Can someone explain this to me?
P53, table 20 of the original document has the raw numbers of deaths. Plus the death rate per 100,000 plus standardized by age.
The expose article on its graph dealing with death, only used the raw numbers - 11 unvax deaths to 99 vax deaths Nov 6 - 12. But a higher percentage are vaxed, so that just comparing raw numbers doesn’t give the right picture.
I’m not happy with the original document standardizing for age without giving the data how they did that. And I’d need to see how they adjusted for the “per 100,000” numbers too. Without giving the original numbers, this just seems like they made up numbers without proof
I’m not vaccinated and never will be. But I did decide to look at these numbers since there was claims of falsification. And I found that. I don’t believe we need to weaken our argument by using wrong data. Unless I am seeing it wrong.
I would like anybody to explain, using numbers. Just saying that everything is incorrect isn’t specific enough
CottonBall wrote:Can someone explain this to me? P53, table 20 of the original document has the raw numbers of deaths. Plus the death rate per 100,000 plus standardized by age. The expose article on its graph dealing with death, only used the raw numbers - 11 unvax deaths to 99 vax deaths Nov 6 - 12. But a higher percentage are vaxed, so that just comparing raw numbers doesn’t give the right picture. ransomnote: What is the 'right picture' you wanted to see? I was comfortable knowing 110 persons total died, 99 were 'vaccinated'. I know most people are 'vaccinated' so I 'get' what the data means. I’m not happy with the original document standardizing for age without giving the data how they did that. And I’d need to see how they adjusted for the “per 100,000” numbers too. Without giving the original numbers, this just seems like they made up numbers without proof I gleaned useful information from the Expose article as written. I'm sorry to read that you are 'unhappy' with the original (Scott. gov) document. I don't know why you'd 'need' to see the Scottish government's numbers, but if so - perhaps research further on your own. I’m not vaccinated and never will be. But I did decide to look at these numbers since there was claims of falsification. And I found that. I don’t believe we need to weaken our argument by using wrong data. Unless I am seeing it wrong. You are seeing it 'wrong' if by 'wrong' one can mean 'different' from your preferred perspective. This data is not falsified or distored. It offers some analysis and correctly identified perspectives looking at data. Anyone can dig for more. It did not mislable or mislead. The fact that you doubt the Scottish government's numbers probably isn't going to be addressed on an article in the forum. I would like anybody to explain, using numbers. Just saying that everything is incorrect isn’t specific enough |
The explanation is in the fine print of Table 20. If you follow the links, it takes you here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021
Where you will learn this:
The age-standardised mortality rate for deaths involving COVID-19 is 32 times higher for unvaccinated people than for those who received the second dose
It's basically a way of correcting for the factors I just mentioned in an earlier post. MOST Covid deaths are old people. But, MOST deaths of ANY kind, are also old people. In Scotland, as in most countries very close to 100% of elderly people are vaccinated. Thus, these "vaccinated" people are dying at a MUCH higher rate than the "unvaccinated" younger people. This factoring, done by Scottish Health authorities, corrects for this age bias.
They also mention the other factor I mentioned: Overall health is another factor. They don't have a way of correcting for this, but... typically, older people have significantly higher co-morbidities.
I'm fascinated by another factor that stands out...(one that I also see in the Singapore data) that is: People who receive only 1 dose are close to the same danger level as the unvaccinated. It really takes TWO doses, and some time for the benefits to become significant.