Mainstream articles are biased with the spin of the situation but the facts are there. It goes over some causes of deaths - mostly heart/clotting issues, exactly what you’d expect from the vaxx. That’s why we call it the “clot-shot”
In England people who took the vaxx are twice as likely to die as those who don’t:
Notice how they don’t deny the statistic. They just say it’s taken “out of context” because covid deaths, and vaccines save lives. No matter how they spin it they can’t deny government data says vaccinated 18-59 are much more likely to die. That’s a fact, even though it’s marked as false by Reuters.
Doesn't that all make sense? I'm not sure what the issue is here.
The statistic that vaccinated people 18-59 are dying at twice the rate presumably true, so of course the reuters article doesn't deny it. The Reuters article presents a totally believable explanation, which is also in the original article's comments. What they are saying is that this can be true for the age range 18-59, but simultaneously not be true for any specific age brackets within that range.
This is called Simpson's paradox. The explanation is that vaccination rates are higher among the elderly than among the young, and that the elderly have a higher baseline rate of death, and the Reuters article breaks out the numbers to demonstrate this. What's the big mystery exactly?
Simpson’s paradox is fascinating. If the result above does not seem intuitive, think of an extremely simplified version: imagine that half of everyone in their 50’s is vaxxed and no one on their 20’s is. Next imagine that of 1000 people in their 50’s, 100 of 500 vaxxed people die from non-covid sources, 100 of 500 unvaxxed people die from non-covid sources, plus 50 unvaxxed people in their 50’s die from covid and no vaxxed people do. And imagine that 0 out of 2000 people in their 20’s die from anything.
150 out of 2500 unvaxxed deaths in 18-59
100 out of 500 vaxxed deaths in 18-59 (higher rate)
But: 150 of 500 unvaxxed deaths in 50-59
100 of 500 vaxxed deaths in 50-59 (lower rate)
It would be true that more vaxxed people died than unvaxxed in the 18-59 age group without the vaccine causing any death, but only because the larger number of surviving young people swamps the higher relative death rates among the higher relative vaxxed elderly.
Yes that explanation is plausible. I replied to another comment below what I take away from that statistic… mainly that vaccine mandates are BS given other factors such as age has such an impact on mortality and spread.
Each of your references are saying completely different things.
1) non-covid excess mortality
2) mortality rate between those vaxxed and not vaxxed.
3) Reteurs was not 'debunking' point 2 or point 1. They are 'debunking' crap statements on Joe Rogan Podcast about the absollute numbers of those dying from COVID in general.
Alex Berenson is terribly misrepresenting information.
So when you say "That's a Fact" - you don't even seem to be sure what facts you're referring to, and they are obviously taken out of context, at face value.
A)
For point 3, the Reuters debunking of 'Most of the COVID deaths are those vaccinated' (Alex Berenson on Joe Rogan Podcast misinformation).
Suppose 100% of the citizens of the UK are vaccinated.
The vaxx is good, but not perfect - so some will die.
Are you going to run around saying '100% of those dying were vaccinated - therefore the vaxx is crap'.
That would be 'a fact' i.e. '100% of deaths are those who are vaccinated'.
But how helpful is that fact? It's not.
It'd be like saying '99% of those dying from car accidents were wearing seatbelts, therefore seat-belts are dangerous'
B)
Data point 2, which shows that 'Vaxxed people aged 10-59 are dying at 2x the rate those unvaxxed' - is also misleading.
(FYI they are talking about 'death rates' not absolute deaths, which is why it's different than the Joe Rogan Podcast misinformation.)
The likelihood of someone being vaccinated goes up dramatically with their likelihood of dying from COVID.
59-year-olds are vaxxed at a much higher rate than 10 or 20 year olds.
Especially those with underlying conditions.
And it's going to be overwhelmingly people in those situations that die from COVID.
Here's an analogy:
People aged 50+ and those 30+ with underlying conditions are going for a 'dangerous car ride'.
Everyone else is going for a 'safe car ride'.
Everyone is asked to wear their seatbelts.
Some people, particularly those going on the 'safe car ride' - are not wearing seatbelts.
As a result: all the 'big crashes' are in the 'dangerous car-ride' cohort.
That means almost all of the deaths will be among those who are wearing seatbelts, because, well, they were going on a 'dangerous car ride'.
The kids who didn't bother to wear seatbelts, were mostly going on the 'safe ride' and there were not many accidents at all.
If we popularized the notion of 'People with seatbelts more likely to die' - it would be totally misleading, because people would come to believe that 'Seatbelts Kill You' - when, the total opposite is true - seatbelts save lives.
...
People that are smart enough to know the difference, and continue to propagate it, are deliberately misleading people.
People that aren't bright enough (or don't have the time) to spot the difference ... shouldn't be propagating information.
> 59-year-olds are vaxxed at a much higher rate than 10 or 20 year olds.
This is the only intelligent response to explain why overall mortality is 2X higher in the vaxxed group.
I agree with you this could be an explanation. The problem is it still completely destroys the idea that unvaccinated are the ones who should be restricted from society. It shows your age is more important than vaccine status. Someone being obese or not is also more important than vaccine status. Whether you had prior infection is more important than vaccine status.
If it was true that the vaccine was so NEEDED you had to mandate it for the younger age groups, take away their civil liberties without a regular testing option then you’d have to make a strong case those age groups are dying in large numbers. They aren’t - and that’s how I interpret this statistic.
I think there are many other ways to prove hundreds of thousands have died from the vaccine. Here are some more:
Seatbelts don’t cause myocarditis. The vaccine can cause adverse events and the way these are being discounted is inhumane. All this while it doesn’t even stop spread… the most vaccinated places have the highest case counts per million. Yet governments are pushing more mandates making unvaccinated second-class citizens. MISInformation stands for Massively Important Statistical Information… and I’m going to spread it as long as governments try to ruin my life for a personal medical decision.
EDIT: I swear they changed that fact check. Read it again - it used to link exactly where I linked to. I guess it was easier to debunk something else
> prove hundreds of thousands have died from the vaccine. Here are some more:
That link doesn’t “prove” anything. By its own admission, it’s a “hypothesis”, and it’s based on a number of questionable assumptions, including assuming there’s a 41x multiplier of reported anaphylactic events immediately after vaccination, (plausible), assuming it’s comparable to a multiplier of reported deaths over a much longer time period (not plausible), and then assuming what percentages of those multiplied unreported deaths are “legitimate” based on a host of small sample sizes that, even if they are accurate (another assumption), we have no idea if they are representative enough to accurately scale to much larger numbers (completely implausible)
Besides, the theory doesn’t even pass the smell test. The months last year with the lowest excess deaths in the US - March and April - just happen to be the months with the highest numbers of administered covid vaccine doses
Note that it’s possible the vaccines are less safe than advertised and that adverse events and even deaths are more common than acknowledged (and that vaccine mandates are wrong), and for those true numbers to be much smaller than 150,000
"This is the only intelligent response to explain why overall mortality is 2X higher in the vaxxed group."
It does not really need an explanation.
We already have conclusive data of the power of vaccines.
" The problem is it still completely destroys the idea that unvaccinated are the ones who should be restricted from society."
No it doesn't.
COVID spreads quickly among the young and old.
There is no way to systmatically just keep the vulnerable in a bubble. We can reduce their interactivity, but if COVID is widespread, that won't protect them or anyone.
Vaccines reduce spread significantly, which is why we want everyone to get them.
If you want to drive in the winter, in Canada you need to 1) have insurance 2) pass a test and 3) have winter tires 4) have your car up to a bunch of standards.
And you cannot drink and drive.
Those curtailments of your civil liberties exist because you can screw up other people's lives.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi...
Mainstream articles are biased with the spin of the situation but the facts are there. It goes over some causes of deaths - mostly heart/clotting issues, exactly what you’d expect from the vaxx. That’s why we call it the “clot-shot”
In England people who took the vaxx are twice as likely to die as those who don’t:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/vaccinated-english-adult...
If you want an opposing view of that data read this fact-check:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britai...
Notice how they don’t deny the statistic. They just say it’s taken “out of context” because covid deaths, and vaccines save lives. No matter how they spin it they can’t deny government data says vaccinated 18-59 are much more likely to die. That’s a fact, even though it’s marked as false by Reuters.