Are 99% of COVID-19 Deaths Among the Unvaccinated?

[Mendel]

How can 99% of deaths be unvaccinated with information like below publicly available?

"Vermont pretty much blew Fauci's data out of the water for September. "

Here's how: you compare May/June with September as if nothing happened in the meantime:

the 99.2% figure is out of date .

Multiple sources give this figure for the unvaccinated deaths in June,

However the same number came from an AP analysis of government data for May

Consider also:
If everyone is vaccinated, then all deaths are 100% vaccinated. That doesn't mean the vaccination got worse, it just means there are no unprotected people left to die.
Vermont has managed to protect its vulnerable elderly and the health care workers almost entirely:

Article:

Source: https://vermontbiz.com/news/2021/september/15/vdh-covid-cases-136-another-death

Because so few unvaccinated vulnerable people are left, Vermont has very few deaths overall, and most of them are vaccinated. This is good.
Your chance of survival is better with protection.

Vermont is still the state with lowest number of Covid deaths per capita in the nation; they must be doing something right!

P.S.: the proper way to study vaccine effectiveness is to match 1000 unvaccinated never infected with 1000 vaccinated never infected and compare what happens; and you can do thr same for previously infected. We've referenced recent studies of this type in the Covid News thread.

 

[Agent K]

How can 99% of deaths be unvaccinated with information like below publicly available?

"Vermont pretty much blew Fauci's data out of the water for September. "Just eight of the 33 Vermonters who died of Covid-19 in September were unvaccinated, the Vermont Department of Heath said Wednesday." Take a look:"
https://vermontdailychronicle.com/2021/09/30/76-of-september-covid-19-deaths-are-vaxxed-breakthroughs/

Vermont — 76% of September Covid deaths were Fully Vaccinated…

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/vermont-76-of-september-covid-deaths-were-fully-vaccinated/

Check out the September statistics out of King County, Washington, where Seattle is located.
Fully vaccinated people were 42 TIMES less likely to die of COVID-19 related illness, and out of those who died, 25% were fully vaccinated. If you only saw the 25% figure, would you have guessed the 97.6% vaccine effectiveness?

 

[Mendel]

Fully vaccinated people were 42 TIMES less likely to die of COVID-19 related illness, and out of those who died, 25% were fully vaccinated.

So if deaths are 1:3, and effectiveness is 1:42, then the underlying proportion of vulnerable people must be 1:14, because 14×3=42. That's approcimately a 7% to 93% split, and looking at https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/vaccination.aspx (select "demographics") I find that all age groups over 60 are that well vaccinated, and the over-50s are getting there.

In other words, 75% of the deaths come from a 7% strong segment of vulnerable unvaccinated people. (This is a very rough approximation; if we went into more detail, we'd need to look at each age group separately because they're differently vulnerable, with the younger age groups contributing less overall vulnerability.)

P.S. I'm unable to post a screenshot of the data because it doesnt fit my screen.

 

[Agent K]

So if deaths are 1:3, and effectiveness is 1:42, then the underlying proportion of vulnerable people must be 1:14, because 14×3=42. That's approximately a 7% to 93% split, and looking at https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/vaccination.aspx (select "demographics") I find that all age groups over 60 are that well vaccinated, and the over-50s are getting there.

In other words, 75% of the deaths come from a 7% strong segment of vulnerable unvaccinated people. (This is a very rough approximation; if we went into more detail, we'd need to look at each age group separately because they're differently vulnerable, with the younger age groups contributing less overall vulnerability.)

P.S. I'm unable to post a screenshot of the data because it doesnt fit my screen.

I did the same calculation. Their vaccination coverage is up there with Vermont's.

 

[ConcernedBriton]

Statistics, charts etc are admittedly not my forte. They're giving me quite a headache, in the way that one single paper can prove opposing things simultaneously, depending on how it is sliced and diced. This is where an average person can perhaps just switch off, not take it all in or get misled either way in the "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" wave of a hand that people can often shape data to fit whatever narrative they wish.

In the original post, there is a link to some figures comparing death rates - it says in the quoted box:

"The share of deaths among people with COVID-19 who are not fully vaccinated ranged from to 96.91% in Montana to 99.91% in New Jersey. (Note: Deaths may or may not have been due to COVID-19.)"

As a lay person, the part which would jump out at me there (and perhaps similarly for a dedicated conspiracy theorist) is the "Note: Deaths may or may not have been due to COVID-19" caveat we seem to often get with these studies and figures.

Again, as perhaps quite a simple-minded person, I don't particularly understand how it could possibly be valid for government representatives, medical representatives, the media, or anybody else to assess the differences in deaths (from covid) between the vaccinated and unvaccinated when the unvaccinated is inclusive of cases that may have nothing to do with covid at all.

We have probably all heard how the numbers are being inflated in the NHS, whether this is right or wrong, true or false or widespread or not, where people who have apparently died in car-crashes have been put down as a covid death (as they were tested to have the virus, but they may not have had any symptoms or knowledge of this before they died).

If I went to somebody who is quite staunchly anti-vaccine and offered them evidence of material to distinguish between death rates of those who had vaccines and those who didn't - and it was revealed that the figures for those who didn't may not have even died from covid, they would not even begin to take the rest of the charts and other figures from other places seriously, in case they too were a distortion which undermined the ability to discern the risks.

I just thought I'd mention this and see what people would have to say about it. Myself, I don't really take a strong view either way right now, but I'd be curious to know what the argument or logical-thinking process would be on this subject matter.

Isn't it like trying to argue for the direct dangers of car pollutants to asthma sufferers, but then stating that the death rates of the people who died with asthma may not have even died from asthma (or had even been anywhere near sudden high rates of exhaust fumes)?

Apologies for a bad example and for not quite getting it, but I hope people can see the point and see where people could fall into conspiracy thinking if data can be included in these kinds of ways.

 

[deirdre]

I just thought I'd mention this and see what people would have to say about it.

that wasn't already discussed in this [old] thread?

a bigger issue is numbers that go back to dates like February when vaccines were not wide spread.

this thread should probably be locked as it is dated. @Landru @Mick West

 

[JMartJr]

And the answer to the question can probably be added to the thread title, I'd think.

 

[Mendel]

in the way that one single paper can prove opposing things simultaneously, depending on how it is sliced

general rule of thumb is to go with what the authors write in the abstract (and get a second opinion for confirmation) and to be very wary when someone tries to read between the lines, that's usually misleading.

As a lay person, the part which would jump out at me there (and perhaps similarly for a dedicated conspiracy theorist) is the "Note: Deaths may or may not have been due to COVID-19" caveat we seem to often get with these studies and figures.

Again, as perhaps quite a simple-minded person, I don't particularly understand how it could possibly be valid for government representatives, medical representatives, the media, or anybody else to assess the differences in deaths (from covid) between the vaccinated and unvaccinated when the unvaccinated is inclusive of cases that may have nothing to do with covid at all.

What you do in a case like this is click through to the original source (it's easy here, but sometimes it involves several steps or a search engine - or you could ask on Metabunk), and find more background information:

Article:

Importantly, not all hospitalizations and deaths of those fully vaccinated and diagnosed with COVID-19 are due to COVID-19 or have a known cause at the time of reporting. The CDC reports that as of July 19, of 5,601 hospitalized breakthrough cases, 27% were asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19 and of 1,141 fatal cases, 26% were asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19. States differ in whether they provide this detail. DC, for example, reports that as of July 11, 50% of hospitalized breakthrough cases were due to COVID-19, 19% were not, and 31% were of unknown reason. However, few states made these distinctions. Where they did, we only included breakthrough hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19. In other cases, some of these breakthrough events may be due to causes other than COVID-19.

Source: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/

This is about vaccinated people; they later say the same thing about unvaccinated people.

So, now that I've looked this up, I know:
* the authors did their best to get good data
* but the databases don't always provide the data
* where they do, they use it, so you can dig into the tables and look only at the states that make this distinction, if you like
* but they don't look that different than other states
So I have already learned that there's nothing anyone is hiding.

I have also learned that this applies to vaccinated and unvaccinated hospital patients alike, so I know that I mentally need to rewrite your complaint: "how it could possibly be valid [...] to assess the differences in deaths (from covid) between the vaccinated and unvaccinated when both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated is inclusive of cases that may have nothing to do with covid at all". Your complaint had an aspect of 'the unvaccinated are treated unfairly' that simply vanished, now that we know that.

Let's say someone (vaccinated or not) has a car accident, they get hospitalised, and the hospital runs a routine Covid test on them, which comes back positive; and because they're now hospitalized with Covid, but not because of Covid, they're an error in this statistic in some states. The question is, does this affect the conclusions of the statistic in any way, and if so, in what direction and by how much? That's something you're not going to be able to decide as a layperson; you'll just have to trust the authors, the publishers, and their experts. If you're unsure, look for other studies, and see if they confirm or contradict the finding.

My personal opinion is that it didn't matter much; and that it matters even less now because that number went down as the vaccination rate went up, so that number is very different today anyhow.

(If you have questions about a study, but find it too hard to read, I'm usually happy to answer questions as best I can.)

 

[deirdre]

The question is, does this affect the conclusions of the statistic in any way, and if so, in what direction and by how much? That's something you're not going to be able to decide as a layperson;

sure it is. pick Connecticut
from the paper:

1. the actual number was 1,522,810 (almost 43% fully vaccinated) ON May 7th.
2. BUT the vast majority of our deaths were before Feb 26th. and on Feb 26th only 8.2% were fully vaccinated.
3. even those 8% (mostly very elderly) also had other preventions in place, ie. masks, weekly testing of nursing home staff and residents etc


Basically the data -in that one particular "study" - is almost useless as far as determining vaccine efficacy. and the deaths not covid related would be highly biased against unvaccinated. since they had a higher percentage number, ie they were a much larger group at time of deaths.

 

[Mendel]

Basically the data -in that one particular "study" - is almost useless as far as determining vaccine efficacy.

On the face of it, this isn't data about vaccine efficacy, it's about what hospitals were dealing with. "These findings echo the abundance of data demonstrating the effectiveness of currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines." I read this as, "we didn't really find anything surprising, but we'd like to have better ("more robust") data in the future.

The discussion you are attempting goes into details where you compare other data sources etc. to arrive at a statement more pointed than "breakthrough cases are rare, and most people in the hospitals wigh Covid are unvaccinated", but it requires knowledge, effort, and the confidence that you didn't overlook anything, all with the end result of arriving at a bad measure for vaccine efficacy anyway. Obviously you can do that as a layperson if you like, but I don't think everyone should be expected to expend that much effort. (All I did was skim the text to find the notices about the "with Covid" issues, and look at the summaries.)

Good vaccine efficacy studies pair up similar vaccinated and unvaccinated people (for the same length of time) and observe the differences.

 

[deirdre]

The discussion you are attempting goes into details where you compare other data sources etc. to arrive at a statement more pointed than "breakthrough cases are rare, and most people in the hospitals wigh Covid are unvaccinated", but it requires knowledge, effort, and the confidence that you didn't overlook anything, all with the end result of arriving at a bad measure for vaccine efficacy anyway. Obviously you can do that as a layperson if you like, but I don't think everyone should be expected to expend that much effort. (All I did was skim the text to find the notices about the "with Covid" issues, and look at the summaries.)

i have no idea what you are saying.

Good vaccine efficacy studies pair up similar vaccinated and unvaccinated people (for the same length of time) and observe the differences.

yup.

 

[Leifer]

I believe (lol) the Pope has also been vaccinated.
I fail to follow the rebellion to not vaccinate.... is because of some larger conspiracy, of that the vac is somehow made to depopulate the earth.
So the Pope did not get that death memo ?

ROME — Pope Francis suggested Monday that getting vaccinated against the coronavirus was a "moral obligation" and denounced how people had been swayed by "baseless information" to refuse one of the most effective measures to save lives.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071...s-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation

 

[Mythic Suns]

I believe (lol) the Pope has also been vaccinated.
I fail to follow the rebellion to not vaccinate.... is because of some larger conspiracy, of that the vac is somehow made to depopulate the earth.
So the Pope did not get that death memo ?

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071...s-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation

A CT would just say that the pope wasn't injected with the vaccine and that he's part of >insert secret organisation here<, and then claim that any released footage of the pope getting vaccinated is faked. And then this would probably lead to an ongoing back and forth between the CT and any debunkers willing to take on the claim.

 

[deirdre]

This thread should probably be locked as it is very old news.

I fail to follow the rebellion to not vaccinate.... is because of some larger conspiracy, of that the vac is somehow made to depopulate the earth.

well..according to your article

Article:

Some Catholics, including some conservative U.S. bishops and cardinals, have claimed vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses were immoral, and have refused to get the jabs.

The Vatican's doctrine office, however, has said it is "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071785531/on-covid-vaccinations-pope-says-health-care-is-a-moral-obligation

or you can reread the thread you created asking 'why people refuse to get vaccinated', and read the multiple reasons.

 

[Ann K]

As I just posted on the Coronavirus Current Events thread, I am not sure if hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who just bought a fake vaccine card. (Would they even bother to test for antibodies on an acutely ill person?) If they can't tell, the statistics are thrown into some question.

 

[Mendel]

I believe (lol) the Pope has also been vaccinated.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand, or why you lol at the pope, but I've posted several times on this forum that catholics are more likely than the average person to be vaccinated. Appeals from the pope to get vaccinated may have played a part.

 

[deirdre]

or why you lol at the pope

he's laughing at his phrase "i believe". it's punny.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

As I just posted on the Coronavirus Current Events thread, I am not sure if hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who just bought a fake vaccine card. (Would they even bother to test for antibodies on an acutely ill person?) If they can't tell, the statistics are thrown into some question.

raising doubts about inaccuracy has been a common tactic among the anti-vaxxers. is there some real reason you're pushing this narrative in two different threads?

while i'm not doubting that fake vaccination cards exist, do enough people actively seek them out and use them and does that number of people make any difference to overall statistics? i'd say no.

at the same time i'd point out that anti-vax memes have caused infections and deaths in family and friends of mine. those numbers are also included in the statistics now.

 

[Mendel]

As I just posted on the Coronavirus Current Events thread, I am not sure if hospitals can distinguish between vaccinated people and those who just bought a fake vaccine card. (Would they even bother to test for antibodies on an acutely ill person?) If they can't tell, the statistics are thrown into some question.

Most statistics are based on the number of doses delivered (in some countries) and on public health records of vaccinations (in other countries, e.g. Denmark). Therefore, the statistics are not affected by fake vaccination cards.

The statistics are affected by fake vaccinations, i.e. doctors "vaccinating" without vaccine, but that kind of malpractice will cost any doctor their license, and I don't think it happens very often.

 

[deirdre]

raising doubts about inaccuracy has been a common tactic among the anti-vaxxers. is there some real reason you're pushing this narrative in two different threads?

she is saying that some of the "vaccinated" in hospital stats, might be the unvaccinated who are lying and being recorded as vaccinated, to which would make the vaccination look less effective. She is a vaccine activist not an anti-vaxxer.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

she is saying that some of the "vaccinated" in hospital stats, might be the unvaccinated who are lying and being recorded as vaccinated, to which would make the vaccination look less effective. She is a vaccine activist not an anti-vaxxer.

well, i'd like to hear it from @Ann K what she thinks and why it is so important to deal in minor numbers when billions of vaccines have been given. i'm not against asking questions and knowing the data as best we can, but in the end we do have to pay attention to statistically significant because to quibble about each and every data point gets very wearing.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

the hospitalization numbers for MI continue their downwards trend which is great as that takes some pressure off. a ways to go yet.

 

[Ann K]

well, i'd like to hear it from @Ann K what she thinks and why it is so important to deal in minor numbers when billions of vaccines have been given.

Hi, obi! Many hospitals are reporting large numbers of Covid cases/deaths among the unvaccinated and only a few among fully vaccinated people. This, of course, means that if fake-vaccinated people are in that number, they'd have an inordinately high effect on the stats. We simply do not have any way to determine how many such people there are, therefore we cannot make a determination about their statistical significance. There has just been a case reported in which a policeman and his pediatric nurse wife sold a million and a half dollars worth of fake cards, in ONE location. I don't think we have enough information to declare them "minor" numbers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...vaccine-card-scheme-prosecutors-say-rcna14166