Key Points Selected by Ye Editor
from a long and complicated study
at the link below, after 30 minutes
of careful editing !
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination?enrichId=rgreq-8bc4ca72723778a3f2531e77ecf09e48-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM1Njc1NjcxMTtBUzoxMDk2OTU4OTAzMDk5MzkyQDE2Mzg1NDY3OTE5MjY%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
SUMMARY:
The study concludes that systematic mis-categorisation of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated is likely, involving:
Delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations.
Systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated.
Incorrect population selection for Covid deaths.
The accuracy of any data purporting to show vaccine effectiveness or safety against a disease is critically dependent on the accurate data, (or else) claims of effectiveness or safety cannot be considered reliable.
The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is best
– and most simply – measured by all-cause mortality of vaccinated against unvaccinated,
since it avoids the thorny issue of what constitutes a Covid ‘case / infection’.
In principle, the data in the ONS vaccine mortality surveillance reports should provide us with the necessary information to monitor this crucial comparison over time.
However, until the most recent report, no age categorized data were provided, meaning that any comparisons were confounded by age
(older people are both disproportionately more vaccinated than younger people and disproportionately more likely to die).
The latest ONS report does provide some relevant age categorised data.
Specifically, it includes separate data for age groups 60-69, 70-79 and 80+, but there is only a single group of data for the age group 10- 59.
At first glance the data suggest that, in each of the older age groups, all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
In the 10-59 age group all-cause mortality is higher among the vaccinated, but this group is likely confounded by age since it is far too wide for the data provided to be sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.
... despite this apparent evidence to support vaccine effectiveness – at least for the older age groups – on closer inspection of this data, this conclusion is cast into doubt.
That is because we have shown a range of fundamental inconsistencies and flaws in the data.
Specifically: In each group the non-Covid mortality rates in the three different categories of vaccinated people fluctuate in a wild, but consistent way, far removed from the expected historical mortality rates.
Whereas the non-Covid mortality rate for unvaccinated should be consistent with historical mortality rates (and if, anything slightly lower than the vaccinated non-Covid mortality rate),
it is not only higher than the vaccinated mortality rate, but it is far higher than the historical mortality rate.
In previous years each of the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ groups have mortality peaks at the same time during the year (including 2020 when all suffered the April Covid peak at the same time).
Yet in 2021 each age group has non-Covid mortality peaks for the unvaccinated at a different time, namely the time that vaccination rollout programmes for those cohorts reach a peak.
The peaks in the Covid mortality data for the unvaccinated are inconsistent with the actual Covid wave.
Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that it is both unreliable and misleading.
We considered the socio-demographic and behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated that have been proposed as possible explanations for the data anomalies, but found no evidence supports any of these explanations.
By Occam’s razor we believe the most likely explanations are:
Systematic miscategorisation of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations.
Systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated.
Incorrect population selection for Covid deaths.
With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality,
but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.
There are, of course, some caveats to our analysis.
While we have completely ignored the 10-59 age group because it is far too coarse for age confounding not to potentially overwhelm any conclusions,
the age groups 60-69, 70-79, 80+ are still quite coarse, and there may be some age confounding within these age groups.
For example, the average age of the vaccinated 60-69 age group may be higher than that of the unvaccinated 60-69 group and hence the number of deaths would naturally be slightly higher.
We have deliberately chosen not to subject the data to a degree of sophisticated statistical or probabilistic modelling but can readily imagine what might be done.
We have carried out some basic computations of confidence intervals to address the fact that at various points the population sizes differ dramatically, and from this the patterns reported remain visible, significant and our analysis credible.
... We have explained that various social and ethnic factors are very unlikely to explain these odd differences in the ONS data set.
Absent any other better explanation Occam’s razor would support our conclusions.
In, any event the ONS data provide no reliable evidence that the vaccine reduces all-cause mortality.
We would like to acknowledge the invaluable help of Shahar Gavish, and other independent researchers.
The paper has also benefited from the input of senior clinicians and other researchers who remain anonymous to protect their careers.
DETAILS:
Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest systematic mis-categorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination 3 December 2021
The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately measured by an all-cause mortality rate comparison of vaccinated against unvaccinated,
since it not only avoids most confounders relating to case definition but also fulfils the WHO/CDC definition of “vaccine effectiveness” for mortality.
We examine the latest UK ONS vaccine mortality surveillance report which provides the necessary information to monitor this crucial comparison over time.
At first glance the ONS data suggest that, in each of the older age groups, all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
Despite this apparent evidence to support vaccine effectiveness – at least for the older age groups – on closer inspection of this data, this conclusion is cast into doubt because of a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data.
Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that it is both unreliable and misleading.
While socio-demographical and behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated have been proposed as possible explanations, there is no evidence to support any of these.
... simply reporting deaths one week late when a vaccine programme is rolled out will (with statistical certainty) lead to any vaccine, even a placebo, seemingly reducing mortality.
The same statistical illusion will happen if any death of a person occurring in the same week as the person is vaccinated is treated as an unvaccinated, rather than vaccinated, death.
... The UK Government (through its various relevant agencies) has been better than most countries in providing detailed data on Covid cases and deaths indexed by vaccine status.
However, we highlighted the absence of relevant age-categorized mortality data for England, and major inconsistencies in the data provided by different agencies.
Of most concern are the very different estimates provided by UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency) and the ONS (Office for National Statistics) of the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
... the ONS England ‘population’ (which therefore includes only people aged at least 10) is only approximately 39 million, compared to the approximately 49 million listed in NIMS.
... it is likely that underestimates the number of unvaccinated (a much more difficult number to estimate than those vaccinated.
... we argued that the ONS data was underestimating the proportion unvaccinated; hence, ONS reported mortality rates (and by implication also effectiveness rates) were too high for the unvaccinated and too low for the vaccinated.
... In response to our request, the ONS now includes age categorised all-cause death numbers by vaccination status.
... Where age groups are narrower, 60-69, 70-79 and 80+, the age confounding effects are somewhat mitigated, and the data appear to show a lower all-cause mortality for the vaccinated, compared to the unvaccinated.
... An examination of these older age groups reveals a different fundamental problem with the data, which becomes evident when we look at causes of death other than Covid.
By looking at non-covid mortality we are removing the Covid death signal from the data and looking at changing patterns of mortality caused by other causes of death such as cancer, heart diseases, accidents and so forth.
When we do this, we notice incomprehensible differences in non-Covid mortality rates (i.e., all-cause minus Covid-19 mortality)
... the data appear to show (in each of the older age groups) a significantly lower non-Covid mortality rate for the vaccinated, compared to the unvaccinated.
... the unvaccinated mortality rates peak in each age group at the same time as the vaccine rollout peaks for that age group, before falling and approaching that of the vaccinated.
... we would expect to see slightly higher non-Covid mortality rates in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated because those most at risk of death were most likely to be vaccinated, and there may have been adverse effects from the vaccine.
Moreover, we might also expect to see, early in the vaccine roll out, a much higher mortality for the vaccinated since people with comorbidities were prioritised for Covid vaccination.
Instead, those vaccinated appear to have the health of people much younger.
... We (appear to) have a vaccine whose recipients are suffering fewer deaths by causes other than covid and hence are benefitting from improved mortality.
It appears very unlikely that this can be from the vaccine since the very best we can hope for is that the vaccine is causing no adverse reactions leading to additional non-Covid deaths.
Instead, we have the unvaccinated who are suffering increased non-Covid mortality, especially in the near term close to the vaccine rollout for each age group.
The one thing that stands out is that, compared to historical mortality lifetable values, not only is there a difference in all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated, but the mortality rates look to differ significantly from historical norms, as evidenced in statistical mortality lifetables.
By simple comparison with lifetable values, the vaccinated appear to suffer less mortality than we would expect them to (and this is during a period of expected higher seasonal mortality) and vice versa for the unvaccinated.
This is very odd.
... The vaccinated are categorised into three different categories, namely: ‘within 21 days of first dose’, ‘at least 21 days after first dose’, and ‘second dose’.
However, in each age category the mortality fluctuates in a wild, but consistent way.
For example, the two-dosed vaccinated non-Covid mortality rate is consistently far lower than the baseline, while the > 21 days 1-dose vaccinated non-Covid mortality rate is consistently far higher than the baseline.
... we see peaks in mortality risk for the unvaccinated across the three age groups that occur almost immediately as if they had received the first vaccine and peak at consecutively later times in line with when vaccine was administered for that age group.
... such a phenomenon would be inevitable if the deaths of people who die shortly after vaccination are miscategorised as unvaccinated.
A major problem in evaluating the overall risk-benefits of a vaccine is that different classifications of what constitutes a ‘vaccinated’ person are required depending on whether we are primarily interested in its efficacy in reducing infections or in whether we are primarily interested in its impact on all-cause mortality.
... we are interested in the latter, which is why we believe it is important to consider a person as ‘vaccinated’ if they have received at least one dose since adverse reactions are most likely shortly after the vaccination.
... for efficacy in reducing infections, it seems reasonable to allow for suitable elapsed time (and even number of doses) before considering that a person is ‘vaccinated’.
... the USA CDC (Center for Disease Control) classifies any case, hospitalization or death occurring during this 14-day period after first dose as ‘unvaccinated’, despite injection.
Evidence from Israel suggests that this definition applies there. but in the UK it was never clear that this was the case until the release of documentation suggesting that the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination might be categorized as unvaccinated.
... someone who dies within 14 days of vaccination (first dose) is miscategorised as unvaccinated then,
hypothetically at least, a similar thing could occur post second dose, whereby the people who die within a period of taking the second vaccine are mis-categorised as ‘single dose vaccinated’.
... confounding by mis-categorisation can account for most, if not all, of any effectiveness claimed in an observational study.
... (for our) adjusted mortalities ... there is an early spike in non-Covid mortality in the vaccinated groups, which then settles down and converges with that for the unvaccinated group, which is equal to the baseline mortality.
In all cases the spike begins with the roll out of the first dose for each age group.
The scale of the mortality adjustment suggests that approximately 14% of all deaths are being mis- categorised across all three age groups.
In line with the fact that the data does not reveal excess mortality compared to previous years, we see no direct evidence of overall excess mortality caused by vaccine side effects in the data.
The spikes in mortality that appear to occur soon after vaccination may be caused by the infirm, moribund, and severely ill receiving vaccination in priority order
and thus simply appearing to hasten deaths that might otherwise have occurred later in the year.
This exploratory analysis suggests there is sufficient evidence to indicate that single and double dosed vaccinated may be being systemically mis-categorised (either accidentally or as a matter of policy).
... On the one hand, after vaccination the vaccinee is reported to endure a weakened immune response, for a period of up to 28 days and may be in danger of infection from Covid or some other infectious agent at any time during that period.
On the other hand, infection prior to vaccination, where Covid remaining symptomless for a period of up to three days, might endanger the vaccinee after vaccination because vaccination is supposed to be prohibited for 3-4 weeks after contracting Covid.
Given the fact that infection may cause death around three weeks after infection it makes sense to examine infection date rather than death registration date.
After the temporal offset adjustment, we can see a large spike in mortality for all age groups during the early weeks, when covid prevalence was high, and when the first dose vaccination rollout peaked.
After that early spike the covid mortality rates for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated look indistinguishable one from each other:
as the summer months progressed there was little covid around and hence little opportunity for vaccine protection.
However, by late summer we can see a rise in covid mortality for both groups.
... after our offset adjustment we observe no significant benefit of the vaccines in the short term.
They appear to expose the vaccinee to an increased mortality, in line with what we know about immune exposure or pre-infection risks,
but with perhaps a small protective benefit accruing post second vaccination (although we do not see this in the offset adjusted results).
... The ONS population data is defined in such a way that the total deaths per week and total loss of population should be the same each week.
... the total population in each week should be exactly equal to the total population in the preceding week minus the total number of deaths.
... The total number of deaths unaccounted for by the change in total population is around 10,000 per week until week 10 and positive until week 12.
This should not be possible.
... This suggests something odd is going on up to week 11, when a possible systematic bias is introduced, which is then ‘recovered’ by week 12 and the bias disappears thereafter.
... there is evidence that it is the healthier people or those who have natural immunity to the virus who are more likely to remain unvaccinated which would make the ONS data even more suspect.
... Thus far we have seen no evidence to support these explanations, nor do we see how they can explain the unique pattern of findings we report, especially the temporally staggered pattern of deaths in each age group coincident with vaccine rollout.
... if the ONS and other commentators or policy makers wish to claim that social and demographic factors explain the striking mortality differences between these groups they should release the data and present their case."
