The UK ONS data used to have the obvious flaw that people dropping dead 3 days after their first dose were defined as „unvaccinated“. In this regard, the significant uptick in deaths in summer 2021 in „unvaccinated“ looked interesting to say the least.
How are they doing their definitions now? Could not find it.
Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot:
By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product. Meanwhile governments all over the world continue to be reluctant to issue data on e.g. „long covid“ or immune system problems in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, although this data would settle the debate once and for all if its outcome is in favor of getting the shots.
„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point.
The ONS data linked the comment you're replying to is clear that it counts "vaccinated" from the day of vaccination. What ONS data are you referring to which "used to have the obvious flaw that people dropping dead 3 days after their first dose were defined as unvaccinated"?
> By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product.
Given previous experience with people who years into this still want to be served everything on a silver plate, entering any discussion with you will be futile. You responded solely for the dompamin your brain gives you when you trample onto people that an "authority" presented you as outsiders to your tribe. No factual argument will convince you.
Even with all the easily verifiable information in this thread alone you did not make the effort to check for yourself, and are so convinced of your position that you aren't even embarrassed about demonstrating your ignorance.
It is incredibly easy to find by now. In mid 2021 you had to search, think about and analyze the excess mortality stats yourself to see the obvious signal, now it's being discussed widely. But you will never start this journey on your own out of fear your will be expelled from your perceived tribe.
This technique is called "SHOUT HERE, ARGUMENT WEAK".
> easily verifiable information in this thread
As others have pointed out, none of the information you've posted in this thread supports the conclusion you think it does. You questioned whether the ONS mortality data linked to by kadkadels had a problem you say ONS data used to have. It did not, as it was easy to see by clicking through the link. You haven't been able to produce any ONS data which ever had this problem, which is strange.
You then linked to some Dutch data which, when translated, concludes that "Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction."
You did not check either of these links yourself, so it's a bit rich to criticise others for failing to do so.
Rule number 1: don't argue with conspiracy theorists, they will come up with all sorts of nonsense.
>„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point.
Have they? Show me some of those manipulated fact checkers, please. With reputable sources, I'm not inclined to read bullshit.
>By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product.
Not really, no. Or show us some data.
>Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot:
conveniently only available in dutch, but online translators to the rescue:
where the first paragraph in 6.4 translates as follows:
>The analyses show a lower or comparable likelihood of dying from causes other than COVID-19 in the first weeks after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to the vaccination status before receiving the respective dose. This holds true for all age groups and also for long-term care users. Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction.
You seem to be really emotional about this. Need to say, the psychogram of those who defend pharma relentlessly to this day is very interesting. I see anger, insults, trampling onto what an obviously fascist authority teached them at the end of 2021 is „below them“ to elevate oneself. Ignorance of obvious data, sidelining.
By now I have seen enough actual data - and on top of that a lot of sad „anecdata“ in my direct surroundings - to pay attention at least. Given its prevalence I am sure you have seen the anecdata as well. Have you called someone who claimed to have a vax damage or who told you a relative died from the vax a „conspiracy theorist“ yet?
One good alternative point to start your journey in 2024 could be the US civilian labor force disability data. And no, I won’t waste time to search for that for you, given that you began your „response“ by attaching a label because it soothes you mentally. It has all been out there for long time and has been linked countless times.
The little section you got from google translating is a government-approved interpretation of this data. I have seen several others. You can download the data and fact-check for yourself.
> Have you called someone who claimed to have a vax damage or who told you a relative died from the vax a „conspiracy theorist“ yet?
Not to her face, no. Not in those words, at least. But that’s because it would upset my mother to have to deal with her idiot conspiracy theorist sister complaining about me being rude, so I am scrupulously polite while dismissing all her crap and she is increasingly sensible about not mentioning it around me. Just as well I started this effort before covid happened or it might not have been enough.
> ah yes, just call regulatory agencies "fascist", that makes total sense
People were fired for not taking a novel pharmaceutical product, warp-speeded by Donald Trump and sold as a cure-all. They lost their livelihood over exercising a fundamental human right.
In places like Canada they could not use public transport or leave the country. In some countries they could not enter supermarkets. Austria decided to fine them steeply and monthly. In the US 60% of one political side agreed with throwing them into camps and discussed it openly.
Across all media and in society they were labeled and treated as pariahs.
Meanwhile they observed obvious carnage in their friends and family and could only watch.
What did you do at the end of 2021 while all of this happened?
The Dutch data has the same problem as the ONS data that I describe in my other comment:
> For the first mRNA vaccination, almost all [hazard ratios], for the different weeks after vaccination and different subgroups, are significantly lower than 1, which indicates a reduced risk of non-COVID-19 death shortly after vaccination.
Obviously vaccination is not supposed to reduce your risk from things unrelated to COVID-19 yet in their data it does. This isn't because it's some magical cure-all. It's because their data is biased. The correct hazard ratio is found only in the 12-49 age group.
As they say in their discussion, this is because "in the event of a very short remaining life expectancy, (a subsequent dose of) COVID-19 vaccination may be decided against ... Vaccination is also postponed in the event of a fever ... This is also called the 'healthy vaccine effect' and it is difficult to correct for this in observational research ... the results should be interpreted with caution"
They also have the problem that "people who have been vaccinated, but have not given permission for registration in CIMS, have been incorrectly classified as unvaccinated (5 to 7 percent of the people)" which means that "This will have influenced the analysis of the risk of death after the first vaccination, because in this analysis the unvaccinated person time served as a reference"
So this dataset is not usable for detecting vaccine side effects or induced deaths. It is a hopelessly corrupted dataset in which large numbers of people are misclassified and it's not a randomized study.
But this is public health research, so after saying results should be interpreted with caution they go ahead and make the totally incautious claim that "Based on these results there are no indications at a population level that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse event." which is a false statement. Their data doesn't allow them to draw such conclusions.
The reason this topic is neuralgic is because if you want to be scientifically correct then you can't actually know whether vaccines reduced deaths or not, but people really want to believe they did. The trials that were supposed to unambiguously measure this failed, in the sense that they showed no effect on deaths and yielded incorrect conclusions about reductions in infection rates (the number started at 95% effective and then was regularly revised, this is not supposed to happen and was due to their time windowing problems). Then attempts to measure it using mass datasets collected outside of RT context all yield incorrect conclusions due to dataset bias, but are presented as definitive anyway for political reasons.
Thank you for this summary. I have seen some analyses (including from the „pro vax“ side, even though it is to be despised for their fascist behavior alone) that made the Dutch data appear more useful for these questions. But tbh, what did I expect - last time I checked the Dutch government still voted against doing an honest investigation into the ongoing excess deaths too.
Is there any official data of this kind you would trust right now?
To be fair, I have seen enough by now; the main open question for me is what role endemic covid in all those believing the cure-all narrative and going out partying before milder variants came out played.
The ONS data cannot be used that way unfortunately, and the ONS themselves have admitted to that fact. If you take the ONS data literally then COVID vaccines are a magical elixir of luck that protect against every cause of death including car crashes.
There are at least two problems:
1. The statistically invalid time-windowing games the public health agencies all played in which people who had taken vaccines were classed as unvaccinated. The sibling comment talks about that. Prof Norman Fenton has shown how this yields incorrectly high calculations of effectiveness.
2. Healthy vaccinee bias, in which people who are about to die aren't vaccinated at all because there's no point, and the sort of people who take lots of vaccines tend to be obsessive about health and risk in other ways.
Problems like these with observational data are why drugs are put through trials before being launched to market. If we check the data for say the Pfizer trial, what we see is no effect on mortality and serious problems with statistical power also, simply because so few people were dying of COVID it was basically impossible to run a trial large enough to prove it had any effect.
> The statistically invalid time-windowing games the public health agencies all played in which people who had taken vaccines were classed as unvaccinated
As I have just replied to the other commenter, the ONS data he appears to object to categorises various "vaccinated" categories starting immediately after vaccination. The regulator's reply to Fenton makes this clear: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/ed-hum...
I assume this reply is what you refer to when you say that the ONS admit the data cannot be used that way. However, since that reply, the ASMR calculation now uses data linked to the 2021 census which covers around 91% of the population. Paul Mainwood graphed the ASMRs here: https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1627979309812965381
I see no evidence here that being vaccinated makes you more likely to die, which is what the original thread was about.
Humpherson simply says that "ONS ... do receive data in [people within two weeks of vaccination], and that the individual would fall into the ‘vaccinated’ category" which is a meaningless tautology, as the entire argument is about the definition of vaccinated used by the public health agencies.
Invalid definitions are a very real and pervasive problem, not only being standard in the public health literature but also standard practice for public health agencies. Fenton has compiled a partial (!) list of papers and studies which do this:
Note that UK HSA and studies using ONS data are shown to use invalid definitions.
> the ASMR calculation now uses data linked to the 2021 census which covers around 91% of the population
They say it does, but the UK government doesn't really the true population size. They've admitted this in the past. The 2021 census is unlikely to have solved it given that the civil service doesn't really want to know (if they could actually get full coverage, then they could identify every illegal immigrant). This showed up badly during COVID where more people came forward to be vaccinated than theoretically existed at all in certain age groups. They also told people that only a small percentage of the population was unvaccinated, but when the BBC commissioned a poll as part of a programme they were making (on misinformation!) around 25% of respondents said they were unvaccinated, a huge gap.
So the data quality here is of garbage grade in almost every respect, which is a scandal. People who just tune out and decide nothing governments say on the topic can be trusted are well within reasonable bounds.
> which is a meaningless tautology, as the entire argument is about the definition of vaccinated used by the public health agencies.
The ONS mortality stats linked to by kadkadels at the start of the thread contain data related to people who received at least one COVID vaccine (counted from the day they received it, subdivided by time since reception and number of boosters), as well as an unvaccinated category who never did. This is clear to anyone who read the link that kadkadels posted.
Both you and armchairdweller falsely claimed that the unvaccinated category included people who received the vaccine less than N days ago, presumably because you believe that some deaths caused by the vaccine shortly after people receive it are hidden by these stats. But in fact, the vaccinated category starts from the day of vaccination, the unvaccinated tended to die more back when COVID was new, and the ASMR for unvaccinated and vaccinated converged by about the end of 2022, presumably because we've nearly all had COVID at least once so being vaxed now isn't doing a whole lot of good. Both the "vax did more harm than good" crowd and the "we should still be wearing masks" crowd are wrong.
Though the prime mover, Narice Bernard, seems to have moved on to newer conspiracies involving "climate lockdowns" and "15 minute cities", people who conclude that nothing HART say on COVID topics can trusted are well within reasonable bounds.
To clarify the claims: The main problem with time windowing is in the effectiveness calculations. That claim isn't specific to England or the ONS, it shows up in many studies and countries.
The main problem with UK-specific death statistics is that they (the ONS) don't know the true size of the denominator.
Regardless of the above, due to widespread intellectual corruption in academia and public health, virtually no data on the topic of COVID or COVID vaccines can be taken at face value.
> Fenton is in HART, and HART are off their collective rockers
Your link says those messages came from a public chat room that literally anyone could sign up for. So Fenton has published things on a website that hosts a chat room where other people said things you disagree with. If that's your best counter to Fenton, and not some issue with his methodologies, then it's safe to assume you concede his points are correct.
We are not talking about vaccine efficiency or efficacy here though but adverse events specifically.
>If we check the data for say the Pfizer trial, what we see is no effect on mortality
The point is that there are almost no serious adverse events occuring post-vaccination. There is no pharmacovigilance safety signal or concerning pattern wrt MRNA-vaccines. As we have seen in 2021 with the astra zeneca vaccine, post market surveillance worked and it was promptly investigated as soon as a safety signal emerged. EMA (and other regulatory agencies) communicated transparently about their findings and decisions.
Thank you for reminding me of this fine example of post-market surveillance, I almost forgot :)
Im not sure how anyone could still belive in factcheckers that claims previously that vaccination gives immunity to virus or that there are no side effects from vaccination even though we have plenty studies that monitor it quite precisely.
And I'm not sure how anyone can be a conspiracy theorist and honestly believe that all governments and regulatory agencies all over the world try to hide some grand conspiracy about vaccine efficacy and safety, but here we are.
>vaccination gives immunity to virus or that there are no side effects from vaccination
Who claims that? Nobody does or did. This is a familiar tactic: shifting the goalposts from vaccinations have very rare side effects and do not guarantee one hundred percent immunity to complete immunity and no side effects at all. Rarely does a vaccine provide complete 100% immunity from a disease, in rare cases it does, e.g. Polio. Also nobody ever claimed that vaccines have no side effects, they are just very, very rare. So rare that the expected benefits far outweigh any risk of side effects.
Fully vaccinated people can:
-Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
-Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
-Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure if asymptomatic
Today, text is deleted and exists only in archive.
How are they doing their definitions now? Could not find it.
Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot:
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2022/sterfte-e...
https://opendata.ecdc.europa.eu/covid19/
By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product. Meanwhile governments all over the world continue to be reluctant to issue data on e.g. „long covid“ or immune system problems in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, although this data would settle the debate once and for all if its outcome is in favor of getting the shots.
„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point.