Thursday, August 26, 2021

D.T. Doctrane - Israeli Data Demonstrates the Importance, and the Limits, of Vaccination

Antivaxxers are using similar techniques as climate change deniers to misrepresent data. 

I recently saw a misleading presentation of COVID data pertaining to Israel. In this post I’m sharing several graphs that I made to counter this misleading image.

Israel is currently a popular object of those committed to an anti-vax narrative because a high proportion of the population is fully vaccinated and cases there are currently spiking. The situation is obviously concerning. However, it is being misrepresented to feed anti-vax sentiments, which are dangerous. Epidemiological study shows that widespread vaccination is key to taming the vaccine, although not in isolation.

The table being circulated by anti-vaxx1ers presents this data in ways designed to tell a misleading narrative. First, the table left out the data for the 12-15 and 16-19 age groups, which is already telling. Second, the choice of a table makes the values seem closer together than they are. Third, and most egregious, the table creator cherry-picked data from different datasets to make the values appear closer together than they are. All the data needed for the comparison can be found in a single, downloadable Excel workbook. However, the comparison made using that data is not as alarming as the misleading data

D.T. Doctrane - Israeli Data Demonstrates the Importance, and the Limits, of Vaccination


Ryan Harris said...

Checkout: and compare safety of covid vax to *all* other vaccines. I personally took the vax but I'm concerned as progressive activists with no medical training and no biostats or risk analysis training try to push people into a one size fits all policy requirement for the vax. Kids less than 25 have much higher chance of long term injury or death from medicine than the disease.

Covid Vaxxes are *by far* the most dangerous drug ever approved by the US FDA. People should be made aware and balance their risks. Progressivism obviously sees this as a black and white issue like they always do, some people have to sacrifice to save all but these risks are HUGE. 1:20000/healthy youngsters DIE taking covid vaxxes while 1:10500000 would die from covid. Life years lost for every child are enormous while life years gained saving 75-90yr old people from covid are pretty small. Disgusting progressive behavior. They should ashamed or locked up. Mental.

Kaivey said...

People are right to question the safety of vaccines, but I shall check your figures. For most people the risk of blood clots is much higher with Covid, but I don't know what the figures are for children.

Kaivey said...

Blood clot risk greater after Covid infection than after vaccination

Analysis of 29m people finds danger of infection with Sars-Cov-2 far outweighs the risks of having jab

Kaivey said...

It sounds shocking either way, although less for vaccines. They say everyone who isn't vaccinated will get COVID-19 in the end, but the Soviet vaccine is not associated with blood clots yet, if we can trust the data.

A major review of vaccines suggests the AstraZeneca jab does raise the risk of blood clots and another serious condition that can cause bleeding.

But the study found the risk of such problems following a coronavirus infection was still much higher.

The University of Oxford-led team also found an increased risk of stroke after the Pfizer jab - but again at a much lower rate than after infection.

The team said it once again showed the "substantial" benefit of vaccination.

It comes after a coroner ruled on Thursday that BBC Radio Newcastle presenter Lisa Shaw died because of complications from the AstraZeneca jab.

The 44-year-old died in May after developing headaches a week after getting her first dose. She suffered blood clots in the brain.

Child jabs halted in trial as adult clot link probed
AstraZeneca: Is there a blood clot risk?
The research team looked at records from more than 29 million people who received a first dose of a Covid vaccine between December and April, as well as nearly 1.8 million who were infected with the virus.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, looked for complications up to 28 days after being jabbed or infected.

It found that for every 10 million people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine:

an extra 107 would be hospitalised or die from thrombocytopenia, which can cause internal bleeding and haemorrhages, but that was nearly nine times lower than the risk of the same condition following an infection
an extra 66 would be hospitalised or die from blood clots in the veins, but that was nearly 200 times lower than the risk following an infection
For every 10 million people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, it found:

143 extra strokes would be seen, but that was nearly 12 times lower than the risk following an infection
Lead author Prof Julia Hippisley-Cox said it was important people were aware of the risks, but that they were kept in context given the higher risk from being infected.

Fellow author Prof Aziz Sheikh added the findings "clearly underscore" the importance of getting vaccinated to reduce the risk of these clotting and bleeding outcomes.

Ryan Harris said...

When you read the studies, ask skeptically if it's Flawed or propaganda, the covid vaccine benefit is not permanent, it fades by 10-30% every s8x months, the risk from Jab is a one time risk for each jab. The risk from any virus tends to, with some variability, decrease very slowly naturally by small amout, maybe 1-2% per year/whether through natural immunity or viral variation. The math isn't complicated here. Basic statistics. S9 a person's risk from the jab has to assume an annual booster. Also humans have never eliminated a respiratory virus with human and animal reservoirs. It's why corona viruses and flus come back year after year. It's not the measles that only lives in humans. There can never be Zero case assumption in a credible model.

Ryan Harris said...

I don't know the risk of bleed OE enlarged heart or allergic reaction more generally by age /race/sex but all cause mortality is pretty clear that kids should rarely if ever take a jab. It's not even close or arguable unless thw parent is willing to make a trade off to protect themselves or a high risk elder in a household. Sometimes that is necessary because without a parent, a kid has lower chances of survival too.

Mothers pass antibodies onto children in milk so any mother that got infected should pass some immunity to children and while it's weak, probably enough to reduce mortality for children whose mothers were infected over those whose parents were vaccinated and since covid will be a permanent threat, will never go away entirely, this may have some value to allow the people with.almost no risk of injury or death from disease to get natural immunity while young because it is lower risk than VAX and better long term protection. And then since it appears from studies, natural immunity, unlike Jab, never fades, and is more.robust against every known variant, it will protect people as they age into high risk groups, This is obv speculative, no data or science yet to verify but in coming years can be studied. Humans have kept these corona virus waves in check for thousands of years, it implies we should protect those humans at greatest present risk of dying now but not interfere where there is evidence we convey a very successful immunity onward for another generation against the virus.

Andrew Anderson said...

It's not even close or arguable unless thw parent is willing to make a trade off to protect themselves or a high risk elder in a household. Ryan Harris

Assuming the current leaky vaccines even protect against transmission - which they don't.

Ryan Harris said...

For people over 30-60, depending on individual risk factors like time spent in public, being male or fat or having heart disease or other risks, VAX is generally a good, sensible trade off. It can reduce risk of death significantly.

Andrew Anderson said...

So if the parents are at risk then they should be the ones to get vaccinated.

Then what's the excuse for insisting that children take unjustified risks?

Ryan Harris said...

Cancer patients, compromised immunity, on steroids or certain medication can leave vaccinated or unvaccinated parents at very high risk of death. For example, a Vaccinated 70 year old risk of death is close to risk of death for an unvaccinated 55yr old.

Andrew Anderson said...

Still, if the vaccines don't prevent transmission, then what's the point of vaccinating children to protect others?

Ryan Harris said...

Yes, pretty reckless given what we know but maybe some kids have risk factors of their own so doctors think it's a good idea, or parents know kids health.risks, or ppl get caught up in media hype and fervor and wishful thinking, idk. Hopeful people stop acting crazy about it. As always, British media are worst on the planet at bringing out worst side of humanity and delivering one sided information to confirm their readership beliefs.

lastgreek said...

Kaivey, you’re wasting your time with these guys — guys who would sooner, and unquestionably, take horse dewormer to fight off the virus than vaccination.

Six said...

Your complete lack of self awareness is the most entertaining aspect of this blog.