Over at Market-Ticker there is a link to some UK data that will be the basis of this post. Before we start I want to give you the reader a little refresher on "rates" as terms of percentages.
When someone says there is a 1% chance of something happening you should ask "out of how many?" Meaning; though taken by itself, 1% is a very small percent (close to negligible), in real terms this could represent a rather large number. So for example, say we have two groups. One is 1000 and another is 100.
If I said one percent of each group is black, then in the 1000 group that means 10 of the constituents is black. In the 100 group that's only 1 constituent. Hence the size of the group is important. Back when the plandemic started I did rough math assuming varying levels of death rates. At 10%, if everyone got infected you were talking 30 million dead. Possibly in a single year. At 3% you were talking 9 million.
This is why I thought that the initial "slow the spread" ask was reasonable. My mistake, a very bad one at that, was trusting the people in charge to both not be malicious liars and to mean what they said. Anyway, that's another topic for another time.
So with that primer on stats let's get into the report. You'll see a lot of talk about rates/100,000 which in my opinion clouds the issue at hand that is that for certain populations these shots are not doing what the authorities are saying they are doing. The reason for this dismissal of "per 100,000" is because as shown above, as the "vaccinated" population grows. "small" percentages comes out to a lot of people. As the "unvaccinated" population shrinks, "small" percentages and even "large" percentages come to represent fewer and fewer actual people.
Going back to our 1000 vs 100 example. Say that 1% of the 1000 population dies of the shot. Again that's 10 people. However in the smaller group, if you had 10% of them die from not being vaccinated, then it would be the same numbers dead. This is why even "low" failure rates on a widely used medicine is, well SHOULD, be alarming to anyone who is numerate. a 1% failure rate of a drug given to 330 million people is 3.3 million dead. If you do a proper long term study with say 100k people and found out 1% die, at least you only killed 1,000 people rather than 3.3 million.
We clear? Good. Lets dig.
Cases:
So if we look strictly at rates here (last two columns) we see that for people under 40, their case rates for "unvaccinated" are higher than those "vaccinated". Then there is a decided flip where being vaccinated results in a higher case rate (until you hit 80+).
Of more interest to me are the actual numbers. Look at the total cases for 80+: 12k. People who had 2 shots make up 10k of those people.
Look at the 70-79 group. Again, 25k. The double shot make up 22k of the 25k.
60-69: 38k of 45K are double jabbed.
50-59: 67K of 84K double jabbed.
40-49: 67K of 97k double jabbed.
It is only in the under 40 group where the "unvaccinated" make up a larger number of cases than the "vaccinated". And remember, we're only doing age here. No mention of comorbidities which is the real driver of cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
Taken at face value it would seem that if one were to take the shot it would be best to stop at one and even then, it only seems to confer "case protection" for the first 20 days.
Now let's move on to deaths:
Again, going by rates, the vaccinated group seems to win hands down. But we demonstrated that these "rates" hide the real impacts.
Again in the 80+ group there were 1k deaths. Out of that 1K, 900 were double jabbed.
70-79: 428 of 580 were double jabbed.
60-69: 194 of 332 were double jabbed.
Under that age group the mortality shifts. But clearly the vast majority of deaths come from these older groups AND the "vaccinated" within those groups. Notice the big fat 0.0 nearly across the board for under 18. There is clearly no statistical reason to even be looking in their direction with these shots.
Here's the "60 day" death chart:
Same pattern as above.
People who went to the ER:
Again, over 60 years of age, the "fully vaccinated" make up the majority of people presenting for ER care.
A quick note on the under 18 crowd. Per the graphs in the report, those 18 and under have only recently started getting the shots with under 16 not even at 10% as of this report. So you *should* expect that most presented would be "unvaccinated".
So what's the mortality impact of all these "unvaccinated" under 18s? Matter of fact what's the overall impact on mortality period?
So clearly there is no statistical advantage to taking the shot if you are under 50. That's by their own data. But you should note how the "rate per 100,000" covers up what we showed above. yes, the *rates* may be lower for the "vaccinated" but in real terms it is the "vaccinated" who are over 50 who are filling the hospitals. If the "vaccines" worked as, you know, vaccines, there should be ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, No Damn body in the hospital who has taken the shots.
Did you have the typical US mandated childhood vaccines? Yes, DID YOU end up in the hospital with Mumps? Rubella? Whooping cough? Etc? No? Right because those vaccines (note the lack of quotes) are ACTUAL vaccines that *actually work*.
We should be asking what is causing the increased mortality, across the board that happens in the mid forties on? The likely answer is that the consequences of various lifestyle choices "come home to roost". The pancreas can no longer keep up with the sugar intake (including the breads and alcohol). The lack of exercise. The high salt diet. All that comes to a head along with whatever genetic time bombs we are likely carrying start to go off.
So to close, don't be fooled by the "rate per 100,000". I'm not saying it's meaningless or useless. I am saying that as the data shows, it hides the "on the ground" data. A "vaccine" that does not prevent hospitalizations in 99.999% of people who take it and has an even smaller amount of death by the disease it's meant to stop, is NOT a "vaccine". Don't take my word for it. Look at the data.