Posted on 11/24/2021 7:50:52 PM PST by fireman15
I do not know if it is all that misleading. I've read your explanation that because this age group got vaccinated first, and because this age group is more likely to die anyway, then the increase is a consequence of this age group's tendency to die at a higher rate than average, which you say is creating the illusion that the vaccines are causing this.
My first thought is that this is certainly true to some extent, but is it true to the extent that it covers all this extra death? There i'm not so sure.
One would expect this delay in vaccination between the age groups would average out over time, especially now that d@mn near everyone has been fully vaccinate for quite some time.
Your claim might be true, but if this increase in vaccinated people in that age group persists, then your claim will clearly not be true, and Berenson may turn out to have actually exposed something.
Neither is advocating for the government to strip private property rights.
There is no such thing as "private property rights" when you are carrying millions of public communications. This very idea needs to be stabbed through the heart.
The phone company does not have the right to censor public communications simply because they own the infrastructure, and all these corporations are modified versions of a phone company and they need to be treated as such.
A nation cannot *allow* anyone to control public communications. Anyone wishing to do so should be denied the ability to do so by the force of law.
Excuse me, I am not your secretary. Use the search function on FR and you can find the links yourself.
The data shows that the non-covid deaths in the unvaccinated group dropped by half, while the corresponding non-covid deaths in the vaccinated group tripled as the unvaccinated became vaccinated.
We know that the populations were roughly swapped, since the unvaccinated population exceeded the vaccinated by about 18 million in March, and the vaccinated population exceeded the unvaccinated by about 10 million by September, with June being the crossover point.
Do you deny this trend in the data? Do you believe the increase in one and the decrease in the other should be similar as the "older people" leave one group and join the other, taking their mortality with them? How do we explain the excess growth in death rates when the unvaccinated "older people" became vaccinated?
-PJ
I've no idea where you got that explanation but it wasn't from me. My explanation is the one the researchers provided in a footnote which Berenson ignored:
"9. For the 10-59 age group, the vaccinated population will on average be older than the unvaccinated population due to age-based prioritisation in the vaccine roll-out. As mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population."
Because people under 18 weren't eligible for the vaccine the vaccinated 10-59 population is on average significantly older than the unvaccinated 10-59 population. Older people have higher mortality. Perfectly straightforward.
...and Berenson may turn out to have actually exposed something.
Let me know when he has some evidence to back up his claims, until then he's just making stuff up and misleading people. Knowingly.
There is no such thing as "private property rights" when you are carrying millions of public communications.
Tell that to Jim.
Oh, that's right, you have the special pleader's notion of property rights - they only belong to the people you agree with politically.
That's a concept, just not a conservative one.
I acknowledge that you're making the claim but I haven't analyzed the data myself.
Can you summarize the implications of your analysis? Do you think the vaccines are increasing all cause mortality in the under 60 population?
Folks who use President Trump as part of their case for vaccines are up to no good...
This is at best an example of the Argument from Authority fallacy—and a silly one at that—political leaders are hardly the best source of information on medical matters.
In any event all the “respectable” people have already caved on the vaxxes—we are on our own.
I am very comfortable there.
I do plan to take the vaccine, though—on the date Prizer’s last bit of data on their vaxxes is made public.
My appointment book shows the year 2076!
I forgot how precisely you use language!
You're the one who brought up footnote 9. You said "Berenson omitted or ignored the footnote in this study that explicitly explains why the numbers look the way they do:"
You said the footnote "explicitly explains why the numbers look the way they do." Can you elaborate on that, because it's not "explicitly" clear to me?
I'm not making the claim that the vaccines are increasing the mortality. I'm asking whether the decrease in mortality from the unvaccinated group should match the increase in mortality in the vaccinated group as the "older people" in footnote 9 move out of the unvaccinated group and into the vaccinated group?
That's a simple question that you won't answer.
The 5-year population bands are roughly equal, based on 2011 data, with the 55-59 band actually the smallest of the 10-59 band. And yet, the footnote is attributing this group as the cause for the mortality increase (and probably the 50-54 band, too).
According to the data, from March 19 to May 19 about 11.5 million people moved from the unvaccinated group to the vaccinated group. The chart shows that during this period, the death rate tripled for the vaccinated group, but only halved for the unvaccinated group.
I'm asking you the simple question: should we have expected the rise in one group to match the decrease in the other group? If not, since this is "explicitly explained" to you, can you explain the mismatch in rates to me?
Once we can settle on that observation, we can then discuss any further implications.
-PJ
Bullshit. I've concluded there's no evidence of a higher all-cause mortality rate in the 10-59 age group in the UK.
You said the footnote "explicitly explains why the numbers look the way they do." Can you elaborate on that, because it's not "explicitly" clear to me?
Your problem.
It's high school level logic which has been explained to you several times.
And yet, the footnote is attributing this group as the cause for the mortality increase (and probably the 50-54 band, too).
Ah, assuming good faith on your part I see you don't understand the footnote.
Well, I can't explain it any more simply than I already have so we should probably both move on to another thread.
-PJ
It's not simple, it's incoherent.
Twilight zone moment for me here. *You* pointed out the footnote, which I believe says exactly as I described. In my comprehension, that makes it *YOUR* point, even though it is a footnote from someone else.
Tell that to Jim.
Jim does not carry millions of messages per day. He is also not a public communications system, he is a private club with membership. He identifies his organization as an explicitly conservative political club.
Were he carrying millions of messages a day, and were these effectively public communications, and were he advertised as being neutral or non political, I would be demanding that he be made to obey a non censorship law too.
That's a concept, just not a conservative one.
Allowing us to be made into Jews in 1930s Germany is also not a conservative one, because to uphold conservative ideas, you have to survive.
Your ideas will kill us. They will literally cause the deaths of everyone disagreeing with the state. This vaccine censorship crap is going down that road right now.
Your paraphrase of my argument:
"...because this age group got vaccinated first"
This is actually the age group that got vaccinated last, and most importantly a large part of the age group wasn't eligible to get vaccinated at all because they were too young.
"...and because this age group is more likely to die anyway..."
They're less likely to die because they're the youngest group in the study.
"...then the increase is a consequence of this age group's tendency to die at a higher rate than average, which you say is creating the illusion that the vaccines are causing this."
The "increase" is because he's comparing a group that's 10-59 against a group thats 18-59. Of course the group with the higher average age will have higher all cause mortality.
Jim does not carry millions of messages per day.
Was that a goalpost that just whizzed past my head?
He is also not a public communications system, he is a private club with membership.
Uh, it's easier to sign up to FR than it is to the big techs. Try again
He identifies his organization as an explicitly conservative political club.
So if Facebook puts somewhere on their website that they're a moderate club that welcomes all views that's enough to keep the feds at bay? Have you really thought this through?
"Were he carrying millions of messages a day...
He's a private business owner. Why should he have to pray that his site doesn't get too popular to keep it from being seized by the government?
...and were these effectively public communications...
If Twitter is, FR is.
...and were he advertised as being neutral or non political, I would be demanding that he be made to obey a non censorship law too.
So the First Amendment is OK provided you don't engage in political speech?
Allowing us to be made into Jews in 1930s Germany is also not a conservative one, because to uphold conservative ideas, you have to survive.
OMG. Is that Zuckerberg or Sergey Brin pulling the cattle car up in front of my house? Drama queen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.