quote:
#1. If you read page 19 of the actual report you will see that they report total deaths regardless of setting within 28 days of diagnosis. The author of the OP's link is the one who describes the deaths as covid deaths. Not the report.

Page 19 is in the OP. But let's place the foot notes here:

quote:
Data sources: Emergency care attendance and admissions from ECDS, deaths from PHE daily death data series (deaths within 28 days). NHS trusts are required to submit emergency care attendances by the 21st of each month. As a result, the number of cases with attendances may show substantial increases in technical briefs prepared after the monthly cut-off, compared with other briefs from the same month.

¥ Cases without specimen dates and unlinked sequences (sequenced samples that could not be matched to individuals) are excluded from this table.

* Cases are assessed for any emergency care attendance within 28 days of their positive specimen date. Cases still undergoing within 28-day period may have an emergency care attendance reported at a later date.

§ At least 1 attendance or admission within 28 days of positive specimen date

# Inclusion: Including cases with the same specimen and attendance dates

‡ Exclusion: Excluding cases with the same specimen and attendance dates. Cases where specimen date is the same as date of emergency care visit are excluded to help remove cases picked up via routine testing in healthcare settings whose primary cause of attendance is not COVID-19. This underestimates the number of individuals in hospital with COVID-19 but only includes those who tested positive prior to the day of their emergency care visit. Some of the cases detected on the day of admission may have attended for a diagnosis unrelated to COVID-19.

^ Total deaths in any setting (regardless of hospitalisation status) within 28 days of positive specimen date.

** Age <50 + >50 do not total ‘all cases’ per category as some cases lack reported age data

Now where are you seeing the error of what people are reading. Highlight the words.

quote:
#2. 75% of adults in the UK has received both doses of the vaccine. So there are 3x's as many vaccinated as unvaccinated ppl in the UK. If vaccinated and unvaccinated had the same mortality rate then there should have been 615 vaccinated deaths. The fact that there are less than 615 deaths in the vaccinated population that means that the mortality rate in the vaccinated population is less than the unvaccinated.

No no. You leave out the room for cases that are at more risk regardless of their vaccination status.

You are literally talking the difference of 126 deaths (if you are being strict and saying there can be no variables).

None of that explains why there were almost 10 times more cases in the >50 vaccinate age group than the non vaccinated.

None of it helps the cause of we can vaccinate our way out of this.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by WeeWee

Member since Aug 2012

40191 posts

Posted on 8/25/21 at 8:23 pm to Jjdoc

quote:
Page 19 is in the OP. But let's place the foot notes here:

The footnotes are important because they help explain what the data in the tables means. The footnotes are not in the OP. The OP I am assuming took his photo from the article in which the author of the article cuts out the footnotes. Why does the author cut our the footnotes. Does the author not want people to see that the tables reporting total deaths regardless of setting within 28 days of a positive PCR test and mortality rate or some other metric that takes the population size into account (i.e. mortality rate).

quote:
Now where are you seeing the error of what people are reading.

It is the way the data is being portrayed to the readers that is wrong. The author of the article and the OP are trying to present the data to make the 402 vaccinated deaths look worse than 253 unvaccinated deaths. 402 deaths would be worse than 253 deaths if the subpopulation those deaths came from were similar, but the subpopulations are not similar. There are roughly 50 million adults in the UK. Approximately 75% of those 50 million people have been vaccinated. That means are approximately 37,500,000 vaccinated adults in the UK. That also means there are approximately 12,500,000 unvaccinated adults in the UK. If you look at the mortality rate for each subpopulation you will see that the mortality rate for vaccinated adults in the UK is approximately 1.072 per 100,000. The mortality rate for unvaccinated adults in the UK is approximately 2.024 per 100,000. When the appropriate metric is used you see that deaths in the unvaccinated population is worse than the vaccinated population which is the exact opposite of the impression that the author of the disinformation article and the OP are trying to portray.

quote:
None of that explains why there were almost 10 times more cases in the >50 vaccinate age group than the non vaccinated.

A much larger population and population dynamics that are more prone to contracting diseases.

quote:
None of it helps the cause of we can vaccinate our way out of this.

I just showed you how the mortality rate of vaccinated adults in the UK is significantly lower than the mortality rate of unvaccinated adults in the UK. I guess I will be kind and do hospitalization rates too. The hospitalization rate among the vaccinated adults in the UK (1355/~37,500,000 X 100,000) is approximately 3.61 per 100,000. The hospitalization rate among the unvaccinated adults in the UK (2960/~12,500,000 X 100,000) is approximately 23.68 per 100,000. So as you can see vaccination cuts the mortality rate in half and reduces the hospitalization rate 6 fold.

Yes this does help show us that we can vaccinate our way out of this mess when the correct metric is used to report the data.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board