Comment by longhairedhippy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by longhairedhippy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

longhairedhippy

> Age standardized mortality rate (that is, accounts for an increasingly old population) is at 2008 levels in the UK. This doesn't account the total lack of treatment early on, patients were denied anti-inflammatory medicine and put on ventilators instead of normal oxygen.

Thank you for confirming my argument, vaccination rates in the UK are well over 80%.

> Not many people are dying of COVID-19, they're dying with COVID-19. Most have serious underlying conditions.

Actually, deaths from underlying health conditions are all up in addition to COVID deaths, try again.

> This is patently untrue. 87% of deaths and hospitalizations since July are vaccinated [1]. Now, this site might seem sketch, but you can download the reports from the Scottish government yourself and verify the math. I did, it's accurate. Tellingly, the latest report is missing the death count table.

That is not an honest statement, granted I should have qualified my statement with "in the US". Comparing a country with a much higher vaccination rate seems to be apples to oranges. Very interesting stat though, need to read more on that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/10/moderna-mos...

> If the vaccines have any affect at all, it's marginal, and only in the elderly. Of course, they don't work, that's why they're rolling out 'boosters' because the vaccines keep failing.

This is 100% supposition, what data would you cite, if any, to back this up?

EDIT: Did some more reading, apparently Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J only account for less than 34% of the vaccines administered in the UK, they are primarily utilizing other vaccines.

> Actually, deaths from underlying health conditions are all up in addition to COVID deaths, try again.

What does say about your WW2 mortality claim then?

Okay, so looking at the first study linked in the post article [1]:

Scroll down to the first table.

Not Fully Vaccinated: 569,142 cases, 6,132 deaths. Mortality in this group: 0.010774113

Fully Vaccinated: 46,312 cases, 616 deaths. Mortality in this group: 0.013301088

Look at those mortality rates closely, the Fully Vaccinated group is actually higher.

The next section has a different total number of cases, unexplained in the table itself, but let's take a look at the most vulnerable population in that table, 65 and over.

Vaccinated mortality: 0.049678391 Unvaccinated mortality: 0.073150825

Now, that's a difference of 0.023472434 in mortality. I don't know what kind of math it takes to make 2.3% look like 11x better outcome, but I'm sure it's not math based in reality. That's about a 30% relative reduction in rate, and that's using highly specious numbers IMO, especially considering the CDC put out guidance to NOT TRACK 'breakthrough' cases unless the patient is hospitalized. Since this table includes a 'hospitalizations' column, one has to wonder how these vaccinated cases even got tracked in the first place.

Mind you, this is if you believe the CDC and their data in the first place, which I don't.

1: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

> What does say about your WW2 mortality claim then?

That statement doesn't even make sense. I'm refuting you statement that folks are not dying of COVID, their dying with COVID. It's just not true, if that were the case, we would see a corresponding drop in other causes of death. We didn't they actually went up, pretty close to how much they go up every year. But COVID deaths on top have gotten us to the point of WWII death rates in 1943. So in short, it completely proves my point.

> Look at those mortality rates closely, the Fully Vaccinated group is actually higher.

I think failure to interpret the study correctly does not actually make it incorrect. Try reading the whole thing instead of cherry picking numbers to try to prove your point.

> Mind you, this is if you believe the CDC and their data in the first place, which I don't.

What's there to "believe"? Deny what doesn't fit your world view is not a good playbook. Did you "believe" the CDC when Trump was in charge? Was it different then? Sometimes things we don't like still happen, even though we really don't want them to. Denying reality doesn't make it true.

> But COVID deaths on top have gotten us to the point of WWII death rates in 1943

Except, they didn't, as we discussed already.

> think failure to interpret the study correctly does not actually make it incorrect. Try reading the whole thing instead of cherry picking numbers to try to prove your point.

I don't need someone to interpret numbers for me, that's the difference. The rest of the 'study' is drivel. Not to mention, the data's already cherry picked.

> What's there to "believe"?

For starters, we have to take their numbers at face value. We know they're not aggressively collecting adverse reaction data, we know they're not doing much investigating vaccine caused death and illness, we know their numbers are most likely skewed to show the vaccines are beneficial. Despite this, the best they can come up with is a report that shows the mortality among vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com