This website requires Javascript to function properly. Please go to the setting of your web browser and enable Javascript for this website.

Ad by

Ad by

Weekly death rates of COVID by vaccine status

micah(mica)

数据：英国美国瑞士智利，每周的数据，不是累计数据。数据的time frame 各国不太一样。

加拿大的数据确实没有，但我想不出加拿大有什么特殊的。

自己看吧，各自解读，各取所需

(#14284337@0)
Last Updated: 2022-1-18
This post has been archived. It cannot be replied.

Report

英国完全接种的占71%，却占新冠死亡的75%，怎么还能算出来每10万人死亡未接种的是接种的4倍多？还有那个Ontario Science Table，每百万人的数字统统错得离谱。 -blueskygg(Grass); 2022-1-18 (#14284429@0) +5

i don’t know what is your source of UK data saying that vaccinated COVID deaths account for 75% of total deaths. When describing the death rate of -micah(mica); 2022-1-18 {709} (#14284571@0) +1
certain disease in the entire population, age standardized mortality rate (ASMR) is much better than crude rate because ASMR takes into account the age structure of the population. In COVID vaccination data, it becomes complicated because the vaccine rolling out was by age. The other likely source of discrepancies is that you need to consider when the death occurs. For example if someone died 5 days after his first shot, is he considered vaccinated or unvaccinated? There must be a pre-defined criteria to process this data. The back of envelope calculation you did is a very crude mortality rate, and is unlikely to be the same as the ones released by governments (UK NHS , Ontario Science table or CDC).

见图，英国去年9月份那4周新冠死亡共3671人，其中打过2针14天以上才测出阳性的是2750人，占75%，而那时英国完全接种的占总人口的67%。不用算就知道，每10万人死亡完全接种的应该比未接种的略多一点。 -blueskygg(Grass); 2022-1-19 {232} (#14284995@0) +2

:

Thanks! Interesting. I am not able to give you a convincing explanation. But there are few things to keep in mind: -micah(mica); 2022-1-19 {921} (#14285110@0)
1. I have seen reports that there are two sets of mortality data in UK. Both legit but differ from each other in the range of 20-30% because of the definition of COVID death. One being very loose (if COVID is mentioned anywhere on the death certificate), the other more stringent. 2. I still think age standization will cause significant change in final data output. One can imagine that deaths will ocurr unporportionally in the elderly (70 above, 65 above). Compounding to the problem is the age dependent of vaccine rolling out. After age standization, the final read of ASMR will look very different. But I am not 100% sure that it will make such a huge difference. 3. almost all research reports I have read, no matter whther its from government, academia or industry, suggest a significant reduction in death/ICU/hospitalization caused by COVID vaccine. It would be a colossal effort to organize such a conspiracy.

Here is a good article about how UK government measures COVID deaths -micah(mica); 2022-1-19 (#14285126@0)

Why do the public health figures differ from the ONS numbers? -micah(mica); 2022-1-19 {637} (#14285138@0)
PHE has been counting all deaths in people who have laboratory-confirmed infection – this is technically robust because it does not require a judgement to be made about cause of death. ONS reports deaths where a doctor suspects COVID-19 as a cause – these data include a clinical assessment as recommended by WHO but are subject to variation in clinical judgement as to the cause of death.
These are two different measures with different strengths and weaknesses. The PHE data series is also available daily, making it more useful for real-time surveillance, whereas the ONS survey only appears once a week and is delayed.

Rates, 大概是用全部接种人数做基数算出来的，我估计要是表里列个只打一针的，估计死亡率是最低的，而且这个数据只到去年10月 -cocowen(coco); 2022-1-18 (#14284430@0)