Thursday, February 3, 2022

No question the vaccines increase your susceptibility to COVID. What else do they do? Public Health Scotland

If you live in Scotland, a small country, the government, with its NHS, is like Santa:  it knows if you've been bad or good.  Scotland has 5.5 million residents.  Over 5 million of them are listed in Scotland's report of cases, above.  The rest are kids too young for the vaccine.  Sadly for Scots, 80% went along with the jab.  It didn't help them.  And you can't dispute these numbers:  look at the narrow confidence intervals.

So now we know the jabbed get more COVID.  What we suspect is that they also get more heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, autoimmune diseases and myocarditis.  Will Scotland release those data, ever?


Anonymous said...

Understand that the information from Scotland is more telling if you take the time to review the small print. See page 103 for the definition of someone who is "unvaccinated".

"Unvaccinated: An individual that has had no doses of COVID-19 vaccine and has tested positive for COVID-19 by PCR or has had one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and has tested positive less than or equal to 21 days after their 1st dose of COVID-19 vaccine."

You may have seen the Alberta figures which seemingly by accident gave the breakdown of cases, hospitalisations and deaths as from the date of first injection. Yes, Alberta is not Scotland - there are so many ways to draw distinctions. Are Scotland and Alberta injecting the same risk category of patient etc. However it may give a quick and dirty indication of the underlying raw data. In Alberta, of the deaths which have occurred in the first injection group, 56% arose within 14 days, 70% within 21 days.

In Scotland, if a death arises within 21 days of the first injection, it is an unvaccinated case. In effect it suggests that only 30% of the deaths in that first injection group are shown as within that group. Yes the figures should be cummulative but perhaps a quick and dirty comparison can be made with Scotland.

There is a decline in the number of unvaccinated of about 8,000 per week. Continuing a quick and dirty Alberta / Scotland comparison - where Scotland shows in Table 16 that there were 6 "first injection" deaths in a week, we can surmise that these are 30% of the total of those who died post first injection (and presumably before second injection - I'm not sure of the Alberta data). If 6 deaths represented 30% then there were 20 deaths in this first injection group, 14 of which were listed as unvaccinated. The unvaccinated group is five times as large but, adjusted to remove these 14 deaths, has 4 deaths in the week. Arguably the denominator should change in the unvaccinated group to account for the 8,000 newly injected that week, but that's a small issue. Four covid deaths in 1.5 million unvaccinated as against 20 covid deaths in the 318,000 first injection group.

There are plenty of variables between Albert and Scotland and my comparison may have been too simple but it would be very interesting to see Scotland's raw data. There is data for the UK, but with different definitions of a covid death and a 14 rather than a 21 day period where events are shifted to the unvaccinated group. There are ONS figures too. But, the comparison gives something to chew on perhaps. I'd be delighted if someone could show me the fatal error in my comparison. The pressure remains on this Nervous Nellie to "get vaxed" but the control group still seems more appealing than the controlled group.

Anonymous said...

the experimental injection also reduces natural immunity.

ooops 😳

Anonymous said...

Any ideas why 2 doses so much worse in cases then 1 dose only, opposite
would think if works 2 dose better then 1 dose outcomes, yet not how come?

Deputy Dog said...

I think that the first comment indicates that the outcome from the first dose is not what it appears.

EnvEpiB said...

Deputy Dog has it right. The most important thing in epidemiology, as limited of a science as it is, is the ability to distinguish cases from controls. Anonymous 1 shows that the data clearly indicate that a group of people who should have been counted in the 1 dose group, were methodologically (and quite inappropriately) shifted to the "unvaccinated" group. By reading the definition A1 supplied, it seemed obvious to me that they were trying to cover up either cases of COVID or covid-mortality during the 1st 21 days after receiving a shot. I'm unsure how any ethical IRB board would approve that, but I'm guessing it was a political/policy decision, not a scientific one.

This happens regularly in the scientific literature by people with vested interests. It always has and always will. that's why we need to epidemiologic, medical, scientific, and other critical eyes to watch for such fraud.