.4
Doesn't column 4 for all ages 25+ make it difficult to use *this data* to argue against the jabs? Thanks!
this is why i only used data that met the sanity check as I noted in the article.
if you use junk data you get junk results.
I think the issue doesn’t even need the “absurd results” test. Every day a person has x% chance of dying, depending on a huge list of factors (including simple bad luck). Probability of death has to be measured over a specific period of time; over 120 or so years the ACM rate for vaxed and unvaxed rises to 100%.
If you look at deaths over a month, including folks who were vaccinated during the middle of the month… well, they survived ~15 days unvaxed, then ~15 days vaxed… that isn’t comparing chance of death over the same time period. It’s like noting that the total life expectancy of the average 60 year old is higher than the life expectancy of everyone. Duh. If you hit 60, you didn’t die before then (at birth, as a child, etc.), so you are likely to live to an older age than the average for the population as a whole. But that 60th birthday party didn’t make you healthier.
Then you add in that critically ill folks generally are not eligible for vaccination due to their precarious state…. You need to compare over ACM over a set time period with the “intervention” occurring PRIOR to the measured period.
My understand - and correct me if I am wrong - is that the data we are talking about does not clearly do that - that there is no attempt towards equalization of the window of time within which ACM is measured in both groups (over x number of days in that status) nor any cleanup of the impact of ineligibility for vax for already critically ill.
Unvaxxed includes folks who died at any time over X period. However, in order to be recently vaccinated or boosted, you need to have survived until that time - and that very survival until recent vaccination invalidates the statistical comparison - they have had fewer days to potentially die, and also the mere act of survival puts them in a cohort less likely to die, generally (both statistically and by the fact that if at deaths door, unlikely to get vaccinated at that point - contra-indicated).
To meaningfully use that all-vaxed status data, you would need to know exactly when people were vaxed and then consider their days of not dying while they were unvaxxed in the unvaxxed category, as opposed to the vaxed - much more complicated data.
By using numbers of vaxed > 6 months ago, you reduce the impact of the noted issue because you are now comparing rate of death over not necessarily the same time period, but over at minimum a period of ~180 days.