SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons Aged ≥16 Years, by Vaccination Status — Los Angeles County, California, May 1–July 25, 2021
Weekly / August 27, 2021 / 70(34);1170–1176
I know I am going to get flamed for this, which is fine. I am challenging her claims because the anti-Covid Vaccine and anti-CDC-vaccines-or-nothing side of this has their own fake news and snake oil salesmen too. Not everyone who criticizes the CDC is automatically good at it. We need good information, sources and arguments. When critics of the CDC make statements that opponents can easily discredit, it is like we are scoring baskets on ourselves, not the other side. My concern is that is what is happening here, and I know not everyone on FR appreciates this.
Claim: "The CDC is now listing vaccinated COVID-19 deaths as UNvaccinated deaths if they die within 14 days of the vaccine."
Does the study support the claim in the graphic:
Or is the truth buried in it so that reading between the lines is needed?
Does the tweet represent or misrepresent the study cited?
What does the paper actually say?
Dr Gold's highlights:
" however, even with highly effective vaccines, a proportion of fully vaccinated persons will become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19"
The vaccines are not 100% effective, the manufacturers and CDC never said they were. 95% effectiveness in tests means a 5% failure rate.
"Persons were considered fully vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines) or after 1 dose of the single-dose Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine¶; partially vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and <14 days after the second dose in a 2-dose series; and unvaccinated <14 days after receipt of the first dose of a 2-dose series or 1 dose of the single-dose vaccine or if no CAIR2 vaccination data were available."
This part defines who is unvaccinated, partially or fully vaccinated, using a two dose regimen. Nothing about deaths.
Lets look at what was not highlighted after this.
COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were defined as hospital admissions occurring ≤14 days after a first SARS-CoV-2 infection. COVID-19–associated deaths were defined as deaths occurring ≤60 days after the date of a first laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or deaths with COVID-19 listed as a cause of or contributing condition to death."
This defines hospitalization. It uses the 14 day period in relation to infection, not vaccination. There is nothing to show here the people who get vaccinated and die are automatically listed as unvaccinated deaths. Again, these are definitions of terms.
What Dr. Gold did was confuse the definitions with the conclusions and read into what was not there (yet). A doctor should know better than that, and her critics will spot that error fast.
"A lower percentage of deaths (0.2%, 24) occurred among fully vaccinated persons than among partially vaccinated (0.5%, seven) and unvaccinated (0.6%, 176) persons (p<0.001). Death investigations determined that six of the 24 fully vaccinated persons who died had immunocompromising conditions, including HIV infection, cancer (i.e., prostate, pancreatic, lung, or leukemia), and liver transplantation, and that the median age was higher among vaccinated (median = 78 years, IQR = 63.5–87.5 years) and partially vaccinated (median = 74, IQR = 58.0–80.0) persons than among unvaccinated persons (median = 63, IQR = 51.5–79.5) (p = 0.01)"
Some of the vaccinated still died, this was at lower than the partial and unvaccinated. Of the vaccinated who died, 1/4 had risks and their median age was in the high risk age group. The elderly and high risk commorbidities are at high risk, no matter and no surprises there.
Please read before blasting away:
Not many died, with or without vaccines, and we need to know the data break down to know risks between low and high risk groups. If we don't need the jab, we don't need the jab no matter what the CDC wants. If people who die only from Covid do so at rate similar to the flu, then mandatory vaccinations do not make much sense, except for purposes of social control.
IRRC, the Pfizers study did the same thing, using a controlled presentation of information for the risks by not providing a detailed breakdown. What is not being presented or explained is a area that needs to be questioned.
"The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations. First, vaccination data for persons who lived in Los Angeles County at the time of their laboratory-confirmed infection but who were vaccinated outside of California were unavailable, leading to misclassification of their vaccination status; if vaccinated persons without accessible records were considered to be unvaccinated, the incidence in unvaccinated persons could be underestimated. Second, case ascertainment is based on passive surveillance, with known underreporting that might differ by vaccination status. Similarly, screening and testing behaviors might differ among groups. Third, COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were determined based on hospital admission and SARS-CoV-2 test dates alone, leading to the inclusion of incidental hospitalizations that were not associated with COVID-19. Fourth, COVID-19–associated deaths included deaths occurring ≤60 days after a first SARS-CoV-2 positive test date; therefore, some COVID-19–associated deaths might have been from other causes (excluding trauma). In addition, certain COVID-19–associated deaths might have been a result of long-term sequelae after ≤60 days and were not included."
Nothing about vaccines causes deaths so far, this is about definitions for data used collection. The vaccines are not perfect, and some will die after getting them. 95% success rates in trials means 5% failure. The longer the time period between vaccination and infection, the more other causes and issues are involved.
What is not included:
A breakdown of a timeline showing relationships between vaccination and hospitalization. There is nothing presented to show when the vaccinated who got Covid got it in relation to their vaccination. Right now, for most public health, fighting Covid comes first, analyzing problems with methods is a distant second for most of them.
Does the study back Dr. Gold's claims: No.
Does she misrepresent it: Yes.
Does the study show vaccines are working: Yes.
Does the study prove vaccines are necessary for everyone: No.
Does the study show vaccines are causing problems: Can not be determined.
Are there issues with vaccines from other sources: Yes.
Comments?