Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And when one sees that data, the first thought should be about what other factors need to be considered in order to properly interpret and analyze it.
Table 13 in your link shows:
- If you were over 80 you were 2.3x more likely to die if unvaccinated.
- Age 70 to 79 you were 4x more likely to die if unvaccinated
- Age 60 to 69 you were 3.4x more likely to die if unvaccinated
- Age 50 to 59 you were 4.4x more likely to die if unvaccinated
- Age 40 to 49 you were 3.2x more likely to die if unvaccinated
- Age 30 to 39 you were 7x more likely to die if unvaccinated
Okay, but I'm not going to apologize for my first thought being, "I seem to recall a bunch of people screaming about 90%+ of the people dying with Covid are unvaccinated, and now it's 9%? What the hell happened?"
As others have begun to allude to, there is something about your Table 13 that I don't think you're aware of, and that's that only people with three or more shots are considered vaccinated. Seriously, read the table. That's what it says. They're literally counting vaccinated people as unvaccinated because they haven't taken "enough" shots.
If I were vaccinated (I'm not), I'd actually be a bit alarmed by this. I'd think, "wait, if I haven't had my booster, I have greater risk, okay, that makes some sense, but wait a second, they're lumping me in with people who haven't taken any shots, so how do I know that I with my two shots am not at HIGHER risk than someone who has had no shots, and this is a way for them to hide it?" I'm not arguing that people with two shots are at higher risk than people with none; I'm just saying that this table, with the definitions the way they are, could raise the question.
This also offers a clue as to how 89% of Covid deaths can be in the vaccinated in a country where 78% of the population is vaccinated, yet Table 13 claims vaccine effectiveness against death: Table 13 is using its own definition of vaccinated! Now, it still might be true that they could re-run Table 13 just with "people who have taken a shot" versus "people who haven't" and still get the same figures...but we don't know, because they chose to count only boosted people as vaccinated.
How comfortable are you feeling about this Table 13 now?
So yet another thread where the title is a lie and the OP was unable to comprehend the information posted in support of the title.
Sigh.
Maybe you can help me comprehend this. The Pfizer jab falls under the 50% efficacy threshold for emergency use, after 10 weeks. You get boostered with another Pfizer jab and it will give you 10 more weeks. Maybe Amazon Prime can can help people get a jab subscription.
To get to Table 13, you have to realize they're estimating the number of vaccinated (3 doses here) vs unvaccinated.
Point 1:
For whatever reason, they're leaving out 1 dose, 2 dose persons.
Since they're estimating the number of people who got the vaccine, from that they are estimating unvaccinated. Total Population - {sums of vaccinated, all of which are estimations).
Now, they specifically admit their estimations for the vaccinated are prone to overestimations:
Which means their denominators for the unvaccinated would be prone to underestimations.
This leads to the funky, and obviously wrong data.
Why would 30-39 be 7x more likely to die, compared to just 3.2 in the 40-49 age bracket?
This is why figure 12 is better. There is less estimation. They know precisely the number of hospital patients who are vaccinated or not, and when they don't they state it ('unlinked' - which are added into the unvaccinated).
When someone calculates rates from estimations, they need to include error bars. They didn't, so Table 13 is garbage.
It's crazy that people think they need permission to add a few numbers and divide by a denominator (e.g., Table 12). "Oh no, if I do this, I might be signaling 'the wrong interpretation.' I might be 'spreading misinformation.'" Yet they'll accept different data with screwy definitions and opaque inputs and obscure "adjustments" as long as it fits the "right" narrative.
Deaths dropped from 1'200 a day to around 100 a day with the same infection rates, that is a LOT of saved lives thanks to vaccinations.
To keep harping on about the UK is POINTLESS because we are back to normal, Covid is done, finished, ended, all you benders of the truth (anti vaxers) can go and post elsewhere because when it comes to the UK you are TOO LATE, 90%+ of the adult population of the UK has had the vaccine we've been vaccinated, we're living back to normal, its over. There is NO point trying to persuade Britons to go without the vaccines because we've had them so go and bother somebody else with your anti-vax nonsense.
Its NOT zero risk though is it! 979,725 American deaths is most definitely not zero.
For a healthy person in the US?
Yah.
The risk of DYING from COVID is about zero.
You may resume your state of terrified and frenzied panicking. As you were.
As an aside: How many of the US homeless population with no access to food, shelter, and hygiene products, as well as basic medical care .... have died of COVID? How many Amish have died of COVID?
2 populations that most likely never got vaccinated .... they're all dead right? Not one left standing?
Deaths dropped from 1'200 a day to around 100 a day with the same infection rates, that is a LOT of saved lives thanks to vaccinations.
To keep harping on about the UK is POINTLESS because we are back to normal, Covid is done, finished, ended, all you benders of the truth (anti vaxers) can go and post elsewhere because when it comes to the UK you are TOO LATE, 90%+ of the adult population of the UK has had the vaccine we've been vaccinated, we're living back to normal, its over. There is NO point trying to persuade Britons to go without the vaccines because we've had them so go and bother somebody else with your anti-vax nonsense.
None of what you stated is evidence of the vaccine working. Lockdowns ended because politicians said they could end. Covid peaks and wanes. Omicron was less deadly.
You may resume your state of terrified and frenzied panicking. As you were.
As an aside: How many of the US homeless population with no access to food, shelter, and hygiene products, as well as basic medical care .... have died of COVID? How many Amish have died of COVID?
2 populations that most likely never got vaccinated .... they're all dead right? Not one left standing?
Reminder: 330 million in the US.
My fit and healthy 56 year old UN-VACCINATED cousin died from Covid! I thought he was 57 but he didn't even make it that far and he was a paraglider in his spare time.
Deaths dropped from 1'200 a day to around 100 a day with the same infection rates, that is a LOT of saved lives thanks to vaccinations.
To keep harping on about the UK is POINTLESS because we are back to normal, Covid is done, finished, ended, all you benders of the truth (anti vaxers) can go and post elsewhere because when it comes to the UK you are TOO LATE, 90%+ of the adult population of the UK has had the vaccine we've been vaccinated, we're living back to normal, its over. There is NO point trying to persuade Britons to go without the vaccines because we've had them so go and bother somebody else with your anti-vax nonsense.
I assume the Amish population has been killed off, I mean 32 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE!!!!!
Did they have a mass burial that no one knew about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.