An Estimate of Excess COVID Deaths Resulting from Non-Vaccination

 

I’ve put together a calculation of the number of excess COVID deaths over the past month that have resulted from non-vaccination.  Obviously, this calculation is only an estimate and relies on certain assumptions.

The algebra on this is fairly easy, though I won’t bore you with the derivation (which would be difficult to display without special text features anyway).  If:

  • n = number of deaths from COVID
  • IRR = incident rate ratio for death from COVID (i.e. the ratio of the death rates among the unvaccinated and the vaccinated)
  • PV = the percentage of the population that is vaccinated

Then the number of deaths among the vaccinated (DV) is:  DV = n x PV / (PV + ((1-PV) x IRR)).

The number of deaths among the unvaccinated (DU) is:  DU = n – DV

The number of excess deaths among the unvaccinated (DE) is:  DE = DU (1 – 1/IRR)

The latest estimate that I’ve seen of the IRR is 11.3, from this CDC report.  This means that an unvaccinated person is 11.3 times more likely to die from Covid than a vaccinated person.  The CDC reports (here) that the national vaccination rate (PV) is 53.8% of the entire population, 64.9% of the population aged 18 or older, and 82.5% of the population aged 65 and over.  As I suspect that Covid deaths continue to be concentrated among older people, I used two PV figures for my estimate: 65% and 80%.  (Note that in these calculations, a higher PV figure results in a lower number for excess deaths among the unvaccinated, so these are conservative figures.)

Finally, I used Worldometer (here) as a source for Covid deaths, selecting the one-month period from August 12 to September 11.  I calculated that a total of 39,384 deaths were reported in this period.

Here are the results, which do differ depending on the vaccination rate (PV) that I assumed for the calculation.

Assuming 65% vaccination (PV=0.65):  Deaths among the vaccinated (DV) is 5,559; deaths among the unvaccinated (DU) is 33,825; excess deaths among the unvaccinated (DE) is 30,832.

Assuming 80% vaccination (PV=0.80): Deaths among the vaccinated (DV) is 10,296; deaths among the unvaccinated (DU) is 29,088; excess deaths among the unvaccinated (DE) is 26,513.

As a sensitivity analysis, I also ran the calculation for a somewhat lower death figure (38,000) and a somewhat lower vaccine effectiveness (IRR=10).  This yielded estimates of excess deaths among the unvaccinated of 24,429-28,843.  Obviously, these are estimates, so while I report the precise figures determined by my calculations (to the nearest whole number), I think that these figures should be interpreted as a reasonable range.

Based on these figures, I think that it’s reasonable to conclude that about 24,000 to 30,000 Americans died of COVID, during the month ending 9/11/2021, because they were not vaccinated.  That’s about 8-10 times the death toll from the actual 9/11.  Another way of thinking about it is that we’ve had a 9/11-worth of death every 3-4 days over the past month, due to individual decisions not to be vaccinated.

The vaccinations may have caused other problems, as there are some side effects, and there may be future side effects.

This death toll probably explains the President’s actions in mandating vaccination in a number of circumstances.  You may or may not agree with his decision as a policy matter, but I think that it is important to understand the death toll that he probably considered in making his decision.

For the record, I disagree with the President’s decision about vaccine mandates.  If people prefer to risk death from Covid rather than take a chance on vaccination, I would respect that decision.  I respect the decision of the 24,000-30,000 Americans who, by my estimate, died during the past month or so as a result of their decision not to be vaccinated.

If I were in charge, I would not require anyone to be vaccinated.  I would reopen everything including schools, put an end to all mask requirements everywhere, report the facts, and continue to offer free vaccination to any American who wants it.

Two other related points:

  • The Worldometer graphs for both cases and deaths suggest that we’re past the peak of the current wave, and things are going to get better over the next month or two.  No guarantees, but this seems to be the trend.
  • There is some evidence that the efficacy of the vaccines diminishes over time.  The CDC is now recommending a booster shot for those who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, 8 months after their second shot, for people who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.  FDA approval of this recommendation is pending.  If this recommendation remains in effect, I will plan to get a booster shot myself, next January.

For those of you who are not vaccinated, I do urge you to do consider getting the shot, for the sake of your own health.  Well, with some caveats.  We don’t have a precise figure for risks and benefits, but my general sense is that you should probably get the shot if you’re over 40; that it’s a close call if you’re 25-40; and that you shouldn’t get the shot if you’re under 25.

However, each of you has to weigh the risks and benefits, and I will respect your decision.  I hope that this information proves helpful.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 189 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    We are also just starting to see an increase again in the number of COVID patients that are pregnant being admitted to ICUs. …

    COVID patients or patients with COVID?

    The claims that people are with COVID rather than sick from it is just sheer lunacy. You do not admit pregnant women to the ICU for the fun of it.

    No. But you do if they are pre-eclamptic.

    Did you see the Atlantic article on the reports of Covid patients in the hospitals being greatly exaggerated or misrepresented?

    Did you miss DeSantis’ conference call with hospital admins here?

    The majority of people in the hospital with COVID were admitted for other reasons and tested positive on admission.

    • #151
  2. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Typically you are not considered fully vaccinated until 2 weeks post completion of the 2nd dose b/c the vaccine can’t magically make the immune system do impossible feats. If your immune system worked in a day or so,  you wouldn’t have needed the vaccine in the 1st place.

    For 99.8 percent of people, the immune system works well enough in a few days to stop the infection. 

    • #152
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker
    • #153
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    • #154
  5. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    Exactly NOT how the VAERS program works….

    • #155
  6. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Typically you are not considered fully vaccinated until 2 weeks post completion of the 2nd dose b/c the vaccine can’t magically make the immune system do impossible feats. If your immune system worked in a day or so, you wouldn’t have needed the vaccine in the 1st place.

    For 99.8 percent of people, the immune system works well enough in a few days to stop the infection.

    That is also true for cancer- in a given year your immune system prevents death from cancer for  99.854% of the population-yet we still take steps to prevent & treat cancer. Since COVID will not be a one time event (nor likely a one time infection) for anybody the lifetime risk of serious problems is much higher than you state if we do not vaccinate or develop better therapies.

    • #156
  7. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MiMac (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    Exactly NOT how the VAERS program works….

    So a woman who has been given a vaccine dose and miscarries can’t be added to the VAERS system? Is that because the vaccine is totally safe? Just look at VAERS?

    • #157
  8. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Stina (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    Exactly NOT how the VAERS program works….

    So a woman who has been given a vaccine dose and miscarries can’t be added to the VAERS system? Is that because the vaccine is totally safe? Just look at VAERS?

    The VAERS program tallies any complication after vaccines irrespective of whether they have a plausible connection to the vaccine-it exists to alert authorities to any possible complication arising from the vaccine, especially unanticipated ones. That is how is anti-vaxxers claim the vaccine has “caused” 5000 deaths b/c the VAERS program lists 5000 deaths after the vax-many of these deaths are expected- remember that the 1st cohort vaccinated was elderly & frail nursing home residents who have a significant baseline rate of death in the next year. Virtually alldeaths after the vax are reported-the report doesn’t mean the vax is thought to a suspected contributor to the death. The anti-vaxxers try to claim that since their deaths are reported in the system it is therefore a death FROM the vaccine-which is a total misrepresentation of the situation. Similarly, miscarriages will be reported- at present the data indicates there is no increase above the baseline miscarriage rate.

    • #158
  9. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Stina (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    Exactly NOT how the VAERS program works….

    So a woman who has been given a vaccine dose and miscarries can’t be added to the VAERS system? Is that because the vaccine is totally safe? Just look at VAERS?

    Yes this woman is added to VAERS. Immunity takes days, so that is why she might not be considered vaccinated or fully vaccinated. Eligibility for reporting to VAERS begins basically the second the vaccine needle leaves your arm.

    These are two different concepts. Did you get the shot vs has it had enough time to work. 

    • #159
  10. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Jager (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    Exactly NOT how the VAERS program works….

    So a woman who has been given a vaccine dose and miscarries can’t be added to the VAERS system? Is that because the vaccine is totally safe? Just look at VAERS?

    Yes this woman is added to VAERS. Immunity takes days, so that is why she might not be considered vaccinated or fully vaccinated. Eligibility for reporting to VAERS begins basically the second the vaccine needle leaves your arm.

    These are two different concepts. Did you get the shot vs has it had enough time to work.

    I understand that. My issue is it seems MiMac does not want me to consider that in the statistic he brought up about pregnant women with Covid in the ICU.

    • #160
  11. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Stina (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sounds to me like pregnant women who have a miscarriage or something between the first and second doses, or less than 14 days after the second dose, could be considered “unvaccinated” if it suits the people keeping the numbers.

    Exactly NOT how the VAERS program works….

    So a woman who has been given a vaccine dose and miscarries can’t be added to the VAERS system? Is that because the vaccine is totally safe? Just look at VAERS?

    Yes this woman is added to VAERS. Immunity takes days, so that is why she might not be considered vaccinated or fully vaccinated. Eligibility for reporting to VAERS begins basically the second the vaccine needle leaves your arm.

    These are two different concepts. Did you get the shot vs has it had enough time to work.

    I understand that. My issue is it seems MiMac does not want me to consider that in the statistic he brought up about pregnant women with Covid in the ICU.

    More like you try to play games with stats- on one hand claiming that anyone who dies from COVID really just died with COVID- while on the other hand maintaining that anyone who gets sick  or dies after a vaccine must have gotten sick/died FROM the vaccine-as if vaccines should grant immortality to 85 year old nursing home residents. The data, at this point,  doesn’t support an increase in miscarriages from the vax but DOES support a vast increase in the likelihood of significant complications  from COVID in unvaxxed pregnant women.

    • #161
  12. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MiMac (View Comment):
    More like you try to play games with stats- on one hand claiming that anyone who dies from COVID really just died with COVID- while on the other hand maintaining that anyone who gets sick  or dies after a vaccine must have gotten sick/died FROM the vaccine-as if vaccines should grant immortality to 85 year old nursing home residents. The data, at this point,  doesn’t support an increase in miscarriages from the vax but DOES support a vast increase in the likelihood of significant complications  from COVID in unvaxxed pregnant women.

    No. I’m not. I’m saying I want parity in how we view and report both stats.

    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data. And if we want the vaers data analyzed for quality data, we should want the same of the death and hospitalization stats.

    I want the numbers to be apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

    I also want some awareness when reading press reports on scary numbers that they are not going to be listing caveats in their messaging. One, it could be a narrative report. Two, caveats are cumbersome and not good communication.

    The hospitals are testing everyone who walks in their door and gets admitted, symptomatic or not, so Covid numbers in hospitals is not going to be a complete picture of severity. Same with ICU numbers. No one is reporting on how many car accident victims were unvaccinated and positive for Covid. We just know they reported a hospital admission for COVID and they were positive.

    Second, the definition of “unvaccinated” means some of those cases could be VAERS cases, but we don’t know, because the reporting is not telling us how many have had no shots, how many have had 1, and how many have had 2 but are still in the two week window.

    It seems reasonable to me to think that maybe some of those “unvaccinated” numbers could be hospitalized for a reaction to the vaccine. But the way the numbers are reported is that they are hospitalized because they were stubborn anti vaxxers who deserve to die – so go get vaccinated. We don’t know that from the way the numbers are presented.

    So we have two things that are not clear in the data coming out of hospitals – some have received some jabs but are not yet “vaccinated” and some are coming in for reasons other than COVID.

    That’s why I’m challenging your panic numbers. They lack context and are opaque.

    And since you have all but dismissed VAERS data as being of poor quality, I’m challenging you on your numbers that are also poor quality.

    • #162
  13. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Stina (View Comment):
    And if we want the vaers data analyzed for quality data, we should want the same of the death and hospitalization stats.

    I agree with you here we need quality data. So please don’t take this as argumentative. 

    Quality data is hard, it takes time. This month’s Vaers data and this month’s Covid death data both have problems. It takes time to figure stuff out in both cases. 

    We have mostly been discussing this stuff as died of Covid or died with Covid.  Kind of black and white. 

    Some of the trouble in all this is the grey. A patient could have Covid but not severe enough that it should kill him or he could have a heart issue but would normally be expected to fully recover. But what if he has Covid at the same time as his heart issue. Neither alone should have killed him, but both combined did kill him. Is this a Covid death or not? (I really don’t now how this should be considered)

     

    • #163
  14. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

     

    • #164
  15. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

     

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    • #165
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Stina (View Comment):
    But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    I know basically nothing about VAERS, but at this point I think even the CDC is subject to being ignored–on myocarditis for young folks taking Pfizer or Moderna–by anyone who says no risks.

    But does anyone say there are no risks?  I know many are saying the risks are teeny-tiny or miniscule or well under the dangers of the virus and so on, but that’s not the same thing.

    • #166
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    I know basically nothing about VAERS, but at this point I think even the CDC is subject to being ignored–on myocarditis for young folks taking Pfizer or Moderna–by anyone who says no risks.

    But does anyone say there are no risks? I know many are saying the risks are teeny-tiny or miniscule or well under the dangers of the virus and so on, but that’s not the same thing.

    If you’re dealing with people – and agencies – who at least arguably are overstating the risks of covid plus under-stating the risks of the vaccines, that does seem to be a problem.

    • #167
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The VAERS program tallies any complication after vaccines irrespective of whether they have a plausible connection to the vaccine-it exists to alert authorities to any possible complication arising from the vaccine, especially unanticipated ones. That is how is anti-vaxxers claim the vaccine has “caused” 5000 deaths b/c the VAERS program lists 5000 deaths after the vax-many of these deaths are expected- remember that the 1st cohort vaccinated was elderly & frail nursing home residents who have a significant baseline rate of death in the next year.

    Yes.  This line of thought was what made me realize that the simple argument against the vaccine based on VAERS deaths was not a good argument.

    Virtually alldeaths after the vax are reported-the report doesn’t mean the vax is thought to a suspected contributor to the death. . . .

    Virtually all deaths? That can’t be right.

    • #168
  19. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

     

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    Absolutely not in my case- the problem is anti-vaxxers attempt to claim ANY data in the VAERS data is proof positive of a vaccine complication- which it decidedly is not. Their claims are just fabrications- the VAER system exist as a surveillance tool to ensure no possible complications are missed. Much of the data entered are NOT vaccine related complications but just coincidental occurrences- when you vaccinated ~200 million people and follow them for months many healthcare events will occur (especially when you preferentially vaccinated the most high risk people in your population). As an example, there have been reports of Graves’ disease post vaccination- but it isn’t clear it is related to the vaccine since the rate of Graves is 0.5% and we have vaccinated 200 million people- so you expect a millions cases of Graves’ disease in the vaccinated population. It will take time & sophisticated analysis to sort out whether the vaccine has any influence on the rate of Graves’ disease.

    • #169
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    Absolutely not in my case- the problem is anti-vaxxers attempt to claim ANY data in the VAERS data is proof positive of a vaccine complication- which it decidedly is not. Their claims are just fabrications- the VAER system exist as a surveillance tool to ensure no possible complications are missed. Much of the data entered are NOT vaccine related complications but just coincidental occurrences- when you vaccinated ~200 million people and follow them for months many healthcare events will occur (especially when you preferentially vaccinated the most high risk people in your population). As an example, there have been reports of Graves’ disease post vaccination- but it isn’t clear it is related to the vaccine since the rate of Graves is 0.5% and we have vaccinated 200 million people- so you expect a millions cases of Graves’ disease in the vaccinated population. It will take time & sophisticated analysis to sort out whether the vaccine has any influence on the rate of Graves’ disease.

    Yes, in a population of 200 million you’d expect a million cases of Grave’s Disease OVER THEIR LIFETIMES.  But what number of people turning up with previously-missing Grave’s Disease shortly after getting vaccinating, would you call “unusual?”  Would it have to be over a million, to get  your attention?

    • #170
  21. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Absolutely not in my case- the problem is anti-vaxxers attempt to claim ANY data in the VAERS data is proof positive of a vaccine complication- which it decidedly is not.

    And you aren’t guilty of the same in reverse? Every Covid non-vaccinated death or hospitalization is trotted out by you as proof positive that not getting the vaccine is deadly. Which they decidedly are not.

    Since my not getting the vaccine is because I have a 5 year window til I’m comfortable getting it, current VAERS data has not been part of my argument for not getting the vaccine.

    But it is relevant when you uncritically use hospitalization data while not accepting VAERS with the same critical eye you apply to hospitalization data. Both data is reported by the same agencies with the same sort of criteria – test positive in hospitals, get counted. Have a bad event after a jab, get counted. Same authorities, same rough reporting.

    But only one of these is uncritically accepted by you. And anyone trying to understand the numbers beyond your advocacy for their veracity is treated to your mockery.

    • #171
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

     

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    I don’t believe it. In fact, I remember MiMac talking about VAERS data in this very thread. See #169. He certainly does accept it. 

    He doesn’t abuse it, torture it, and use it to draw unwarranted conclusions, though. 

    • #172
  23. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

     

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    I don’t believe it. In fact, I remember MiMac talking about VAERS data in this very thread. See #169. He certainly does accept it.

    He doesn’t abuse it, torture it, and use it to draw unwarranted conclusions, though.

    You realize #169 comes after my comment, right? So I made the comment on pre-existing information. I can’t predict the future and MiMac has been repeatedly dismissive of people bringing it up while torturing his own numbers (if you think bringing it up is “torturing”).

    • #173
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    Absolutely not in my case- the problem is anti-vaxxers attempt to claim ANY data in the VAERS data is proof positive of a vaccine complication- which it decidedly is not. Their claims are just fabrications- the VAER system exist as a surveillance tool to ensure no possible complications are missed. Much of the data entered are NOT vaccine related complications but just coincidental occurrences- when you vaccinated ~200 million people and follow them for months many healthcare events will occur (especially when you preferentially vaccinated the most high risk people in your population). As an example, there have been reports of Graves’ disease post vaccination- but it isn’t clear it is related to the vaccine since the rate of Graves is 0.5% and we have vaccinated 200 million people- so you expect a millions cases of Graves’ disease in the vaccinated population. It will take time & sophisticated analysis to sort out whether the vaccine has any influence on the rate of Graves’ disease.

    Yes, in a population of 200 million you’d expect a million cases of Grave’s Disease OVER THEIR LIFETIMES. But what number of people turning up with previously-missing Grave’s Disease shortly after getting vaccinating, would you call “unusual?” Would it have to be over a million, to get your attention?

    He said it will take sophisticated analysis. That means comparing the frequency of cases during the time period vs a similar time period in the population as a whole, as you pointed out, and probably adjusting for other factors.   Neither you, MiMac, nor I have the means at hand to carry out that analysis, unless I’m greatly mistaken about the data you have at your disposal.  

    • #174
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If we count someone with Covid as dying of Covid, then we need to be more accepting of the vaers data

    Is there anyone who doesn’t accept VAERS data?

     

    Yes. I think Jerry and MiMac have been very dismissive of it. Probably Caryn, too. Jerry is mostly about it not being good data. But the claims that this vaccine carries no risks at all are ignoring Vaers.

    I don’t believe it. In fact, I remember MiMac talking about VAERS data in this very thread. See #169. He certainly does accept it.

    He doesn’t abuse it, torture it, and use it to draw unwarranted conclusions, though.

    You realize #169 comes after my comment, right? So I made the comment on pre-existing information. I can’t predict the future and MiMac has been repeatedly dismissive of people bringing it up while torturing his own numbers (if you think bringing it up is “torturing”).

    Bringing it up is not torturing it. Jumping to the conclusion that if it happened, it is therefore caused by the vaccine, is torturing the data.  

    • #175
  26. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bringing it up is not torturing it. Jumping to the conclusion that if it happened, it is therefore caused by the vaccine, is torturing the data.  

    Yes. And bringing up covid hospitalizations and death means that Covid automatically caused those hospitalizations and deaths is also tortured.

    I don’t think you are understanding my point.

    Both data sets should be treated equally. Both are being reported by the same people. None of the numbers have been analyzed. Both sets contain “false positives”. We cannot determine, based on just the numbers, just how dangerous Covid or the vaccines are.

    Given those assumptions, I apply the following syllogism:

    If hospitalized data should be acceptable to make a case for COVID dangers, then VAERS data should also be acceptable for vaccine dangers.

    If VAERS data requires analysis for vaccine dangers, then hospitalized data should require analysis for COVID dangers.

    • #176
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bringing it up is not torturing it. Jumping to the conclusion that if it happened, it is therefore caused by the vaccine, is torturing the data.

    Yes. And bringing up covid hospitalizations and death means that Covid automatically caused those hospitalizations and deaths is also tortured.

    I don’t think you are understanding my point.

    Both data sets should be treated equally. Both are being reported by the same people. None of the numbers have been analyzed. Both sets contain “false positives”. We cannot determine, based on just the numbers, just how dangerous Covid or the vaccines are.

    Given those assumptions, I apply the following syllogism:

    If hospitalized data should be acceptable to make a case for COVID dangers, then VAERS data should also be acceptable for vaccine dangers.

    If VAERS data requires analysis for vaccine dangers, then hospitalized data should require analysis for COVID dangers.

    I disagree that they should be treated equally.  They are not the same thing.  VAERS is for reporting any old adverse incident after vaccination.  It takes statistical analysis to know whether the frequency of the different types of events is different from what you’d expect without the vaccine. Analyzing the hospitalization data is a whole nother thing, and those are not subject to the same kind of statistical analysis. Unless you can think of some comparison that I can’t.  

    • #177
  28. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Analyzing the hospitalization data is a whole nother thing, and those are not subject to the same kind of statistical analysis. Unless you can think of some comparison that I can’t.

    This entire argument with MiMac began with people pushing back on the hospitalization numbers.

    Do you think that those numbers do not contain false positives?

    Do you think it is unreasonable for people to ask questions about that data?

    Do you think people who are questioning if the hospitalization numbers are painting an accurate picture are being unreasonable?

    This is relevant, beyond statistical analysis, because the numbers are being used to weigh risk.

    • #178
  29. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Analyzing the hospitalization data is a whole nother thing, and those are not subject to the same kind of statistical analysis. Unless you can think of some comparison that I can’t.

    This entire argument with MiMac began with people pushing back on the hospitalization numbers.

    Do you think that those numbers do not contain false positives?

    Do you think it is unreasonable for people to ask questions about that data?

    Do you think people who are questioning if the hospitalization numbers are painting an accurate picture are being unreasonable?

    Power corrupts. Money corrupts. Government money is laced with power for extra corruption.

    Which doesn’t say anything about VAERS.

    But it may say something about hospital Covid numbers.

    • #179
  30. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Analyzing the hospitalization data is a whole nother thing, and those are not subject to the same kind of statistical analysis. Unless you can think of some comparison that I can’t.

    This entire argument with MiMac began with people pushing back on the hospitalization numbers.

    Do you think that those numbers do not contain false positives?

    Do you think it is unreasonable for people to ask questions about that data?

    Do you think people who are questioning if the hospitalization numbers are painting an accurate picture are being unreasonable?

    This is relevant, beyond statistical analysis, because the numbers are being used to weigh risk.

    I suspect there is a slight overstatement of hospitalization numbers and deaths as due to covid, but probably not by a lot, as there are probably not a lot of ambiguous situations that wouldn’t result in big problems for the people who would try to fudge it. If hospitals and doctors were fudging the numbers to any significant degree, we’d be hearing about it from family members who would be saying, “Grandpa died of a hangnail, but they put the cause of death down as covid so they could collect $40K from the government.”   We don’t have the equivalent of a VAERS system for reporting such things, as far as I know. (Maybe MiMac knows better.)

    It’s reasonable to ask good questions about the data. Some of the people who are questioning the hospitalization numbers are probably being reasonable, but they’re keeping their reasons pretty close to the vest. Even here on Ricochet I’ve seen a whole bunch of wild-a$s guesses with no basis in anything other than that they believe the number should be lower.

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.