You may recall from earlier this year our two reports on the UK’s unjabbed apparently outperforming the jabbed when it comes to COVID-19 deaths and all-cause deaths, seemingly further evidence of negative effectiveness. It’s time for another update, with data now available through to mid-2023.
Maybe, but such excuses seem very hollow when the jabs are supposed to be so necessary, so effective, and so safe, that we needed to mandate them, and encourage them even in babies just a few months old. It shouldn't even be close. Also keep in mind that pretty much everyone is supposed to have been jabbed, and there is also the healthy vaccinee effect, so one could argue both ways. And this aligns quite nicely with many published data sets now on negative effectiveness. The latter is being discussed more in the journals, including my little rapid response in the BMJ, so something interesting might be happening.
Is the data available stratified by age at death ? I think the most useful comparison is probably jabbed working age vs unjabbed working age. Both populations should be reasonably homogeneous, so you have a good control group vs test group.
Thank you all for your questions, which encouraged me to dig a little deeper. A lot of people seemed concerned with age breakdown and age-standardised mortality, so try this. Look at Table 2, all cause deaths, May 2023. The unjabbed outperformed variously dosed jabbed groups, in terms of age-standardised mortality, for most age groups. This is weird, huh, for a life-saving jab that everyone should apparently be taking? This is so revealing, I'll have to add it to the main entry.
Hilarious. First graph from your link shows jabbed and unjabbed meeting at May 2022, stops there. Wonder what happens afterwards... That's where the data I reported on comes in, unjabbed doing better later in 2022, 2023. And this is despite the data being in the state that it is, manipulated, unvaccinated undercounted, etc. Keep on lying and gaslighting though, suits you.
That objection falls away when we talk about proportions and rates, which I always do. If there are 51% jabbed and 49% unjabbed in the population, you shouldn't be happy with 99% of COVID deaths occurring in the jabbed, that can't be brushed off with a, "Yeah but there's more of us, reeeeeeeeeeeee!"
According to a letter to The Lancet on Nov 19th 2021, almost 90% of British covid cases in the over-60's were amongst the double vaccinated, while less than 4% were amongst the vaccine-free.
According to a UK gov report dated Sept 17th 2021, 63% of Delta deaths were amongst the double vaccinated with just 28% of deaths in the vaccine-free. Deaths were mostly in the over-50's.
90% of British cases & 63% of resulting deaths are in the double vaccinated.
I noticed in your reply to Joel below the discussion re age stratified data. When posting the above extrapolation, I was challenged in a similar way, except by someone clearly more adept with figures than I! His basic premise was that in fact, many of those who had died as listed on the gov page linked above were actually quite elderly & already unwell, as if that might excuse the data. It does not excuse the data, imo. We vaccinated elderly & unwell persons first not because we expected them all to die as a result but because we expected them all to LIVE as a result! Whether folks who are vaccinated are dying young or old is besides the point, they are NOT supposed to be dying, that's the very point of vaccinating them in the first bloody place!
The excuses don't make sense. However way you slice the data, at the very least we have several groups (age, person years, etc.) where the unjabbed are doing better, and several where the unjabbed and jabbed are doing about the same. For a jab that's meant to be so necessary, effective, and safe, and with the data known to be manipulated in favour of mainstream jab narratives, I'd be concerned.
Can this not simply be explained that the jabbed are older and therefore more likely to die? How does it look stratified by age?
Maybe, but such excuses seem very hollow when the jabs are supposed to be so necessary, so effective, and so safe, that we needed to mandate them, and encourage them even in babies just a few months old. It shouldn't even be close. Also keep in mind that pretty much everyone is supposed to have been jabbed, and there is also the healthy vaccinee effect, so one could argue both ways. And this aligns quite nicely with many published data sets now on negative effectiveness. The latter is being discussed more in the journals, including my little rapid response in the BMJ, so something interesting might be happening.
Is the data available stratified by age at death ? I think the most useful comparison is probably jabbed working age vs unjabbed working age. Both populations should be reasonably homogeneous, so you have a good control group vs test group.
Thank you all for your questions, which encouraged me to dig a little deeper. A lot of people seemed concerned with age breakdown and age-standardised mortality, so try this. Look at Table 2, all cause deaths, May 2023. The unjabbed outperformed variously dosed jabbed groups, in terms of age-standardised mortality, for most age groups. This is weird, huh, for a life-saving jab that everyone should apparently be taking? This is so revealing, I'll have to add it to the main entry.
Hilarious. First graph from your link shows jabbed and unjabbed meeting at May 2022, stops there. Wonder what happens afterwards... That's where the data I reported on comes in, unjabbed doing better later in 2022, 2023. And this is despite the data being in the state that it is, manipulated, unvaccinated undercounted, etc. Keep on lying and gaslighting though, suits you.
Was that our old friend Raphael or some new interloper?
Same sort of lies and insults...
Clearly climate change !
Don't forget winter vagina, which apparently men can get now too!
Hahahahaha.
I get that. I hate the cold. I can be a right c**t in grim weather.
The injected declare that there is more of them so that’s why the statistics look like that- so a man in my church told me. That doesn’t explain it.
That objection falls away when we talk about proportions and rates, which I always do. If there are 51% jabbed and 49% unjabbed in the population, you shouldn't be happy with 99% of COVID deaths occurring in the jabbed, that can't be brushed off with a, "Yeah but there's more of us, reeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Why are you spamming us with irrelevant points? I talk about "proportions and rates" and you say that's "not a rate".
I usually add a screenshot to posts of these links but as yet Substack do not permit attachments to replies. So the links alone will have to do.
Nov 19th 2021 - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/Fulltext
According to a letter to The Lancet on Nov 19th 2021, almost 90% of British covid cases in the over-60's were amongst the double vaccinated, while less than 4% were amongst the vaccine-free.
Sept 17th 2021. Page 19/20 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
According to a UK gov report dated Sept 17th 2021, 63% of Delta deaths were amongst the double vaccinated with just 28% of deaths in the vaccine-free. Deaths were mostly in the over-50's.
90% of British cases & 63% of resulting deaths are in the double vaccinated.
I noticed in your reply to Joel below the discussion re age stratified data. When posting the above extrapolation, I was challenged in a similar way, except by someone clearly more adept with figures than I! His basic premise was that in fact, many of those who had died as listed on the gov page linked above were actually quite elderly & already unwell, as if that might excuse the data. It does not excuse the data, imo. We vaccinated elderly & unwell persons first not because we expected them all to die as a result but because we expected them all to LIVE as a result! Whether folks who are vaccinated are dying young or old is besides the point, they are NOT supposed to be dying, that's the very point of vaccinating them in the first bloody place!
The excuses don't make sense. However way you slice the data, at the very least we have several groups (age, person years, etc.) where the unjabbed are doing better, and several where the unjabbed and jabbed are doing about the same. For a jab that's meant to be so necessary, effective, and safe, and with the data known to be manipulated in favour of mainstream jab narratives, I'd be concerned.
The Ethical Skeptic on X.com (Twitter) is a Beast with the numbers.