I am not sure if this is paywalled or not. Covid coverage often is not.
The main point is that the CDC has been tracking booster effectiveness since October 3. Data from Oct and Nov 2021 shows the unvaccinated DIED at a rate of 7.8 deaths per 100,000 PER WEEK. The comparable rate for the vaccinated was 0.6 and for the boosted – wait for it – 0.1. In short, you were 78x more likely to die if unvaccinated vs the boosted.
The story also covers new polling of adults from the Kaiser Family Foundation on vaccination vs political affiliation.
Unvaccinated: Democrats = 9% Republicans = 36%.
Boosted: Democrats = 62% Republicans = 32%.
There are more Republicans unvaccinated than there are Republicans fully protected. That is insane.
Finally, the article includes this tragic statistic: “Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine expert at the Baylor College of Medicine, estimates that in the second half of last year, 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused Covid vaccines.”
Covid lies and misinformation are murderous. It is that simple.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Anecdotal evidence from many hospitals by strung out doctors and nurses have revealed the disparity, but now there are data.
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that people don’t care to know what they don’t believe.
Some folks won’t listen to their own doctors but march lockstep to an internet meme.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Some folks won’t listen to their own doctors but march lockstep to an internet meme.”
The below was in an LTE in the Pilot this morning. The letter was about mask mandates, but this paragraph captures the same sentiment.
“Then there are parents who seem to get their advice from those sources that say what they, the parents, want to hear. For example, for medical advice on an infectious condition, they may accept advice from a medical expert in neurosurgery, or something they read on the internet, or what a nonmedical person says on TV, but not from an expert in infectious diseases. ”
And it also raised the important question: Which parents are being listened to?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s some more breaking news
Persuasion works, mandates don’t.
I got vaccinated as soon as I could, and I got a booster as soon as I could too. If Moderna pr Pfizer comes out with an Omicron inclusive booster, I’ll be first in line. I’d volunteer for testing it.
But I won’t try to coerce someone else into following my example.
Note the data above.
Who does refusing vaccination hurt? Omicron spreads equally well regardless of vaccination status. But boosted vaccination does provide protection against death. That tells me that Omicron evades humoral immunity(antibodies) but cellular immunity still works.
So, I encourage people to get vaccinated and boosted, but since they only harm themselves by not doing so, I cannot justify coercion.
Mandates are failing, and just raising resistance to anything else that comes along, It’s time to go back to RESPECTFUL education and persuasion.
LikeLike
“Persuasion works”
Yes. People have been persuaded to avoid the vaccines. Hundreds of thousands of people are now dead as a direct result.
Mandates may or may not work. They have yet to be tried thanks to people like you who are very willing to sacrifice the lives of the stupid and gullible people who have been persuaded to risk death for no good reason. For what? For some abstract hatred of the government?
There is PLENTY of precedent for the government acting to protect foolish people from themselves. Seatbelts are a good analogy. Your logic says – just let them die, they have only themselves to blame.
There is also plenty of precedent for mandated vaccinations. Going back centuries. I remember having to provide proof of smallpox vaccination for college enrollment and foreign travel in the 1960s.
All that is different now is we have a callous political party preying on the weak-minded for some perceived partisan gain. Even as they kill off their most loyal adherents. Truly bizarre.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interestingly, my 1963 Chevy Station wagon I drove while in dental school did not come with seatbelts.
I bought a set at an auto racing outlet.
I was persuaded by Mechanics Illustrated magazine that they were a good thing to have,
But no, I do not support requiring seatbelts.
LikeLike
“But no, I do not support requiring seatbelts.”
Let the dummies die!
I give you full marks for consistency on this one. But I would point out that – just like the unvaccinated – the unbelted use up hospital resources that are sorely needed by people who did not behave foolishly. They are hurting more than just themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“… boosted vaccination does provide protection against death.”
And, importantly, against hospitalization. It is this part that affects all of us. Healthcare workers are exhausted, frustrated and leaving. Elective procedures are in hold and other ICU emergencies are not getting treatment.
At what point do we admit that the anti-vaxxers are hurting more than just themselves and they don’t give a crap about the rest of us.
Why not make traffic light observance voluntary?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Traffic lights are mandatory because if you run one you can hurt someone else.
The signs telling you the speed you should maintain in a turn are advisory because if you run off the road, you only hurt yourself(and those dumb enough to ride with you)
LikeLike
No, you won’t only hurt yourself. As you said, passengers (why are they dumb?). But also anyone coming the other way, children in their yards, dogs, cats… Don’t forget the driver’s family, income, business.
“No man is an island” (I’m Donne now😇)
LikeLiked by 1 person
(I’m Donne now😇)
😂👍👍👍👍👍
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s see.
Birx said Trump policies probably caused 100’s of thousands of needless deaths after the initial surge of 100K fatalities.
Now we hear that 200K may have died by refusing the vaccine.
LIBERATE might have been a pretty deadly Tweet as that was the starting point of politicizing the pandemic by party. In my opinion, of course.
But, to paraphrase dear old Stalin, 1 death is a tragedy, 100,000 is a statistic.
(BTW, I just chatted with Bill Gates via my chip…works as advertised😇)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Have you considered WHY so many refuse vaccination?
Could it be that they were insulted from the beginning? How many people have you persuaded in a debate by starting out by telling them they were stupid? Or telling them their doctor is stupid?
To a very large extent, the reason people are refusing vaccines still is because early on the FDA told them their doctor could not try HCQ if they became ill.
Regardless of how you feel about HCQ (my opinion remains that if given very early, it is marginally better than no treatment) when the FDA told people their doctor could not try it on a friend or relative who was sick, it became a battle between them and the doctor they trusted versus FDA bureaucrats,
Also consider that initially people were told not to wear masks, then in a few weeks were told that they were murderers if they didn’t, and then that they were required by law to wear them. Republicans are not sheep and react negatively to being treated as such.
Once people take sides, getting them back is hard.
LikeLike
Everything you have listed tells me you think people are ignorant.
By this point, vaccines have proven themselves over and over. You are conjuring up lame excuses that are acceptable only to those who are easily led.
Are Americans that gullible?
“Insulted”? Reminds me of the young football player who was insulted when the coach sad he wasn’t good enough for a starter, so he said “I’m gonna break my arm, that’ll show him!”.
Of course the pandemic caught us off-guard (for some pretty obvious reasons, but I digress) and there were some conflicting messages from the administration, but that is ancient history.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Everything you have listed tells me you think people are ignorant.”
No, I think they are human, and driven as much by emotion as logic. And that is every bit as true of Democrats as Republicans. I mean really, you guys still cling to light rail. There is no world in which that is rational.
Once you insult people, they no longer hear what you want them to hear and instead are thinking of a comeback to what you say before you can finish saying it. It is human to filter words like that.
I want people to get vaccinated too. And if you guys would just stop insulting people and trying to coerce them, I might have more success.
How are mandates working for you? How much have you moved the needle after half a year of trying to use force?
You are trying the same thing harder and expecting different results.
You never even tried respectful persuasion.
LikeLike
Does your definition of “respectful persuasion” include lying to be the public about the vaccines and their effectiveness. Not you personally but folks like Rogan, BDP ( on this forum) and Carlson, et al. have all told some sort of lie or mistruth about the vaccines.
Persuasion works when you call someone stupid for GETTIING the shot (I will not die a sheep.) But not the other way?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I pointed out that emotions cloud the judgment on both sides.
I don’t listen to Rogan or Carlson, but what have they said that is factually incorrect?
LikeLike
” . . . but what have they said that is factually incorrect?”
Joe Rogan spreads lies and dangerous bullshit. For example. . .
https://spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/
Tucker Carlson spreads lies and dangerous bullshit. For example. . .
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-alex-berenson-covid-vaccines-1290938/
and, this is not one off. Carlson has been systematically undermining the push for vaccination ever since Biden became President.
https://baptistnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-undermined-covid-vaccines-99-of-the-time-his-show-discussed-them/
Last week he aired a clip of the CDC director saying that 75% of Covid deaths involved people with four or more co-morbidities. His point was to prove that Democrats are exaggerating the danger and the need for vaccination and masks.
But Tucker being Tucker, it was an edited clip that left out the context of that sentence. She was actually talking about a study of over 1.2 million vaccinated adults of whom only 36 had died. It was those 36 who had the 75% co-morbidities. Proof that the vaccines work except for those already very sick. Twisting her words out of context was another example of his disgraceful, dangerous, and deadly dishonesty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, it’s not something Rogan said, it was something Dr Malone said on his program. Rogan is supposed to censor views you don’t like for you now?
SAme for Carlson allowing Berenson to speak?
Wow.
And I’m supposed to care how Media Matters characterizes Carlson’s show?
If you are so certain of your position, you should be able to win the debate. Why is it so necessary to silence those who disagree with you?
You’ve got the government and the MSM on your side, but is a handful of pundits disagree, all is lost.
Sounds like a lack of confidence in your arguments to me.
LikeLike
Respectful persuasion. Interesting.
Are you actually suggesting that people know full well that vaccines will help them avoid hospitalization and death, but because the government said so, they refuse the jab.
That is a pretty strong indictment of obstinate ignorance as being the problem. Self interest alone would seem to favor staying healthy and alive.
I guess there might have been some merit to keeping the vaccines kind of under wraps. Then announcing that they are only available to Democrats.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, your side was telling people what to do and that they were stupid if they disagreed for a year before the vaccines were available,
Again, because of the timing, look at how HCQ was handled.
The assertion was made, based on use on other countries, that early or prophylactic use of HCQ gave good protection against death. Trump got excited about that and called it a game changer.
So, what was the response from the bureaucracy? They banned its use by your doctor, citing a couple of studies done in hospitals on patients already past the window of usefulness.
You don’t have to be a scientist to see that meant nothing.
But consider, in their eagerness to embarrass Trump, they didn’t just say ‘we don’t think it works’ No, they BANNED its use by GPs and forbade pharmacies from filling the prescriptions. Then said they had to do that because taking the drug for a week if you had COVID was too dangerous. It’s one of the safest drugs in history. Safer than Tylenol. People took it for decades with no ill effects.
But instead of just advising against it, they told your doctor and pharmacist they would lose their license if they tried it. They offered no alternative, and taking HCQ would not have interfered with any of the symptomatic relief measures. At worst, it would have been ineffective.
Again, there was no alternative that HCQ could have drawn people away from, but they had to come after it with the full force of Federal and State governments
Is it any wonder that by the time the vaccines came out the FDA and CDC had zero remaining credibility with those already suspicious of government?
Had they set out to drive people away from the vaccine, they could not have come up with a better plan.
LikeLike
Are you serious? Your entire post was about HCQ and its “ban” and for that reason people decided to forego the vaccine. The whole point of vaccine was preventative rather than wait for an infection and try a slew of therapeutics with very questionable results.
Republican and conservative leaders like Ron Johnson, Greene and media stars like Carlson and Ingraham have crapped all over the vaccine day and day out. Trump waited for months to suggest the vaccine (and he was booed…go figure). And you are blaming the CDC and Fauci?
Republicans listen to those panderers of lies, misinformation and general BS. Many admit that those are their only sources because MSM (except FOX, the biggest MSM of all) was told to them to be unreliable. Told by none other than Trump and his avowed strategy of making sure Americans don’t know what to believe.
Belief in one man and his enablers at the expense of all other, easily attainable, sources just mouse clicks away. That is a cult with a messianic leader.
The bubble is a literal killer.
PS: Here is a link that says doctors could prescribe off label us for HCQ and still can.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-01/trump-touted-drug-lives-on-as-covid-therapy-despite-trial-flops
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Are you serious? Your entire post was about HCQ and its “ban””
Did you miss the ‘For example” and the reference to timing?
There are many other things contributing to the loss of confidence in Saint Fauci and the FDA, but the treatment of HCQ is the best example I can see.
If you can’t see the difference between telling people a treatment may not work and forbidding their doctor to try it when no alternative exists, I don’t know if I can help you.
But the instinct to try to dominate people rather than persuade just doesn’t work with non-ovine Americans.
Arrogant condescension is a killer.
LikeLike
Doctors weren’t forbidden. HCQ got EA early on. Doctors can still prescribe drugs off-label legally.
My link explains.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, they could not.
Pharmacies were ordered not to dispense HCQ without a written diagnosis for an on label use.
I got the notice.
What link
LikeLike
“Pharmacies were ordered not to dispense HCQ without a written diagnosis for an on label use.”
You provided the actual text of that notice the last time you grasped at this straw. As we discussed then, it does not “order” any such thing. When I pointed it out you hemmed and hawed about what the advice meant. ADVICE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You remember incorrectly.
The notice forbade pharmacies from filling HCQ prescriptions without a written, on label diagnosis.
It was not advice, it was regulatory notice from the State Pharmacy Licensing Board. It was sent to all pharmacists and prescribers of record, which is why I got it.
LikeLike
State Pharmacy Licensing Board? I thought you were blaming the feds.
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/clinicians/treatment-of-covid-19/
From what I could ascertain these were state recommendations and Virginia was one of many states that did the same. People who were dependent upon HCQ, like lupus sufferers, could not get their medication.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If you are so certain of your position, you should be able to win the debate.”
There is no debate. That is the point.
Hundreds of thousands of people are dead because figures like Trump, Rogan and Carlson have used their bully pulpits to persuade millions of people that the virus is not all that deadly, the vaccines are not all that helpful, and/or that the vaccines are harmful.
Dr. Fauci has got it right. The crisis we are facing is not just the pandemic. It is that a great portion of the population are people like you with no respect for the simple truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is no debate. That is the point.”
Because you say so?
That is the attitude that caused this.
LikeLike
“Because you say so?”
Uh, no. There is no debate because the science is in. Covid vaccines work. Covid vaccines are safe. Covid vaccines do not make you a mutant. Covid vaccines are not part of a mind control plot by George Soros. Covid vaccines do not weaken your vital bodily fluids. etc. etc. etc.
But thanks for illustrating Dr. Fauci’s point so clearly. The most dangerous crisis we face is the politically driven disrespect for science and demonstrable facts. The people you defend are killers. Literally killers. People like Rogan or Carlson may boost their ratings spreading misinformation, but, believe it or not – and I know it is hard for a Trump apologist to understand – ratings are not the measure of what is true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Uh, no. There is no debate because the science is in.”
If you believe that, you don’t know what science is.
Nor do you understand or value liberty,
Science is never over. I made the judgment that the vaccines were worth the small, but non-zero risk.
But if I had already had COVID when the vaccines came out, that decision might have been different.
And I have no right to force either choice on anyone. Nor do I have the desire to take anyone else’s choice away.
And even more so, with the arrival of Omicron, there is absolutely no justification based on protection of others remaining.
But I suspect you know that, and what really drives you is your passion to make others submit to your wisdom.
LikeLike
“If you believe that, you don’t know what science is.”
My understanding of science is every bit as good as yours and, I suspect, quite a bit better. You seem to be confused about the difference between possible and probable – a key distinction in science.
Of course, it is logically possible that new evidence might come up that changes the basic recommendation that everyone get vaccinated. But, logical possibilities are not probabilities. The jackasses you are selling your soul to defend are not offering anything remotely like such new evidence. So I will stand by my comment – the science is in. There is nothing to debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a hint,
Every time you write “the science” whatever follows is wrong.
You could write “prevailing opinion of scientists is….” but science is a process of searching for truth, it is not dogma.
And it changes.
Prior to Omicron, you could make the argument that scientists support the proposition that people can protect others from infection by getting vaccinated, but until an Omicron inclusive vaccine is developed, the best scientific opinion no longer supports that.
LikeLike
“but until an Omicron inclusive vaccine is developed, the best scientific opinion no longer supports that.”
That is still not true no matter how much you repeat it. The boosted vaccines have been found to significantly slow the spread of the Omicron virus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, they have not.
They protect from serious illness, but they have no effect on transmission(prior Delta infection, on the other hand, does.)
LikeLike
“You remember incorrectly”
Uh, no. You do. I remember you trying this fib before, and I remember looking up the so-called “order.” I have done so again.
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/clinicians/treatment-of-covid-19/
Last time you tried this fib and were confronted with the actual document you went into a song and dance about people being afraid to not follow the advice offered. So, please don’t bother with that again. The document speaks for itself. It is a RECOMMENDATION not an ORDER. It is measured and reasonable and in response to an imminent shortage of these drugs for their proven uses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“No, they have not.”
LOL!
Yes, they do.
Vaccination helps other people by slowing the spread of the virus. The fully boosted vaccine not only reduces severity it also slows the transmission of the Omicron variant. Less sick people are less likely to spread the virus. And, even though the Omicron virus can breakthrough a boosted vaccination, the rate is not 100%. A recent study found that symptomatic disease was blocked in about 2/3 of exposures. If you are not symptomatic you are not a virulent spreader of the virus.
Do your own research.
Start here. . .
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/omicron-evades-immunity-better-than-delta-danish-study-finds-2022-01-03/
“The study also found that booster-vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus, regardless of the variant, than the unvaccinated.”
or here. . .
https://www.yahoo.com/now/cdc-studies-show-covid-19-204414392.html
“Taken together, these data highlight two important points. First, those who remain unvaccinated are at a significantly higher risk for infection and severe COVID-19 disease. . .”
LikeLiked by 2 people
“There is no world in which that is rational.”
The San Diego transit service says you are full of it.
LikeLike
Between Laredo and Cheyenne?
But even inside cities, a fleet of electric buses at peak hours backed by electric Ubers(eventually self driving) off peak would give better, door-to-door service at a fraction of the cost and with less CO2.
LikeLike
“Have you considered WHY so many refuse vaccination?”
I do not find your blame shifting away from the liars and onto the truth tellers persuasive. I see it as part and parcel of your ongoing defense of Trump’s failed and corrupt leadership on the pandemic. HE is why this became a political issue for so many and HE is why hundreds of thousands of people are dead that need not be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok. Len, there’s the proof
LikeLike
Of what?
LikeLike
Of course, you are blind to your own, knee jerk, emotion driven retorts.
LikeLike
So, you have no answer.
I think it is because my rejection of your blame shifting is not proof of anything that you want to prove.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Have you considered WHY so many refuse vaccination?”
Have you considered that before there were any actual mandates, people could not be persuaded to take the vaccine because people who are dangerous told them they would be magnetized, infertile, or tracked by Bill Gates. (And I will contend that they all have smart phones that allow them to be tracked by Mr. Gates or anyone else who wants to.)
Your persuasion v. mandate argument is moot because the persuadable were convinced they vaccines would not do anything for them, except turn them into sheep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Covid lies and misinformation are murderous. It is that simple.”
If you feel that way, why is your own post so unscrupulous?
You start off by comparing “per 100,000” death rates for unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted, but in the real world there have never been 100,000 Covid deaths per week. The math may be fine (?), but the perspective is misleading.
Next, you sort vaccination statuses by political affiliation, as if that were somehow an important thing to know. It isn’t.
Finally, you quote a “tragic statistic” that is really nothing more than an unverifiable estimate, a pure guess.
I don’t doubt that Covid vaccines and boosters are effective, but this post and presumably the NYT article it is based on is just propaganda.
LikeLike
So, I am “unscrupulous?”
Uh, no, I am not. You should stop and think before you let your defensive emotions lead you once again into absurdity. And make you look really, really dumb.
If there are 7.8 deaths per 100,000 people per week that does NOT mean that there were 100,000 Covid deaths per week. Frankly, that is the kind of confusion that one might expect from a child.
The huge difference in vaccinations by political affiliation IS significant. VERY significant. That is why it is being studied by people like the Kaiser Family Foundation.
You can disparage an expert assessment of the number of needless deaths all you want. But it is not hard to determine the ballpark figure given the huge difference in mortality between the unvaccinated and the boosted. Whatever the exact number of needless deaths is, it is huge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If there are 7.8 deaths per 100,000 people per week that does NOT mean that there were 100,000 Covid deaths per week.”
No, it doesn’t. But it does mean that 7.8/100,000 is a statistic, not a physical reality.
RE: “The huge difference in vaccinations by political affiliation IS significant. VERY significant. That is why it is being studied by people like the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
You seem to think so. Can you explain why, or even why it is relevant to a story on vaccine effectiveness?
RE: “You can disparage an expert assessment of the number of needless deaths all you want. But it is not hard to determine the ballpark figure given the huge difference in mortality between the unvaccinated and the boosted. Whatever the exact number of needless deaths is, it is huge.”
Aren’t you missing the point? It is impossible to prove that 200,000 people died because they refused vaccines.
LikeLike
There is no point in discussing this further since you are simply unable to admit that your statement. . .
“You start off by comparing “per 100,000” death rates for unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted, but in the real world there have never been 100,000 Covid deaths per week. ”
was utter nonsense and certainly no basis for you calling me “unscrupulous.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
My statement was true. Your post is unscrupulous in the sense that you don’t adhere to the same rules you criticize others for breaking — incorrectly, as it turns out.
LikeLike
“But it does mean that 7.8/100,000 is a statistic, not a physical reality.”
What does that mean?
What is the physical reality? And why doesn’t the statistic represent it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “What does that mean?”
It means that 7.8/100,000 deaths per week never physically occurred because 100,000 deaths per week never occurred.
RE: “What is the physical reality? And why doesn’t the statistic represent it?”
According to the CDC, the highest 7-day moving average of daily Covid deaths over the last two years was about 3,400 (x 7 = 23,800). That works out to about 1.8 real unvaccinated deaths per week (at the rate of 7.8/100,000).
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeaths
Notice the NYT’s statistic may be perfectly valid mathematically, but even so it doesn’t tell us much. It doesn’t even tell us that the vaccines are effective, since the calculated death rate could be affected by variables other than vaccination status.
LikeLike
“It means that 7.8/100,000 deaths per week never physically occurred because 100,000 deaths per week never occurred.”
OMG are you stupid!
LikeLike
I take it you are out of ideas and can’t substantiate your own assertions.
LikeLike
“According to the CDC, the highest 7-day moving average of Covid deaths over the last two years was about 3,400. That works out to about 2.3 real unvaccinated deaths per week.”
OMG are you stupid!
The rate is per 100,000 people. Duh!
The FACT is that out of every 100,000 unvaccinated people, 7.8 DIED per week during October and November.
The FACT is that out of every 100,000 vaccinated and boosted people 1 person died every 10 weeks.
If you object to being called “stupid,” I object to being called “unscrupulous” based on your ridiculous and stubborn stupidity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is 7.8 deaths per 100,000 population, not 100,000 deaths.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The rate is per 100,000 people.”
So what? Mr. Rothman wanted to know the actuals. I chose the deadliest period of the pandemic to show how the rate and the actuals compare, but we can do the same with the time period the rate is based on.
From Oct. 1 through Nov.30, daily Covid deaths (7-day average) declined from 1764 to 836 (averaging 1,300 per day, or 9,100 per week). At a statistical rate of 7.8/100,000 unvaccinated deaths per week, 0.7 real unvaccinated deaths occurred in the period.
Again, no one disputes the rate number, but it tells a different story from the actuals. You need both to fully describe the phenomenon: here, that while the rate may be valid, the actual number of people involved is almost insignificant.
Your mistake (lie or misinformation) was to present only a part of the truth as the whole truth.
LikeLike
RE: “That is 7.8 deaths per 100,000 population, not 100,000 deaths.”
Why do you say that?
LikeLike
You have had plenty of time to wrap your head around the very simple concept of rates of death per week per 100,000 people. For the unvaccinated it is 7.8 deaths per week for each 100,000 people. It seem hopeless, but I will give it one last shot to help you understand this simple measurement.
Let’s estimate that there were about 50 million unvaccinated adults during Oct and Nov last year. That would calculate to a weekly death toll among them of (500 * 7.8) or about 3,900 deaths per week in that group. Why 500? Because 50 million = (500 * 100,000).
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, then. Are you saying 7.8 deaths per 100,000 per week is the unvaccinated death rate for death from all causes?
In that case, mea culpa; my explanations have not been responsive.
On the other hand, if 7.8/100,000 deaths from all causes are unvaccinated deaths compared to 0.1/100,000 vaccinated deaths from all causes, this tells us nothing about vaccine efficacy. Three confounding variables are:
The distribution of all-causes death by age group.
The morbidity profiles of the unvaccinated group and the vaccinated group.
For example, it is possible that the same number of healty young people die of all causes while vaccinated as die of all causes while unvaccinated.
Put another way, your title claim, “Vaccines work!” is unsupported by your own data.
LikeLike
Uh, no.
These are COVID deaths only.
Since older people are more likely to get vaccinated than younger people and therefore more likely to die when infected, these FACTS reinforce the finding that Covid vaccines work very, very well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Since older people are more likely to get vaccinated than younger people and therefore more likely to die when infected, these FACTS reinforce the finding that Covid vaccines work very, very well.”
So, you agree that the three confounding variables I mentioned affect the analysis, but since one out of many permutations supports your position, the other permutations (which don’t) don’t matter. This is why I accuse you of spreading misinformation.
LikeLike
Uh, you are ridiculous and insulting.
I was not spreading misinformation. I was not cherry-picking or ignoring any “permutations.” I was simply reporting FACTS.
The RATE of Covid death for ALL unvaccinated people was 7.8 per 100,000 people.
The RATE of Covid death for ALL vaccine boosted people was 0.1 per 100,000 people.
That is a huge difference that has no possible explanation other than the efficacy of vaccination.
And all three of your so-called confounding variables reinforce the evidence. Older people are more likely to be vaccinated. That is a fact. Therefore, the vaccinated are older, sicker, and closer to death than the unvaccinated and yet are 78x less likely to die due to Covid than the unvaccinated.
These were simple facts easily understood by anyone with even a high school math education. But not by you, apparently. And now that you are beginning to understand the concept of RATE, you still do not want to believe the truth, so you just don’t. And, instead, just hurl insults.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The RATE of Covid death for ALL unvaccinated people was 7.8 per 100,000 people.”
The rate of unvaccinated Covid death is 7.8 per 100,000 deaths from all causes, according to your own statements.
A rate of vaccinated Covid death of 0.1 per 100,000 deaths from all causes is a comparable statistic, but not a meaningful one in terms of vaccine efficacy. You, yourself, give the reason when you say “Older prople are more likely to be vaccinated.”
It is also true that young, healthy people die less from Covid. Thus, while the older age group make the vaccine look efficacious, the younger age group that vaccinates the same rate must makes the vaccine look less efficacious.
Your one-size fits all efficacy claims are unfounded.
LikeLike
“Your one-size fits all efficacy claims are unfounded.”
“The rate of unvaccinated Covid death is 7.8 per 100,000 deaths from all causes, according to your own statements.”
It is 7.8 deaths per week per 100,000 unvaccinated PEOPLE not per 100,000 deaths from all causes. If that even makes sense. The nature of this statistic has been carefully explained to you several times in different EASY TO UNDERSTAND ways, but you keep coming back to this nonsense.
It is hopeless. You are either incapable of understanding or simply unwilling to face an inconvenient truth. Maybe it is the later, but it is hard to rule out the former.
LikeLike