Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope, unless vaccination status is factored into the data sets then all you have is speculation.

To perform an accurate comparative analysis you require this factor to be considered.

Yes you work out effectivness by looking at vaccinated v unvaccinated. That is how it is done.

Not sure how that is a 'nope'

a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you provide data sets with reliable data on the outcomes of infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated? I'm not interested in "reduced symptoms" as that's a subjective measure, only deaths.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you provide data sets with reliable data on the outcomes of infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated? I'm not interested in "reduced symptoms" as that's a subjective measure, only deaths.

There are multiple studies into vaccine effectiveness.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Please, provide one with clear comparisons between unvaccinated and vaccinated which lists comparative death totals. I'd genuinely be interested in reading such analysis.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please, provide one with clear comparisons between unvaccinated and vaccinated which lists comparative death totals. I'd genuinely be interested in reading such analysis.

Contains multiple studies take your pick.

www.gov.uk...

a reply to: ScepticScot

The only study i can find with relative data to what i'm requesting is here:

Effectiveness of mRNA

Introduction
Real world effectiveness data has begun to emerge for COVID-19 vaccines, showing high levels of
protection against both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, supporting the findings of the
phase III clinical trials.(1-6) Nevertheless, evidence on effectiveness against mortality, the most
severe outcome, is currently limited and has not yet been reported for most vaccines.

48,096 cases aged 70 years and above were included in the analysis, of which 79.1% were
unvaccinated; 12.7% had been vaccinated with BNT162b2 (3,910 received their first dose within 20
days of their test date, 2,007 received their first dose >=21 days before their test date and 191
received their 2nd dose >=7 days before their test date); and 8.2% had been vaccinated with
ChAdOx1 (2,686 received their first dose within 20 days of their test date, 1,258 received their first
dose >=21 days before their test date and 6 received their 2nd dose >=7 days before their test date).

We found that although both vaccines provided additional protection against mortality overall,
among care home residents who received a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the effect was small
and non-significant suggesting that there was no clear evidence additional protection (beyond the
protection against becoming a case). Though this could be due to residual confounding and lacking
statistical power in this group.
Our study is observational and as such we are unable to exclude unmeasured or residual
confounding. For example, healthy vaccinee effects, whereby healthier individuals are more likely to
present for vaccination and also more likely to survive, could be an issue. We see some evidence of a
possible healthy vaccinee effect with the BNT162b2 because we see a small effect in days 0-20 after
the first dose, before a vaccine effect might be anticipated, whereas we don’t see this effect with
ChAdOx1. However, we have previously found that vaccine effects occur more rapidly with
BNT162b2, so this could represent early vaccine effects.(2) A further limitation is that some of the
deaths within 28 days of a positive test may be unrelated to COVID and therefore not preventable by
vaccination. All of the individuals included in this analysis had reported symptoms of COVID-19,
therefore the proportion of deaths unrelated to COVID is likely to be small, however, this could
cause us to underestimate the effects on mortality.

Not only is the comparative data set completely skewed due to almost 80% of the test cases being the unvaccinated, it also only deals with elderly folk. My understanding is that the claims from anti-vaxxers is the vaccine is disproportionately killing younger healthy individuals. Why did they perform a study with 80% of the cases being unvaccinated? Especially when you consider over 90% of the population above 70 are seemingly vaccinated? I suspect a lack of adequate care due to the pandemic hysteria coupled with isolation of people on their death beds is a major factor in these results.

Please link me to a more reliable study, using comparatively similar factors and all age mortality.

I find this study at least inconclusive due to the lack of peer review and also the inconsistencies and quotes i've listed above.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

The only study i can find with relative data to what i'm requesting is here:

Effectiveness of mRNA

Introduction
Real world effectiveness data has begun to emerge for COVID-19 vaccines, showing high levels of
protection against both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, supporting the findings of the
phase III clinical trials.(1-6) Nevertheless, evidence on effectiveness against mortality, the most
severe outcome, is currently limited and has not yet been reported for most vaccines.

48,096 cases aged 70 years and above were included in the analysis, of which 79.1% were
unvaccinated; 12.7% had been vaccinated with BNT162b2 (3,910 received their first dose within 20
days of their test date, 2,007 received their first dose >=21 days before their test date and 191
received their 2nd dose >=7 days before their test date); and 8.2% had been vaccinated with
ChAdOx1 (2,686 received their first dose within 20 days of their test date, 1,258 received their first
dose >=21 days before their test date and 6 received their 2nd dose >=7 days before their test date).

We found that although both vaccines provided additional protection against mortality overall,
among care home residents who received a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the effect was small
and non-significant suggesting that there was no clear evidence additional protection (beyond the
protection against becoming a case). Though this could be due to residual confounding and lacking
statistical power in this group.
Our study is observational and as such we are unable to exclude unmeasured or residual
confounding. For example, healthy vaccinee effects, whereby healthier individuals are more likely to
present for vaccination and also more likely to survive, could be an issue. We see some evidence of a
possible healthy vaccinee effect with the BNT162b2 because we see a small effect in days 0-20 after
the first dose, before a vaccine effect might be anticipated, whereas we don’t see this effect with
ChAdOx1. However, we have previously found that vaccine effects occur more rapidly with
BNT162b2, so this could represent early vaccine effects.(2) A further limitation is that some of the
deaths within 28 days of a positive test may be unrelated to COVID and therefore not preventable by
vaccination. All of the individuals included in this analysis had reported symptoms of COVID-19,
therefore the proportion of deaths unrelated to COVID is likely to be small, however, this could
cause us to underestimate the effects on mortality.

Not only is the comparative data set completely skewed due to almost 80% of the test cases being the unvaccinated, it also only deals with elderly folk. My understanding is that the claims from anti-vaxxers is the vaccine is disproportionately killing younger healthy individuals.

Please link me to a more reliable study, using comparatively similar factors and all age mortality.

I find this study at least inconclusive due to the lack of peer review and also the inconsistencies and quotes i've listed above.

Sorry I am not google.

You said you could do the analysis it should be no issue for you to source the data.

You know there are countless studies on covid vaccine effecticness many of which have been used on this site by posters making both pro and against posts.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There's simply no RAW data available to perform an accurate analysis. If i could find it myself i would. You provided sources to studies which didn't contain the comparative factors required.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

There's simply no RAW data available to perform an accurate analysis. If i could find it myself i would. You provided sources to studies which didn't contain the comparative factors required.

Yet there are all those studies that do so.

Strange.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If only you could source one. As stated none of your government approved studies provide the data i've requested.

What's irrefutable is that the highest number of monthly deaths attributed to Covid in the UK since the beginning of the pandemic occurred in January 2021, roughly 1 month after the mass vaccinations began.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

If only you could source one. As stated none of your government approved studies provide the data i've requested.

What's irrefutable is that the highest number of monthly deaths attributed to Covid in the UK since the beginning of the pandemic occurred in January 2021, roughly 1 month after the vaccinations began.

What % of uk population was vaccinated by January 2021.