The UnVaccinated are in for a big surprise.....

I dont believe that because the database (at least what has been released to us) does not make that distinction.

 

Yes it does. I mean I've heard anti-vaxxers say they don't believe the distinction is accurately made, but the distinction is definitely made. The labels of the graphs and excel sheets tell you which is being talked about. All-cause, non-covid, and covid deaths are each different. All-cause does equal covid + non-covid though, and covid and non-covid deaths are mutually exclusive.

 

@LiveUninhibited I think THIS is what you are looking for.

 

An absurd observation. In the UK, the general population was close to 90% for vaccination status, so good ol' Josh concludes that the vaccinated are "26% worse", which is the dumbest piece of statistical analysis you could make. That grey column is 0.81 per 100k (person years) of 10% of the population! The red column is 1.02 of 100k (person years) of 90%.

 

I disagree with that based on the statements:
Number of deaths involving COVID-19

 

I know, that's what I meant when I said you may disagree with how they accounted for the deaths. The most reasonable way to approach it would be... would this patient have likely survived until discharge had they not been infected with covid? If the answer is they would not have survived anyway, then covid did not really contribute meaningfully to their death, but if they had an underlying condition and covid was simply the straw the broke the camel's back, that still qualifies as a covid death.

I think generally that is how it's approached.

 

The above using US data is fake. It adds unvaxd with vaxd to falsely claim the unvaxd did worse.

We can do that too with the UK data and this is only adding the first jab not both since I believe it took 3 to be considered fully vaxd.

 

The only way to know that is the way the UK did it with unvaxd seperate from partially vaxed. As we can see the 1 dosers got hammered!

What beta does not realize is that his statistica chart shows more vaxed died than unvaxed too! A shot in the foot! very easy to see when you clip the top off and lay it beside the unvaxed.




Lets say it was even between the 2, then the risk reward is zero!

There is no advantage to taking the vax and risking the 43,000 adverse affects.

Not to mention its gene therapy, latching into the genome chromosome 10 and 12.

 

The issue with the graph in this post is it uses "number of deaths." Given unvaccinated are a minority of the population, they could be disproportionately having deaths when you use a scale like "number of deaths." It would need to be adjusted per capita.

 

Right! another is person years. Thanks I forgot about that one!

Sterling is good, his is percapita.

 

Nauseating denial and bare assertion. How deceptive that you ignored the fundamental issue I pointed out, where the unvaxed total is less than the the vaccinated, but the vaccinated comprises 90% of the damn population!

And we're back to your baffling failure to understand the ASMR data. It specifically tells you that the first dose group was significantly changed and gave false results!

 

And again! The first dosers did NOT get "hammered", the damn ASMR group changed as clearly stated by the study you didn't understand.

A lie. I understand that it did NOT! Doctoring the chart with your dishonest totals?

This was bullshit when you first said it, it hasn't changed. It's not gene-therapy. Virologists, researchers, pharmacologists all state this. When the source is a lying antivax conspiracy website, it's obvious as to their motive.

 

Double the blunder double the fun with double mint, double mint, double mint gum!

There is no material modifications to the bar heights!

More vaxd died over 80 then unvaxd.

Provaxers like pro 911 octers will say anything it seems.

 

Bloviating and evasion.

It cannot be a blunder by this poster, it must be deliberate.

A colossal failure in statistics is what we are seeing!
Third dose close to 70% for UK, second 85%, first 92% - I wonder if we will see him adjusting his silly totals pro-rata, exactly how it SHOULD be calculated!

That BLUE total is 8% of the population!

 

Oh I missed that one! We have a hat trick! Make it 3 blunders for the page.

Person-Years is the gold standard for survival statistics calculations thanks to the built in data normalization in the process.


Here is the whole chart:



No matter how you slice the data more vax'd died than unvaxed!
The more accurately you slice that data the worse it gets for the vaxd.

 

Try not to make any more.

Deliberate spam, nobody asked for it, correct data has been supplied.

Unless you "slice" it using accurate statistical analysis!

Since clearly the totals are subject to the percentage of people vaccinated for that group, a rather ignorant statement.

What makes it even more funny is that you think you can extrapolate from 1 total without including the percentile of the total!




Using your chart (and the BBC) - let's "slice and dice" it using mathematics instead of hot air! :
Unvaxed = 0.81
1st dose = 0.98
2nd dose = 1.13
Full vaxx = 1.99

Identify the weighting factor (number to make it into 100) by population percentage vaccinated (using England as guide as it makes 80% of total).
Unvaxed = 8% = 12.5
1st dose = 92% = 1.09
2nd dose = 85% = 1.18
Full vaxx = 66% = 1.51

Multiply step 1 totals by weighting factor in step 2:
Unvaxed = 0.81 * 12.5 = 10.125
1st dose = 0.98 * 1.09 = 1.07
2nd dose = 1.13 * 1.18 = 1.33
Full vaxx = 1.99 * 1.51 = 3.00
Total 15.525

Overall percentages in step 3 by group:
Unvaxed = 65.2%
1st dose = 6.9%
2nd dose = 8.6%
Full vaxx = 19.3%

 

You are the one making them. The "folks" are just seeing diversion!

YOUR website claimed a variety of statistics by DIRECT comparison. Your failure to understand, yet again, is your failure.

Hey, I have a suggestion for you. See if YOU can work out why 0.81 in a total of 1.83 (left hand graph) means nothing close to what is claimed, when one total is for 92% of the population and the other is 8%!

 

An interesting chart. Most of the deaths under 70 are people who were unvaccinated. While the percentage of those over 70 drops, the numbers of older folks no doubt reflects the vast majority have been been vaccinated.

 

But that is already proven untrue: HERE
Under 70 max out at 6000, over 70 max out at 10,000+
That and we can see that unvaxd elderly did better than vaxd!

Yeh bet the elderly were surprised when they found themselves dying from the miracle jab and the latest gig is immunal memory.... making the jabs useless, yet they are still pushing more!

Oh and that xhart is junk anyway since its done by direct percentage, we expected that most of the deaths would be elderly anyway, if the vax worked we wouldnt see so many elderly deaths.

 

You would do well to quit digging and think more carefully about what you post.

 

Ok I thought about it.
If you have a point make it.
If those numbers were your point then you need to explain how they apply to person-years survival.

 

Well duh, exactly the way YOUR graph says one is x% more than another!

 

A source for your opinion? (I'm not holding my breath.)

There is clear evidence mRNA covid vaccines have saved old folks' lives. Why on earth would you claim otherwise?

 

I'm really talking to others through my replies to the nonsense you post.

 

well you are quoting me so you are talking to me