Having found the original article, I can say that this text is completely incorrect. you cannot get from this one table from the ONS and get to your conclusion. You need to factor in the percentage vaccinated in each age group at the time of the deaths.
While there is reason to believe that the vaccine causes deaths, I am certain that this analysis is completely incorrect. It does not do the cause any good by posting such rubbish. It is clear that you do not understand what the figures mean. In order to understand whether you are more likely to die having had the vaccine, you have to check with the number in that age group that have had the vaccine. I have extensively graphed this problem and (if the ONS figures are correct) if you are aged 80+ you have about a 30% greater probability of dying than if you had not had the vaccine. That by itself is bad enough but please don't give the headlines that you have since it is completely incorrect.
Please elaborate. Aren't the vaxxed and unvaxxed distributed more or less evenly by age? How do you explain the 80-89-year old discrepancy? What am I missing?
More to the point, are you saying they didn't adjust for the sample size (more people vaxxed than unvaxxed in a given age group and so only gave raw numbers VS per capita)?
The table from which each graph was generated is simply a count of the number of people dying with the vaccination status, ever vaccinated or unvaccinated. Since in a particular age group a different percentage are vaccinated and thus if you had an equal probability of dying and 90% are vaccinated then you would get 90% deaths in the vaccinated. I hope that makes sense.
I'm not sure I understand completely. He didn't provide a percentage? I find that strange? The article is otherwise well-written; why would he discredit himself in that way? Can you provide a link to he original full article?
It is important in today's environment to only support correct analysis. As you can see from my comments on his article, he hasn't responded to me.
We all make mistakes, it is very important to think carefully about what you are supporting. If everybody thinks carefully humans can do amazing things.
Having found the original article, I can say that this text is completely incorrect. you cannot get from this one table from the ONS and get to your conclusion. You need to factor in the percentage vaccinated in each age group at the time of the deaths.
While there is reason to believe that the vaccine causes deaths, I am certain that this analysis is completely incorrect. It does not do the cause any good by posting such rubbish. It is clear that you do not understand what the figures mean. In order to understand whether you are more likely to die having had the vaccine, you have to check with the number in that age group that have had the vaccine. I have extensively graphed this problem and (if the ONS figures are correct) if you are aged 80+ you have about a 30% greater probability of dying than if you had not had the vaccine. That by itself is bad enough but please don't give the headlines that you have since it is completely incorrect.
https://expose-news.com/2023/12/08/censored-the-study-that-shows-a-staggering-17-million-deaths-after-covid-vaccine-rollout/
Please elaborate. Aren't the vaxxed and unvaxxed distributed more or less evenly by age? How do you explain the 80-89-year old discrepancy? What am I missing?
More to the point, are you saying they didn't adjust for the sample size (more people vaxxed than unvaxxed in a given age group and so only gave raw numbers VS per capita)?
The table from which each graph was generated is simply a count of the number of people dying with the vaccination status, ever vaccinated or unvaccinated. Since in a particular age group a different percentage are vaccinated and thus if you had an equal probability of dying and 90% are vaccinated then you would get 90% deaths in the vaccinated. I hope that makes sense.
I'm not sure I understand completely. He didn't provide a percentage? I find that strange? The article is otherwise well-written; why would he discredit himself in that way? Can you provide a link to he original full article?
the link is https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/shocking-data-england-has-suffered
It is important in today's environment to only support correct analysis. As you can see from my comments on his article, he hasn't responded to me.
We all make mistakes, it is very important to think carefully about what you are supporting. If everybody thinks carefully humans can do amazing things.
https://expose-news.com/2023/12/08/censored-the-study-that-shows-a-staggering-17-million-deaths-after-covid-vaccine-rollout/
I responded by seeking clarification. Don't try to troll me.
The vaccination percentages are very different by age
Your point being?
It seems as though the pictures are missing
Yes, but not nessessary.