British government stops reporting data

a reply to: chr0naut

Okay, lets do some simple maths. Are you ready? Now, before we start, I want to preface this by saying that I am no stats major, nor am I using the most current data. What I am doing is using an official data source, however, as it seems this is what you respond to.

The link to the data I am using = COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report

the chart from page 43 of above linked document. Aren't data tables great?!!



Take from this what you will, but what I think it shows is that you are wrong and that a third "booster" shot MAY increase your chance of death.

In the bottom row, the 80 or over row, we see that the vast majority of persons whom have regretfully passed away have had a third dose. These are the individuals whom are most susceptible, and also the most likely to get every booster the government wants them to. I think we can agree on this, so we will be working with this particular dataset. A larger dataset is generally more reliable, and this is the group of persons whom the push was initially aimed at for vaccination so I see it fit for us to examine this data especially.

We see that there are 1883 deaths total. This includes all vaccination statuses as well as a few *unlinked* deaths. You will have to read the fine print on the aforementioned link to determine what that means as I cannot tell you, and it is insignificant to this exercise. The number of persons not vaccinated whom died is 123. The number of persons whom died after having had a booster, or third dose, is 1456.

Now, we cannot do anything with these numbers until we know what percent of the population has been vaccinated to what level. This will allow us to see if these deaths line up with your statements. In this case, we would expect to see a third shot increasing the chance of survival (Based solely on what we are told by governments, big pharma, and MSM sources). In order for that to be true, we would want to see a lower death rate in those boosted than what we see in the unvaxed.

According to the BBC, during the same time period as the data we are looking at, 1 in 10 brits are unvaxed with 7 in 10 having been boosted. What this means, in this situation, is that we should see less than 70% of the deaths in those tripple vaxed. That is, if it has the effect we are looking for, you would expect to see more deaths by percentage in the unvaxed than we do in the boosted.

With this in mind, we should expect to see 188.3 of the deaths in unvaxed individuals and 1318.1 deaths in those triple vaxed based solely on the % of the population in those categories. This is before we factor in what we all hope would be a life saving effect from the vaccine. Unfortunately, we do not.

1456 > 1318.1

AND

123 < 183.3

a reply to: andr3w68

Not quite.

Re-read the BBC article you posted or see the surveilance data - you've applied the boostrer/vaccine rates for over 12s rather than the over 80 bracket to the over 80s data so are arriving at the wrong result.

Booster rates in over 80s are over 90%, whilke unvaccinated in the over 80s are less than 4% so instead data shows it greatly reduces risk uaing that method as a crude measure.

a reply to: bastion

You are correct in that I used a general percentage for my already rough math. The correct number to use would have been 90.6% of over 80's are triple vaxed, and I will certainly concede to that point. Bearing that in mind, lets take a look at the risk reduction that would represent. Considering the actual figure is 90.6% of over 80's are vaxed (determined by adding the stats in the "Take up lower among ethnic minorities" table and dividing by the number of ethnicities listed) the new numbers would be as follows:

90.6% of 1883 = 1705.998, but I think we can make that 1706 for easier math. This is the number that would be expected if the vaccine had no effect.

1706 - 1465 = 241 is the deviation from what would be expected if there was no effect

241 / 1706 = .142 or a 14.2% decrease in mortality rate from what would be expected if the vaccine had no effect

Meaning that you are 14.2% less likely to die having had a third shot by this data

Although I saw no 4% figure listed in the source I provided, I will also re-do the figures for your data concerning the unvaccinated.

4% of 1883 = 75.32 and is the number of deaths that would be expected for the population of unvaxed if the vaccine had no effect.

123 - 75 = 48 is the amount of excess deaths in the data and can be represented by a percent of

48 / 78 = 0.64 or a 64% increase in deaths to what would be expected if the vaccine had no effect.

This points towards the vaccine having properties of protection, and with this math, my previous statement can be dismissed. I admit, this shows the exact opposite from what I previously stated.

I don't, however, fully believe this data to be accurate. As stated in my first post I used MSM and government provided figures that as we have seen can be manipulated.

if nothing else, hopefully I have shown someone how to break data down, and also how easily you can go astray while doing so.

All I have is one question. Why does everyone want everyone else to die? Constantly, just no unity. Every time something happens everyone wishes the worse ESPECIALLY if they did not listen to what one said. Like what we say is the only importance. Speak and then pretend to listen, waiting for their chance to speak their only correct, intelligent, view. What happened to us. It seems the ones everyone is against is continue to fuel them, everyday. Why do conspiracy theories constantly portray a negative image, and the only way to achieve these goals is through a full society collapse with no direction of how to move forward. How is that progressive? Sure everything is corrupt and broken but WE all have allowed this to happen, We all share the blame collectively. I used to be on this site under a different name and seeing it what it has fallen into.... Such a shame. Once a site of intelligence now it ran from the bathroom stall. Hate is extremely consuming and will allow our destruction. We create our lives everyday, the end will be complete.

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: chr0naut

Okay, lets do some simple maths. Are you ready? Now, before we start, I want to preface this by saying that I am no stats major, nor am I using the most current data. What I am doing is using an official data source, however, as it seems this is what you respond to.

The link to the data I am using = COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report

the chart from page 43 of above linked document. Aren't data tables great?!!

Take from this what you will, but what I think it shows is that you are wrong and that a third "booster" shot MAY increase your chance of death.

In the bottom row, the 80 or over row, we see that the vast majority of persons whom have regretfully passed away have had a third dose. These are the individuals whom are most susceptible, and also the most likely to get every booster the government wants them to. I think we can agree on this, so we will be working with this particular dataset. A larger dataset is generally more reliable, and this is the group of persons whom the push was initially aimed at for vaccination so I see it fit for us to examine this data especially.

We see that there are 1883 deaths total. This includes all vaccination statuses as well as a few *unlinked* deaths. You will have to read the fine print on the aforementioned link to determine what that means as I cannot tell you, and it is insignificant to this exercise. The number of persons not vaccinated whom died is 123. The number of persons whom died after having had a booster, or third dose, is 1456.

Now, we cannot do anything with these numbers until we know what percent of the population has been vaccinated to what level. This will allow us to see if these deaths line up with your statements. In this case, we would expect to see a third shot increasing the chance of survival (Based solely on what we are told by governments, big pharma, and MSM sources). In order for that to be true, we would want to see a lower death rate in those boosted than what we see in the unvaxed.

According to the BBC, during the same time period as the data we are looking at, 1 in 10 brits are unvaxed with 7 in 10 having been boosted. What this means, in this situation, is that we should see less than 70% of the deaths in those tripple vaxed. That is, if it has the effect we are looking for, you would expect to see more deaths by percentage in the unvaxed than we do in the boosted.

With this in mind, we should expect to see 188.3 of the deaths in unvaxed individuals and 1318.1 deaths in those triple vaxed based solely on the % of the population in those categories. This is before we factor in what we all hope would be a life saving effect from the vaccine. Unfortunately, we do not.

1456 > 1318.1

AND

123 < 183.3

The numbers in that particular table were only of deaths, and weren't of a comparison between those protected and those who died.

Firstly, we know that there are breakthrough cases, and that some people still die from the disease because of that. If 100% of the population were triple vaccinated, the number of deaths would only represent breakthrough cases. So, there's that.

Secondly, the age group with the most deaths is also the most vulnerable to the disease, and also the ones most likely to be under constant medical care, so the percentage of them that are triple vaccinated would be likely to be closer to that 100% coverage than the rest of the general population. The government has put their vaccinations at a priority as is shown in the chart on page 10, which show that those over the age of 70 are more than 90% triple vaccinated since the start of the year.

Thirdly, the rest of the document shows that by multiple measures, mortality risk is clearly reduced by the vaccinations, and this is clearly summarized in table 1 on page 11.

By ignoring the true reductions in mortality overall, and the clearly summarized conclusions of the rest of the document, you have drawn an invalid conclusion.

*edit- I see you have now recalculated and find that there is a protective effect from the vaccines. However, you doubt the official figures. That would be fair enough, but to be rigorous in your analysis, you should post the magnitude of those margins of error, and your calculations that they are based upon. A 'feeling' that the numbers are wrong doesn't cut it. These numbers are the best we have and are collated to the best of the abilities of the persons involved in collating and advising about what they represent (primarily, the staff of the UK Health Security Agency).

a reply to: anonentity

This is from a Welsh guy who has been following the data from early on, he has noticed that the British government has stopped publishing the death data of the vaccinated and unvaccinated

To my knowledge the government never reported vaccination status in their figures other than numbers of those who had taken the vaccine and boosters.

...he has noticed that the British government has stopped publishing the death data of the vaccinated and unvaccinated...

I do appreciate the earnest analysis of the figures, but can we get back on topic of the thread, please?

I see there in the weekly surveillance report that the last publication was April 7th 2022.

Today is April 14, 2002. That's one week from the last publication.

Today has not even ended to become tomorrow, yet. Is that a sufficient lapse in time before we can surmise deductively that publication has ceased?

It's an honest question, and I do believe it is possible to find actual sources for a thread other than bitchute.

a reply to: andy06shake

Again a personal slight on the source of the information, and nothing on the information itself. You are shooting the messenger and doing yourself a disservice by doing so.

a reply to: anonentity

Here is one that is not from Bitchute, but he is dodging censorship. There is a good bit with an Australian perspective on mainstream even the presenter has a "Bit of Bells Palsy"