Zero hypothesis: the corona vaccine does not affect total mortality

by Hans Verwaart | 11 Mar 2023, 07:03

...or pay via paypal

cards

Reactions

Comments that are not related to the topic of discussion will be deleted. Always keep comments respectful and substantive.

11 Comments
  1. Pyotr

    You write 'It is worth noting that the bumps were among the 'unvaccinated' in January-March 2021'. Logical: in January 2021, only the first elderly and vulnerable people in Limburg and Brabant got their first shot and the second at the beginning of April. So until mid-April, the whole of the Netherlands was registered as unvaccinated.
    Astra Zenica was then offered to 65 minners, but they took few people, because in March-April it was clear that it was less effective and had many side effects and this age group had barely been called up. Moreover, in the spring, the Health Council changed the age advice to 'only for people over 65'. In the meantime, they had already mostly been grafted with Moderna and Pfizer and the rest had little or no interest in AZ due to the negative coverage. The group 60-65 has chosen non-grafting the most because of this zigzag policy. (happy)

    Reply
    1. Anton (@infopinie)

      These graphs are about the United Kingdom, not the Netherlands. Never vaccinated people are compared with those who have had at least 1 jab. Which vaccine and how many follow-up shots does not matter and does not explain anything, except (perhaps) what Hans mentions in the note at the end.

      It doesn't make sense that the bumps were among the unvaccinated at the time. Certainly not on the grounds that that group was larger at the time. The number of unvaccinated deaths has been peated and is fixed. A larger population of unvaccinated people would mean a lower mortality among that group, not a higher one.

      The fact that these same bumps have now apparently been transferred to the vaccinated gives cause for thought.

      Reply
  2. Pyotr

    Addition. You also had a similar trend in the UK. Only it took place a few weeks earlier because they started grafting earlier

    Reply
  3. Pyotr

    True. Hence my addition below.

    Even with a shot that only counts after two weeks and perhaps just like in the Netherlands after four weeks with Janssen, you get differences in favor of (more) effectiveness of the shots. Furthermore, people who are known to die very quickly are much more rarely vaccinated. To what extent does that also affect the results?

    Reply
    1. Anton (@infopinie)

      That is also stated in the article: calculated from the jab.

      I have seen the Healthy Vaccinee Effect explained in two ways:
      1) people who are terminally ill no longer get vaccinated: this increases the mortality rate among the unvaccinated.
      2) healthy people who rely on their immune system do not get vaccinated. This lowers the mortality rate among the unvaccinated.

      To what extent that affects the results, no one knows.

      Reply
  4. Theo

    The title of the article seems to contradict the conclusion.

    Reply
    1. Anton (@infopinie)

      The zero hypothesis is that there is no effect. So Q should be 1. That hypothesis is being tested.
      Sometimes I summarize the article in the title, sometimes I try to arouse curiosity.
      P.S.: Did you intentionally enter a non-existent email address? Then you will not receive a notification of this reply.

      Reply
    2. Anja

      I also find it a confusing title.

      Reply
      1. Anton (@infopinie)

        Do you know a better one, which does trigger you to read? If I think it's an improvement, I'll adjust it...

        Reply
    3. Theo

      @Anton: no, no intent. It was a typo.

      Reply
  5. Anja

    One word Anton: ..."has no FAVORABLE or POSITIVE influence ...

    .

    Reply

Post a Comment

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Required fields are marked with *