Finally, excess mortality is trending

11 Comments

1. 

   Eef on 20/03/2022 at 08:45

   I remember very well how – for example – Softenon, DES and Prozac were also deemed '100% safe'.
   Yes, after two weeks it seemed to be the case. After two years too.
   After about ten years, the case turned out to be slightly different.

   So it is not only very stupid to think that you can draw the same conclusion – 'nothing happens two weeks after vaccination, so it is safe' – with these vaccines, but actually just criminal.

   Reply
2. 

   Martin on 20/03/2022 at 20:57

   Nice article, that the vaccine for people with the delta has helped not to get into the hospital could well be.

   What I really interesting is of all the hospitalizations or death cases, knowing what percentage was vaccinated and what was not. That way you can rule out (or not) whether vaccines pose an additional health risk. This seems relevant to me especially for the younger age groups.

   What I miss a bit in this article is the total number of people who have been vaccinated.
   On this link:
   https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833
   for example, I see that about 35% under 18 have NOT had a vaccine.
   Of the approximately 153 people who died, 13 were not vaccinated, which is 8 to 9%
   So as vaccinated young people you had a 3 to 4 times as chance of dying.

   Reply
3. 

   Anton on 21/03/2022 at 12:12

   Yes, there is always more that is missing in such an article than what is in it. And I often think they are too long myself.

   About your sum: if 65% of young people have been vaccinated and 91% of the deceased from that group have been vaccinated, how do you come up with a chance of 3 to 4 times as high? Shouldn't that be 'almost half higher'?

   Reply
   1. 

      Martin on 21/03/2022 at 18:05

      Hi Anton,
      I looked wrong, the number of deaths has already been converted to x per 100,000, so it doesn't matter how big those groups were.
      If you then look at the 0-15 group, all vaccinated people together have (14+9+65+20+1+25) / 7 = an average of 20 per 100,000 and the unvaccinated 11, so the vaccine seems disadvantageous there.
      At the 20-24 it is more or less equal. In some other groups, unvaccinated people are more likely to die at the moment. e.g. for 40-44(140+50+190+80+50+70+30) 87 per 100,000 for vaccinated people against 100 per 1000 for the unvaccinated.

      The problem with these graphs is that as of 1-1-2021, almost no one had been vaccinated, everyone who died then was unvaccinated. Interesting to have these graphs from the last 3 months.
      So for the lowest age group this applies even more.

      Keep up the good work!

      Reply
      1. 

         Anton on 21/03/2022 at 22:54

         "100 per 1000 in the unvaccinated"....? You mean per 100,000 I think.

         Reply
      2. 

         Frank Renders on 22/03/2022 at 14:39

         Why do you divide the added deaths for the groups of vaccinated people? If it is a proportion per 100,000, these numbers may still be added up to arrive at the total number of vaccinated deaths in relation to the number of unvaccinated people.
         Moreover, counting is done from the start of the year where no vaccinations have yet taken place. The deaths in that period should be subtracted from the number of unvaccinated deaths.

         Reply
      3. 

         L. van Dijk on 23/03/2022 at 12:49

         As I read it, it is calculated in patient years (PY). Well, I'm not statistically well-versed, so correct me if I am wrong. But it seems that corrections have already been made for the weeks in which someone was not vaccinated?

         Reply
4. 

   Daniel on 21/03/2022 at 22:41

   The article states:

   > In any case, the vaccinated group must ALWAYS show a lower mortality rate than the unvaccinated group. Otherwise, it's better not to vaccinate, it's as simple as that.

   This seems logical and simple, but you miss an important point, namely that this ONLY applies if the groups are balanced. If the vaccinated group has a bias that there are people with a much higher mortality rate, which is certainly not inconceivable with these low numbers, your reasoning is undermined.

   Reply
   1. 

      Anton on 21/03/2022 at 22:48

      Absolutely... Perhaps I should put it another way: the year with vaccination should have a lower all-cause mortality than the year without – provided that no other strange things occur, of course.

      Reply
   2. 

      Martin on 22/03/2022 at 15:41

      You can't just add up all the deaths of the different groups, I realize now. Suppose you were vaccinated in March. then you are up to 3 weeks after that "vaccinated within 3 weeks" and then for the x months of the year "vaccinated more than 3 weeks". Then you take a second vaccine after 3 months and then you belong to another group again. So the groups are not the same size. From the whole year you are then unvaccinated until March, from March 1 to March 21 within 3 weeks of vaccine 1, from March 21 to July 21 outside 3 weeks of vaccine 1 etc.

      And indeed, the time span of this research is unfortunately one year.

      And then the fair question, are the groups the same. Very weak people have not been vaccinated anymore because they already had one foot out of it. Have people who have not been vaccinated massively taken vitamin D and Zinc, etc.

      Reply
      1. 

         godfather on 26/03/2022 at 10:32

         Indeed, you can't compare that well. However, the greatest number pollution is caused by the fact that the uninjected in hospitals are often so seriously ill and or take certain medicines that they are not allowed to be vaccinated. Even worse is that the homes are not included in the calculation of the effectiveness. There, the vaccination rate and mortality are much higher and they are admitted to hospitals much less and even less to ICU.

         Reply