This is exactly the kind of data that a proper Covid 19 should be taking a long hard look at. Instead we have an inept chair who set the terms of reference to all be based on a flawed assumption that NPI's were a proven and correct approach, backed up by a swarmy lawyer who covertly tries to ridicule those that rightly challenge that stupid narrative.
Thanks Clare. However I’m struggling to interpret the graphs. Can you please unpack your interpretation a bit to make the conclusions and assumptions clearer? Also, it’s not clear how a mortality ‘rate’ is involved (eg in the first graph) when only a number is given on the vertical axis: how is it a ‘rate’? Thanks.
Each week there were a a group of people were vaccinated. Over the remaining months of 2021, a proportion died. The deaths divided by the number vaccinated multiplied by 100,000 is the mortality rate as presented on the vertical axis.
Over time there are huge swings in this mortality rate which have to do with the make up of the population vaccinated at different times.
Thanks Claire. These are unusual graphs (and I had not realised that the 'rate' was a rate per 100 000, as it seems to be given just as a scalar number). Or maybe I'm having a senior moment.
In Figure 1, it seems that about 0.05% of under 50's vaccinated around 1 Jan died by the end of 2021, while around 0.35% of under 50's vaccinated around 1 Feb died by the end of the year. The big difference ( x 7) suggests that the vaccinated groups were different in character at those two times, as you suggest. An alternative hypothesis is that the vaccination process itself may have changed over time for some reason (eg changing vaccination skill, less control over vaccinators, different batches, less central vaccination sites, etc) Figure 2 shows that the corresponding figures for 50-59 year olds were somewhat higher (0.25% and 1.2% respectively), which is hard to interpret without knowing which subgroups of that age group were injected; however the higher proportions than those for under 50s presumably also reflect increasing mortality with age.
Are these numerical interpretations correct?
If the metric used is 'death by the end of the year', (rather than, say, death within 12 months of vaccination), isn't that likely to be a bit confounded with the fact that the time until the end of the year is longer in January than it is in February (etc for later months)? Also a longer time allows more time for later jabs and even 'boosters' to be given, doesn't it, confounding matters even more?
The (orange) graphs of number of vaccinations (starting in Figure 2) use the right hand axes, I assume. It's hard to compare the graphs when the scales are so different. But it seems from Fig 3 that in one week in Feb around 1 million 60-69 year olds were jabbed, while a single week in mid March saw about 2 million 50-59 year olds jabbed. These are extraordinarily high numbers. Are these orange interpretations correct?
Many thanks again ... and sorry for revealing my struggles with the graphs.
The ONS and the other institutions are not interesting in the truth, their only interest is back covering, they scurry about filling in any holes in their "safe and effective" narrative. And that is what it is, a fictional story.
I don't see it: are those graphs back-to-front? Should not the first curve(s) be the <vaccinated> while the second curve(s) be <mortality>? (if the premise is death-by-vaccination ?)
This is just info' (feedback) - ignore it if you wish.
Personally I would have condensed everything down to one para' and one graph (with references to the rest, tucked away) - hit 'em hard wth simplicity right at the start.
Dr Craig is better extempore than this on Dr Cambell's youtube channel, that's why I subscribed in the first place. But the above I don't get in the first pass, and that's too bad.
The main problem with all these guys is that they are completely fluent in statistics while most people aren't. They're basically speaking a foreign language a lot of the time but they don't realise that most of us don't understand it.
The spikes in vaxxed mortality seem to infill between dips in general mortality. Doesn't that suggest you are just grouping deaths into different buckets by a 3rd unrelated factor? (assuming there is also an equivalent spike in number of new vaccinations that 'causes' the spike in vaccinated deaths by transferring a large number of people out of the 'general' bucket and into the 'vaccinated' one.).
You speculated that the reason why mortality rate increased after the main part of the rollout was over was because the dying were being targeted again, "perhaps pressuring those declined vaccinations if they then become ill or are admitted to hospital".
I tried comparing the CMR of vaccinated people in the FOI response against a baseline of the general population of England (which also includes unvaccinated people): https://i.ibb.co/238Cbzx/foi-2021-to-2022-mortality-rate-by-week-of-vaccination-and-age-group.png. In ages 20-29 and 30-39, the CMR of people vaccinated in 2022 or late 2021 was actually below the baseline. In ages 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 the CMR roughly followed the baseline, but in ages 70-79 and 80+ it was above the baseline (even though it might be because the age group 80+ is too broad, or because my method of calculating the baseline was not adjusted for seasonal variation in mortality).
But anyway, the late vaccinees generally had a similar mortality rate to the general population of England, so I don't know if it's accurate to characterize them as "the dying". But rather just the people who got vaccinated near the rollout peak subsequently had lower than average mortality rate for their age group.
In the New Zealand data that was given to Kirsch by Barry Young, there is also an effect where first a small number of the earliest vaccinees have high mortality, so that their mortlity rate remains at a sustained elevated level even 2 years after vaccination. And second, early vaccinees who got vaccinated near the rollout peak subsequently have low mortality, where again they continue to have low mortality even 2 years after vaccination. But third, late vaccinees who got vaccinated after the main rollout was over subsequently have higher mortality than the second group but not as high as the first group: sars2.net/moar.html#Heatmaps_for_excess_mortality_by_month_of_death_and_month_of_vaccination. I coined the term "late vaccinee effect" to describe the phenomenon where the third group of people subquently has elevated mortality (even though in the case of the new English FOI data, the mortality rate of late vaccinees doesn't seem to be that much elevated apart from the oldest age groups).
Thank you Clare. I think we struggle to interpret the graphs because of the 20 days delay in declaring a person vaccinated? So it looks like the vaccination happened after the peak in deaths, but really it is at the same time?
This is exactly the kind of data that a proper Covid 19 should be taking a long hard look at. Instead we have an inept chair who set the terms of reference to all be based on a flawed assumption that NPI's were a proven and correct approach, backed up by a swarmy lawyer who covertly tries to ridicule those that rightly challenge that stupid narrative.
Thanks Clare. However I’m struggling to interpret the graphs. Can you please unpack your interpretation a bit to make the conclusions and assumptions clearer? Also, it’s not clear how a mortality ‘rate’ is involved (eg in the first graph) when only a number is given on the vertical axis: how is it a ‘rate’? Thanks.
Sorry.
Each week there were a a group of people were vaccinated. Over the remaining months of 2021, a proportion died. The deaths divided by the number vaccinated multiplied by 100,000 is the mortality rate as presented on the vertical axis.
Over time there are huge swings in this mortality rate which have to do with the make up of the population vaccinated at different times.
Thanks Claire. These are unusual graphs (and I had not realised that the 'rate' was a rate per 100 000, as it seems to be given just as a scalar number). Or maybe I'm having a senior moment.
In Figure 1, it seems that about 0.05% of under 50's vaccinated around 1 Jan died by the end of 2021, while around 0.35% of under 50's vaccinated around 1 Feb died by the end of the year. The big difference ( x 7) suggests that the vaccinated groups were different in character at those two times, as you suggest. An alternative hypothesis is that the vaccination process itself may have changed over time for some reason (eg changing vaccination skill, less control over vaccinators, different batches, less central vaccination sites, etc) Figure 2 shows that the corresponding figures for 50-59 year olds were somewhat higher (0.25% and 1.2% respectively), which is hard to interpret without knowing which subgroups of that age group were injected; however the higher proportions than those for under 50s presumably also reflect increasing mortality with age.
Are these numerical interpretations correct?
If the metric used is 'death by the end of the year', (rather than, say, death within 12 months of vaccination), isn't that likely to be a bit confounded with the fact that the time until the end of the year is longer in January than it is in February (etc for later months)? Also a longer time allows more time for later jabs and even 'boosters' to be given, doesn't it, confounding matters even more?
The (orange) graphs of number of vaccinations (starting in Figure 2) use the right hand axes, I assume. It's hard to compare the graphs when the scales are so different. But it seems from Fig 3 that in one week in Feb around 1 million 60-69 year olds were jabbed, while a single week in mid March saw about 2 million 50-59 year olds jabbed. These are extraordinarily high numbers. Are these orange interpretations correct?
Many thanks again ... and sorry for revealing my struggles with the graphs.
The ONS and the other institutions are not interesting in the truth, their only interest is back covering, they scurry about filling in any holes in their "safe and effective" narrative. And that is what it is, a fictional story.
I don't see it: are those graphs back-to-front? Should not the first curve(s) be the <vaccinated> while the second curve(s) be <mortality>? (if the premise is death-by-vaccination ?)
That's not the premise. Read the first paragraph.
This is just info' (feedback) - ignore it if you wish.
Personally I would have condensed everything down to one para' and one graph (with references to the rest, tucked away) - hit 'em hard wth simplicity right at the start.
Dr Craig is better extempore than this on Dr Cambell's youtube channel, that's why I subscribed in the first place. But the above I don't get in the first pass, and that's too bad.
The main problem with all these guys is that they are completely fluent in statistics while most people aren't. They're basically speaking a foreign language a lot of the time but they don't realise that most of us don't understand it.
🙏 Another revealing study on excess mortality in the injected, as is this one: https://open.substack.com/pub/metatron/p/covid-vaccination-increases-excess?r=20pd6j&utm_medium=ios
The spikes in vaxxed mortality seem to infill between dips in general mortality. Doesn't that suggest you are just grouping deaths into different buckets by a 3rd unrelated factor? (assuming there is also an equivalent spike in number of new vaccinations that 'causes' the spike in vaccinated deaths by transferring a large number of people out of the 'general' bucket and into the 'vaccinated' one.).
It's not really a spike in vaccinated deaths.
The x axis is the date the first injection was given and the deaths are the deaths that followed for the rest of 2021.
It's a way of comparing the cohorts but the deaths didn't happen at the time indicated on the x axis.
I understand there wasn't an actual spike, I'm just talking about the graphical representation. My point is valid though, no? Am I missing the point?
You speculated that the reason why mortality rate increased after the main part of the rollout was over was because the dying were being targeted again, "perhaps pressuring those declined vaccinations if they then become ill or are admitted to hospital".
I tried comparing the CMR of vaccinated people in the FOI response against a baseline of the general population of England (which also includes unvaccinated people): https://i.ibb.co/238Cbzx/foi-2021-to-2022-mortality-rate-by-week-of-vaccination-and-age-group.png. In ages 20-29 and 30-39, the CMR of people vaccinated in 2022 or late 2021 was actually below the baseline. In ages 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 the CMR roughly followed the baseline, but in ages 70-79 and 80+ it was above the baseline (even though it might be because the age group 80+ is too broad, or because my method of calculating the baseline was not adjusted for seasonal variation in mortality).
But anyway, the late vaccinees generally had a similar mortality rate to the general population of England, so I don't know if it's accurate to characterize them as "the dying". But rather just the people who got vaccinated near the rollout peak subsequently had lower than average mortality rate for their age group.
In the New Zealand data that was given to Kirsch by Barry Young, there is also an effect where first a small number of the earliest vaccinees have high mortality, so that their mortlity rate remains at a sustained elevated level even 2 years after vaccination. And second, early vaccinees who got vaccinated near the rollout peak subsequently have low mortality, where again they continue to have low mortality even 2 years after vaccination. But third, late vaccinees who got vaccinated after the main rollout was over subsequently have higher mortality than the second group but not as high as the first group: sars2.net/moar.html#Heatmaps_for_excess_mortality_by_month_of_death_and_month_of_vaccination. I coined the term "late vaccinee effect" to describe the phenomenon where the third group of people subquently has elevated mortality (even though in the case of the new English FOI data, the mortality rate of late vaccinees doesn't seem to be that much elevated apart from the oldest age groups).
The Killing Fields..... With Impunity & Reward!
Thank you Clare. I think we struggle to interpret the graphs because of the 20 days delay in declaring a person vaccinated? So it looks like the vaccination happened after the peak in deaths, but really it is at the same time?