Replies

"Do you wonder at all why Alex didn't post any data for the older cohorts?"

Yes, because he was trying to focus on the segment of the population where mortality is generally low, and where any adverse effects of the vaccines might be more apparent and more relevant. If he had included the older age groups, you probably would have made an issue of THAT.

In the younger age groups, most of the co-morbidities that are associated with the vast majority of Covid-19 deaths are neither as common nor as deadly as in the older groups.

In the younger age groups, most of the co-morbidities that are associated with the vast majority of Covid-19 deaths are neither as common nor as deadly as in the older groups.

Quite right, and thus is the death rate for all causes lower as well. However, there is a large difference between those in their twenties and thirties and for instance the age group 50 - 59. The data is there in the Xls-file.

If one assumes (a big IF since the data is not presented in this file) that 90% of the people in the age group 50 - 59 years are vaccinated, then one can correct for the age bias in the two groups (assuming that all other ages are equally vaccinated) and then there is no difference in deaths between unvaccinated and vaccinated.

When the people who are publishing this data are aware of the age-bias one wonders why they present the data without one more data-sheet showing the effect of correcting for the age-bias? Sloppy to say the least!

As it stands the data certainly indicate an increased mortality in vaccinated people in the younger to middle-aged age-group, though, I suspect if a proper correction for age had been carried out there would not be any difference.

On the basis on such sloppy data people are asked to decide whether to get vaccinated or not! Really bad!

Yes, because he was trying to focus on the segment of the population where mortality is generally low, and where any adverse effects of the vaccines might be more apparent and more relevant.

But he doesn't have the data to explore that because the vaccinated group skews older.

His source for the data explicitly stated this and explained why the comparison he's making isn't valid, yet he publishes this anyway.

If I was a vax sceptic I'd be offended that Berenson has so little respect for me. He's willing to intentionally mislead me just to perpetuate his grift.

If he had included the older age groups, you probably would have made an issue of THAT.

Why would I make an issue of more complete data?

I have the raw data set.

I haven't done a big analysis but in the week of September 24th the all-cause death rate per 100,000 for fully vaccinated people over 80 was 10. For the unvaccinated over 80 it was 40.

Four times higher for the unvaccinated.

How about the 60-69 cohort?

Vaccinated - 1.1

Unvaccinated - 8.5

He's focusing on the one cohort where he can misrepresent the data since he thinks people won't read the footnotes while ignoring the data showing the all-cause death rate is overall massively higher in the unvaccinated.