Vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age

Geller Report ^ | 11/24/2021 | Alex Berenson

[fireman15]

Your attitude and determination to lead a well-rounded life as much as possible no matter the circumstances that occur in your life are the determining factors for health and longevity.

It is not necessary for me to go into my personal experiences, but I could not agree with you more. A sense of purpose and determination to overcome all obstacles set in one's path are very good predictors of longevity. This could easily be a factor in the dataset. But the elephant in the room is still that the experimental “vaccines” have lost their efficacy against new variants that they were never designed to combat.

[entropy12]

227,000,000 American are not afraid of the jabs since they chose to get them. That is 75% of American adults. That is more than THREE times BIGGER than votes president Trump received.

How many are in you anti-vaxxer group?

[Tymesup]

I looked at some mortality rates at a variety of ages and two genders. It took at least a 5 year age difference to double the rate.

What led you to a 2 year age difference?

Note that in addition to an age difference between the two groups, there could be a health difference. Unhealthy folks might very well tend to get vaccinated.

Further note that it’s difficult to conclude the vaccines are effective from this graph.

[Tymesup]

Perhaps lumping 10-59 means there’s one bad graph compared to three good graphs for the older ages. If they did 5 graphs, they might have 5 bad graphs. Or maybe one of them has a multiple of 3 or more.

[Wallace T.]

Where do your statistics come from concerning the percentage of American adults who are vaccinated, and are they accurate? If this is based on opinion polls, people who oppose the mainstream narrative are reluctant to admit it to strangers. Why do Republicans, for example Youngkin in Virginia, consistently do better than most opinion polls report? This country, especially in "blue" areas, is increasingly resembling the old Soviet Union, where people express opinions in public different than what they believe.

If the statistics are based on data from the CDC, why should we trust this agency any more than other Federal agencies, e.g., the FBI? Given the stream of disinformation the agency has disseminated, confidence in their data is not a reasonable position.

[Political Junkie Too]

The number would be greater but not the rate. That's what the per capita calculation is for.

Per capita just takes the absolute numbers and divides them by the total population and then multiplies it by 100,000. There is no other magic than that.

The size of the populations doesn't affect this calculation. Out of every 100,000 vaccinated people how many died of a non-Covid cause?

It's not the size of the population, it's the mix of the population. Prior to June 19, the mix of the population was that the unvaccinated was 2.5 times the size of the vaccinated population. They were roughly equal at June 19. By September, the vaccinated population was 2.5 times the unvaccinated population.

So, your question should be: "Out of every 100,000 vaccinated people on March 19 [June 19, etc.], how many died of a non-Covid cause?" And so on. Because the population was not static across all time periods.

What you asked is the difference between the data on table 3 and table 4 from the dataset.

Per Capita	COVID-19 Deaths		Non-COVID-19 Deaths
Week Ending	Vaccinated	Unvaccinated	Vaccinated	Unvaccinated
19-Mar-2021	0	0.2	1	1.9
26-Mar-2021	0	0.2	0.6	1.8
02-Apr-2021	0	0.2	1.1	1.6
09-Apr-2021	0	0.1	1.4	1.4
16-Apr-2021	0	0.1	1.5	1.5
23-Apr-2021	0	0	2	1.4
30-Apr-2021	0	0	2.8	1.3
07-May-2021	0	0	2.9	1.2
14-May-2021	0	0.1	3	1.1
21-May-2021	0	0	3.3	1.3
28-May-2021	0	0	3	1.1
04-Jun-2021	0	0	2.7	1.1
11-Jun-2021	0	0.1	2.8	1.1
18-Jun-2021	0	0	2.7	1.1
25-Jun-2021	0	0.1	3.1	1.4
02-Jul-2021	0	0.2	2.8	1.3
09-Jul-2021	0.1	0.2	2.8	1.1
16-Jul-2021	0.1	0.2	2.6	1.2
23-Jul-2021	0.1	0.3	2.9	1.5
30-Jul-2021	0.1	0.4	2.9	1.6
06-Aug-2021	0.1	0.6	2.6	1.4
13-Aug-2021	0.2	0.4	2.6	1.2
20-Aug-2021	0.2	0.5	2.5	1.5
27-Aug-2021	0.1	0.6	2.2	1.4
03-Sep-2021	0.2	0.4	2.3	1.4
10-Sep-2021	0.2	0.5	2.7	1.4
17-Sep-2021	0.2	0.5	2.2	1.3
24-Sep-2021	0.2	0.4	2.2	0.9

The problem here is one of the two populations is older on average, so naturally their mortality rate is higher.

No. The "older" population (55-59) is changing depending on the time slice.

According to this Wikipedia article on the vaccination roll-out in the United Kingdom, the general population under 60 without comorbidities didn't begin getting vaccinated until March (the start of the data). The youngest groups began vaccination in June.

The "older" population is the unvaccinated population before June 18, and is the vaccinated population after June 18 (from the table in my earlier post). The 65+ group was vaccinated before the start of the data (pre-March).

By the equilibrium point in June 18 when the youngest members began to be vaccinated, supposedly they would bring down the per capita death rate as they enter the vaccinated population. However, this does not seem to be happening according to the data.

The unvaccinated per capita non-COVID death rate falls from a high of 1.9 in March to about 1.1 in June. However, the vaccinated per capita non-COVID death rate rises from 1 in March to a peak of 3.1 in June, and remains at that level.

Why does the vaccinated non-COVID death rate rise faster than the unvaccinated non-COVID death rate falls as the population moves from the latter group to the former?

-PJ

[entropy12]

ttps://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

[entropy12]

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

[entropy12]

Deaths in USA are ubiquitous. 2 million+- Americans were dying every year BEFORE China virus arrived.

Many people have one foot in grave and other on banana peel, due to severe comorbidities. These people should never have received covid vaccines. That was too much stress for their fragile bodies.

I am at age 81, have received the booster shot last week, and now healthy as a race horse. But I am different. I have discipline to not over-eat, not drink booze, not smoke and exercise daily in a gym. Even as athletic and strong my body is, even I felt tired the next day after the shots. On 3rd day after the shots, I was back to hitting the gym.

[Wallace T.]

So the numbers come from the CDC. Why should they be trusted. given their propensity for disinformation?

[entropy12]

USAFACTS.ORG is NOT CDC. Drink some coffee.

[entropy12]

So you trust the medically unqualified and anonymous posters here more than our government’s department for disease control? If yes, no need to discuss more.

[Wallace T.]

I trust neither the Feds and their liberal media, large corporate and Big Pharma allies nor the alternative media or alternative medicine on face value. But given the former group's long history of lies and disinformation, not only in the field of medicine but also on issues like election integrity and BLM/Antifa, my mistrust of them is justified.

[Wallace T.]

Their statistics are derived from the CDC.

[semimojo]

It's not the size of the population, it's the mix of the population.

Exactly. And during the study the vaccinated 10-59 population was on average significantly older than the unvaccinated 10-59 population. Because there were no vaccinated people between 10-18!!

In essence they were comparing an 18-59 population to a 10-59 population. Of course the on-average younger unvaccinated population had a lower mortality rate. As anyone would expect.

Prior to June 19, the mix of the population was that the unvaccinated was 2.5 times the size of the vaccinated population. They were roughly equal at June 19. By September, the vaccinated population was 2.5 times the unvaccinated population.

Which has exactly zero bearing on the per/100,000 calculation.

The youngest groups began vaccination in June.

Read your own Wikipedia article. Vaccinations for 12-18 year olds wasn't approved until September.

The "older" population is the unvaccinated population before June 18, and is the vaccinated population after June 18 (from the table in my earlier post). The 65+ group was vaccinated before the start of the data (pre-March).

You're confused about the study. The cohorts older than the 10-59 one are fairly matched in age. The 10-59 one wasn't because there were no vaccinated people between 10-18. It wasn't apples-to-apples. This is why Berenson chose only that cohort and didn't report on the significantly higher all-cause mortality among the unvaccinated in all the other brackets.

He chose the one that the researchers warned was invalid and ignored the ones that were a fair comparison.

Do you think he did that out of ignorance?

Do you think it odd that he only reported on that one cohort?

So, your question should be: "Out of every 100,000 vaccinated people on March 19 [June 19, etc.], how many died of a non-Covid cause?"

I think that's what the study shows us.

When a death was recorded the questions were 1) was this person vaccinated? and; 2) what was the age of the person?

The number of deaths were then compared to the size of the vaccinated or unvaccinated populations at that time and the mortality rate was established.

I'll look at the other questions you have about the study but for now let's focus on Berenson's claims which are the subject of the thread.

His characterization of the data is misleading and he doesn't share the researcher's perfectly reasonable and intuitively obvious explanation with his readers.

Do you think he respects his readers when he does this?

[Political Junkie Too]

You're confused about the study. The cohorts older than the 10-59 one are fairly matched in age. The 10-59 one wasn't because there were no vaccinated people between 10-18. It wasn't apples-to-apples. This is why Berenson chose only that cohort and didn't report on the significantly higher all-cause mortality among the unvaccinated in all the other brackets.

That is the majority of the population that is considered to be "healthy."

That is also the breakout of the data in the government tables. The breakouts were 10-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80+.

We are working with the data we have, not the data we want to have.

In essence they were comparing an 18-59 population to a 10-59 population. Of course the on-average younger unvaccinated population had a lower mortality rate. As anyone would expect.

Again, I said that was a rolling population. People moved from the unvaccinated population to the vaccinated population. The question is, while the older people were in the unvaccinated population, wouldn't the non-COVID death rate be higher during the intervals that they were still in that population?

As the older people moved to the vaccinated population (and take their mortality rates with them), wouldn't the unvaccinated death rate fall by the same amount that the vaccinated death rate grew, due to the people moving out of one and into the other?

When a death was recorded the questions were 1) was this person vaccinated? and; 2) what was the age of the person? The number of deaths were then compared to the size of the vaccinated or unvaccinated populations at that time and the mortality rate was established.

So why did the non-COVID deaths in the unvaccinated population fall by half, while the non-COVID deaths in the vaccinated population triple?

for now let's focus on Berenson's claims which are the subject of the thread.

Isn't that the claim, that the vaccinated population is dying faster from other causes than before, since their rate has tripled while the unvaccinated population only fell by half?

Do you think he respects his readers when he does this?

I haven't read his stuff, I only went to the government site and downloaded the government spreadsheet. My data arguments come from the UK government dataset.

The focus of the subject is footnote 9 that suggests that the "older people" in the population are skewing the death rates. I'm arguing that the "older population" is moving between the two datasets, so a decrease in one population should be mirrored by an increase in the other as "older people" move out of one and into the other. That's not happening, according to the data. The death rate in the vaccinated population is increasing faster than the death rate in the unvaccinated population is decreasing.

-PJ

[Tunehead54]

Link(s) please?

Just one will do.

;-)

[alexander_busek]

I looked at some mortality rates at a variety of ages and two genders. It took at least a 5 year age difference to double the rate. What led you to a 2 year age difference?

I clearly indicated that my figure of a 2-3 year age-difference was an entirely hypothetical supposition, for the sake of speculation.

Note that in addition to an age difference between the two groups, there could be a health difference. Unhealthy folks might very well tend to get vaccinated.

Might be. But could also be the reverse. It's too bad that this data doesn't permit an exploration of such interesting suppositions!

Regards,

[politicianslie]

But what is even more unbelievable is that so many politicians, the media, and even people here make excuses and want to allow the authorities to keep forcing this failed experiment on the public.

The murderers such as Fraudci are marveling at their luck to convince millions to take the poison death shot. There are too many people on Earth and the DimWITS are going to change that. The "experiment" is going exactly as planned.

Have you ever wondered WHY the Jews got on the trains to take them to camps and then willingly got into showers to be murdered? You are watching the same story play out as the sheeple stand in line to get jabbed.

ERs Swamped

The only thing they have to do now is to hide that the ERs are swamped because the VAXXXXED have had their immune systems damaged and in some cases destroyed. Cancer, heart problems, organ damage etc. will become common with the vaxxxxed- and the CCP's POTUS will escalate pressure to get the unvaxxxed in line to join the growing parade of the dying.

[semimojo]

The breakouts were 10-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80+.

In the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ cohorts, where we have comparable data, the unvaccinated have a much higher mortality rate and there's nothing in the data to suggest the same isn't true for those under 60.

We are working with the data we have, not the data we want to have.

Bingo! And we don't have the data to make the claim Berenson makes because we don't have directly comparable data sets for those 10-59.

Isn't that the claim, that the vaccinated population is dying faster from other causes than before, since their rate has tripled while the unvaccinated population only fell by half?

No. Read the article.

His claim is in the 10-59 age group the vaccinated have a higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated. The people compiling the data explicitly say the data don't support that conclusion yet Berenson makes it anyway, and people keep posting his misinformation here.

You may have other questions about the study but Berenson's mendacity is undeniable.

Peace.