[Political Junkie Too]

But the footnote 9 says that the data is skewed by the mortality of "older people." Wouldn't the number of "older people" be more in a population that is twice the size of the other, despite it being per capita?

Wouldn't that mortality skew flip to the other population as that other population becomes the dominant one?

So where do we see the "mortality effect" flip in the chart at the top as the unvaccinated population decreases and the vaccinated population increases?

-PJ

[semimojo]

But the footnote 9 says that the data is skewed by the mortality of "older people."

Right, the proportion of "older people" is higher in the vaccinated population because there are zero "younger people", that is under 18, in that group while there are many in the unvaccinated group.

Wouldn't the number of "older people" be more in a population that is twice the size of the other, despite it being per capita?

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

Per capita income doesn't necessarily change as the population grows, does it?

So where do we see the "mortality effect" flip in the chart at the top as the unvaccinated population decreases and the vaccinated population increases?

Not sure how to say this again.

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?

Is it more or fewer than died in a demographically similar group of unvaccinated 100,000 people.

That's it. It doesn't matter how many total in each group there are, the rate calculation normalizes for that.

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