OK - fair point.
On the other hand, the death rates are separated by around 1.0 to 2.0 per 100,000.
Unless you or someone you care about is part of the extra 1.0 - 2.0 group, is that even a statistically meaningful quantity?
Keeping in mind that's the "rate" and not a "percentage."
A 1 percent to 2 percent difference is not very statistically meaningfully in most cases, but a rate of 1 vs 2 is a doubling of the rate. VERY meaningful.
As I understand it, that is a population, rather than sample, number. Very few had been jabbed by 1/1/21, of course, and it looks more like .9 to 2.2 in the most recent week, so closer to a 1.5x increase. The overall death rate usually varies by only about 1% year to year. We’re talking about a population in that age range of nearly 40 million. Finally, you’re looking at the per-week number, so the annual number is about 50x that.
Altogether this looks like a really big difference, let alone considering that most post-jab deaths come within a few days of the second shot, when people are still conveniently classified as “unvaxxed”.
10-59 is a very wide spread. Mortality is much higher in the 50’s, then in the teens.
It is well known that the older someone is, the more likely they are to be vaccinated.
Controlling for age as a variable is obvious, and is standard academic practice. That they did not do it is a huge red flag for bias (or incompetence).