Posted on 09/28/2021 9:07:48 PM PDT by blueplum
In mid-September, King County, Washington, in which Seattle is located, released an eye-popping slide about vaccine efficacy and breakthrough prevalence: Vaccines had reduced the risk of infection from COVID sevenfold, county data showed, and reduced the risk of hospitalization and death 41-fold and 42-fold, respectively.
...But in small type, King County included some other data that paint what seems at first blush like a very different picture: Fully 25 percent of deaths were among vaccinated people, the county reported. How can this be?... The answer is actually quite simple: the overwhelming age skew of the disease...
...All else being equal, an unvaccinated 66-year-old is about 30 times more likely to die, given a confirmed case, than an unvaccinated 36-year-old... your chances of dying from a confirmed case roughly double with every five to eight years of age...
...That 11-fold reduction of risk found in the national CDC study, for instance?... a vaccinated 80-year-old has about the same mortality risk as an unvaccinated 50-year-old, and an unvaccinated 30-year-old has a lower risk than a vaccinated 45-year-old. Even a 42-fold reduction... would only be the rough equivalent... between an unvaccinated 85-year-old woman and an unvaccinated 50-year-old...
... If we want to believe, say, a vaccinated 75-year-old is safe, have we now simply normalized a higher level of individual risk than seemed moral to accept as recently as 12 months ago, given that they may not be any less in danger of dying than an unvaccinated 53-year-old? If we are now debating what we can do, in schools especially, to protect unvaccinated children, who are much safer still, should we not be discussing at the same time what measures can be taken, beyond boosters, to protect the vaccinated elderly?
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
I found two points prominent and well argued: vaccines have been proven to slide risk down a couple of decades and defeat age skewing. And, rather than vaccinating the lowest risk group, kids, and the highest risk group, elderly and then relying only on the vaccines to protect them, more should be done to address and interrupt the age-skewing of the disease - starting with the elderly and working down the age groups, instead of vaccinating the two population extremes (one of which doesn't need vaccinating) while leaving a mish mash in the middle. How to do that, is the discussion.
5. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy. The average age of a “Covid death” in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy it’s 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82.
In almost all cases the median age of a “Covid death” is higher than the national life expectancy.
As such, for most of the world, the “pandemic” has had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [source]
https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/
Okay, so really old people are most at risk. Fine, quarantine them, let them vaccinate if they wish, but leave the rest of us alone.
Okay, so really old people are most at risk. Fine, quarantine them, let them vaccinate if they wish, but leave the rest of us alone.
This thing is simply not so deadly that we need concern our federal and local governments with it at all.
You make good points. But the problem with these statistics and others used to convince people to get the jabs is that they are using data that dates all the way back to the beginning of the “pandemic”. The “vaccines” do not give much, if any protection against the latest variants.
that’s not really what the author is saying, tho
Some may say, the seniors can ‘leave us alone’. (ie not be bothered with worrying about seniors)? But what the author is pointing out is that ‘leave us alone’ crowd, say an unvaccinaed 40yo’d for example, has a higher hospitalization/death rate than a vaccinated 65yo’d. People dismiss risk by focusing on age. But we don’t need to segregate younger seniors (or look at them as some sort of superspreaders out in public) if we understand vaccination puts them in a decades-lower risk group (morbities excepted). But at the same time not being vaccinated accelerates the risk to that of a higher age group (morbidities accelerating). So why is our focus on seniors and kiddies when we should be focused on those most likely to become infected and transfer that infection to kids/seniors? Those within each age group most likely to need a Plan A and a Plan B, and then focus testing on them, to catch any dumpster fires before they become forest fires. Whether it be vaccination or awareness of monoclonols and how/where to get them, etc. With 80% of seniors vaccinated, approx, it’s time to refocus on who is the real ‘most at risk’ instead of vaccinating or restricting the least at risk.
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.