In the graphs below, the population data from NIMS are used. As a result, mortality rates among the unvaccinated, at least in some age groups, may be lower than they actually are.
Because England works with impure population estimates, we don't know how many unvaccinated there are. The population size used has a direct effect on reporting on unvaccinated people. The deviation also differs per age group. It is not yet clear whether and if so, how this can be adjusted; the UKSHA (UK Health Security Agency) is working on this. The ONS says about this:
"We hope that the work UKHSA is doing to improve the NIMS data (including removing duplicates), along with the work ONS is doing on population estimates and the 2021 census, will improve our understanding. It is really positive that ONS and UKHSA are working together to try to find a solution to this problem, which is so important for so many statistics. Given this uncertainty, knowing the implications of the different choices can help users interpret the presented data with caution."
More detailed justification can be found in the post "UK professor: 'Data on mortality by vaxx status are junk' “
Let's hope that the de-duplication is carried out without looking at the effects on the vaccination effects with half an eye. Organizing an independent regulator would be wise (Prof. Fenton probably wants to help) otherwise it will be just as powerless an operation as the excess mortality investigation by CBS/rivm.
United Kingdom Reports transparent tables with key figures, for example on England (part of UK). It produces spectacular graphs – so spectacular that questions arise about the reliability of the data. I'll go into that in later posts. In any case, the data for this article come from the UK reporting on England, just like in the previous posts about mortality trends per 100K, using the same official sources:
Source 1: Vaccination status population by age, from start vaccinations of the UK corona dashboard. As CSV, JSON and XML downloadable on the Vaccinations in England, scroll to the last purple chart, and click Download. This states exactly the number of vaccinations per age group. I found the CSV hard to convert, the XML goes better. If you have problems: this is the Excel version, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Source 2: Mortality rates by vaccination status of the Office for National Health Statistics (Table 2) of this page, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
METHOD: In this article, the group sizes per age cohort, as mentioned in Source 1, have been taken as a starting point. I then added up all the "First Dose" jabs, which were split into shorter and longer than 21 days. The sum of these in this article forms the group "vaccinated people". I subtracted that from the group size and treated what was left as "unvaccinated".
We have reviewed it several times with several people. The graphs are the correct visual representation of the data reported by ONS.
A common misunderstanding
The fact that more vaccinated people die than unvaccinated people is often misused to indicate that the vaccines do not work or worse. It doesn't mean anything in itself because if 100% of the population is vaccinated, only vaccinated people will die. The causes of death do not have to be related to the vaccinations. If 70% of the dead have been vaccinated, then it is at most interesting to compare that with the percentage of vaccinated people in the population – and that has to be done per age group.
If the aim is to achieve a vaccination coverage of 100%, this will mean that there will no longer be a control group to compare the figures of the vaccinated with. That control group is now there: the unvaccinated. However, we have to make the mortality of the unvaccinated comparable, based on the size of the group of vaccinated people with whom we want to compare (the "weighting" of numbers).
In the graph below, that's not happened. The image below is therefore not as crazy as some fake news sources would like to make it seem. After all, especially in the older groups shown here, there are many more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people. And so, unfortunately, many more vaccinated people are also dying.
Far fewer unvaccinated people automatically means much lower numbers of everything, including deaths. We can correct for this if we know exactly how large the groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated people were in that month. We also have that data. It's a matter of rearranging.
Correct by group size
The method followed is simple. As an example: With 2,000 unvaccinated people, 10 deaths are to be regretted. That would then mean that, assuming equal mortality rates, with 10,000 well-vaccinated people (5x as many) you would have about 50 should see deaths. Or less thanks to a well-functioning vaccine at the time of a viral disease epidemic.
Who calculated "50" is the purple bar "Unvaccinated scaled up to vaccinated group size" in the graphs. Next to it are the actual deaths among vaccinated people, represented by the yellow bar.
We know how big each age cohort is, and we know how many first (and second and third) vaccinations have been put into that cohort. The graphs below only look at unvaccinated versus vaccinated, from 1 dose.
In green and yellow are the absolute mortality numbers. So (again) this is not about Covid patients but about all causes of death (All Cause Mortality).
- The green bar indicates the number of unvaccinated deaths. That bar is small because there are relatively few unvaccinated people in England.
- The purple bar is the number of deaths you would expect if the group of unvaccinated people had been the same size as the group of vaccinated, so after multiplication as explained above.
- The yellow bar is the registered number of deaths in the relevant age group of vaccinated people.
If the yellow bar is lower than the purple bar, the "all-cause mortality" of vaccinated people is lower than that of the unvaccinated. This is the case in January with the 70-79 age group, but then you have to look very carefully.
Zoomed in on 18-59:
How do we explain the differences? At the time of an epidemic of a serious deadly List-A disease, an effective vaccine will make the increased mortality invisible in vaccinated people, while the unvaccinated are affected by the deadly disease. Maybe there is an error in the ONS data?
The yellow bar will be smaller than the purple one in an effective vaccine, similar to the line graphs of the older age groups in early 2021 from this previous post. However, the vaccines still provide protection against COVID-19, from the 2019-2020 flu season. Now that the disease no longer exists in 2022, the side effects are being exposed – at least that is a plausible explanation of the differences. Other possible explanations are mentioned under the heading "Confounders".
Percentage
A different representation of these data makes the effects in the younger groups more visible. The graphs below show what the distribution would be like if 50% of the population were vaccinated. Click on the graphs to enlarge them.
Interpretation
The mortality in Omicron (and influenza) month of January 2022 among vaccinated people does not dip significantly below that of the unvaccinated in any of the age categories. Omicron has caused very little mortality at all, so it would be understandable if there were not a lot of benefit to be seen in it. Unfortunately, the picture is reversed. The differences are undeniable and fall to the disadvantage of the vaccines.
Looking for confounders
Is this simple comparison too simplistic? I foresee the objection "you can't just multiply, that group may be composed very differently".
It's a possibility that the high-spirited, self-confident over-60s who declined the vaccination don't compare well with those who meekly allowed themselves to be injected because they lived in fear of dying a horrible death of suffocation. A mentality issue that affects life expectancy, who knows. Whether we will ever be able to uncover such influences is uncertain.
The higher educated (with a higher life expectancy) may be somewhat underrepresented among the unvaccinated. That could reduce mortality there somewhat, so that the purple bar is also lower. On the other hand, there are also groups among unvaccinated people aboutwho have a shorter life expectancy.
What are other reasons for not taking the vaccination? Diseases? Terminal patients? Sure, but they actually raised the purple bar and narrowed the gap in favor of the vaccines. Or are these vulnerable people more vaccinated? At the beginning of the campaign, yes, but after the completion of the campaigns, that difference has almost disappeared.
UK Jan 2022 in context:
is it Covid after all?
January 2022 on Euromo. Overall mortality is well above baseline throughout the month. If this is roughly in sync with Ourworldindata, then Covid-19 may be partly the cause, but not the most important of the excess mortality.
January 2022 on Ourworldindata (Covid mortality only): more Covid deaths in the second half from Jan '22, whereas Euromomo shows less total mortality. These very low numbers of Covid mortality and their course cannot explain the excess mortality.
We continue to hope that one day there will be a similar high-quality report on the Dutch situation, without plausibility or interpretation by government institutions. This is in accordance with the Omtzigt Motion that is currently being evaded; That remains worrying, so I will mention it again.
Note: Mortality rates are available in 10-year cohorts, vaccination statuses in 5-year cohorts. "Adding up" two 5-year cohorts to a 10-year cohort is not statistically accurate. However, the differences between the summed groups are so small that they would not provide a different picture while the information becomes more difficult to understand. Depending on the age group, it differs from 0.06% to 3%.
Thanks to Andre Redert Hotels, Herman Steigstra and other unnamed experts for thinking along
If 1 jab = unvaccinated
Officially, people who have had one shot are considered unvaccinated. So they have been injected, but a number of them have decided to leave it at that for unknown reasons. What effect does moving from that jab (including mortality) to "unvaccinated" have on the mortality of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people?
To be able to visualize this, we have taken the ankle jabs from the group of 'vaccinated' people below and added them to the 'unvaccinated' groups. Mortality among the 'single jabs' has also moved to the 'unvaccinated'.
To differentiate myself from the previous charts, I have labeled the groups as "Unvaccinated + Dose 1" (unvaxed including 1 dose) and "Dose 2+": everything AFTER the first shot, including those who have been boosted. I use the same UK data for England (links at the bottom of this article).
It is striking that after this permutation in January 2022, a positive effect of the vaccinations could be seen in most age groups.
[June 19: After reading recent studies, I see that the results get better everywhere when you exclude older jabs. So having been jabbed recently has advantages, after that there is even negative effectiveness. The tipping point is around 4-6 months after the injection].
Later post about UK:
Earlier post about UK:
Under the heading 'Correction by group size' there is the sentence :
"That would mean that for 10,000 vaccinated people (5x as many) you would have to see 50 deaths, with the same mortality rates."
I assume it should read: ... 10,000 UNvaccinated people...
Hi Ed, no, it's correct as it is... Compare: "As an example: In 2,000 redheads, 10 ankle sprains are to be regretted. That would mean that, assuming equal percentages, you would have to see 50 ankle sprains in 10,000 blond people (5 times as many)."
It's about weighing in to a different group of different sizes.
Yes, of course, healthy people in their sixties, etc., are less likely to be vaccinated than weaker people, and weaker people are more likely to opt for vaccination. And people who have had corona are less likely to get vaccinated again.
But there are also tens of thousands of weak people who are not allowed to be vaccinated due to their illness and/or medication use/chemotherapy. For the sake of convenience, let's consider those effects as equivalent. You then keep side effects 'vaccines' and up to four months a year a shut down immune system with four shots a year. The latter effect may have a greater impact on mortality and more serious illness than is currently assumed.
These are quite shocking findings. But don't be surprised. Curious if there will be a follow-up in other media. Do you have a way to get this kind of message posted on other media? Must finally get through to the masses, you would say.
By that 0.06% and 3%, do you mean the difference in group size between, for example, 30 to 35-year-olds and 35 to 40-year-olds who have been vaccinated? I can imagine that people in their early 30s are less likely to get vaccinated than people in their late thirties (the same goes for people in their 40s, 50s, etc.). And that late 30s, 40s, etc., are more likely to die than the early 30s, 40s, etc., respectively.
I don't think there is much further to conclude as long as so little is known about either group.
Yes, exactly. These differences are too small to give a different picture. Vax rates hardly differ within a 10-year cohort. The risk of mortality differs more in the older groups, but still.