This data is out of date. The cut off is July 2nd, it doesn't take into account delta, or the fact not a high amount of people were vaccinated at that point.
The most up to date data comes from Public Health England.
Public Health England published a report last week which gave us this data for the period of August 9th to September 5th.
It shows that of 2,381 deaths in this period, 1,659 or 69.7%, more than two thirds, were in the double vaccinated. Six hundred deaths or 25.2% were in the unvaccinated. This is very different to the ONS statistics as quoted in the press that 99% of deaths were in those not double vaccinated.
In the over-50s, the PHE report showed that 1,621 of 2,222 deaths or 73% were in the double vaccinated compared to 499 or 22.5% in the unvaccinated. Once you take into account the proportions of the over-50s vaccinated and unvaccinated this works out at a vaccine effectiveness against death of 68.1% – respectable, but a far cry from the kind of claims being made by the ONS.
It’s not clear yet how well vaccine effectiveness is holding up against serious disease. Data from Israel indicates that it may drop to 55% in the over-65s over six months. The age profile of Covid patients in the U.K. has also been rising again, which may indicate declining efficacy.
It’s depressing to see the ONS seemingly allowing itself to be used as a vehicle for the Government’s vaccine propaganda campaign.
Anecdotally, my wife has been working covid ICU this month and to her it's not surprising. The people with breakthrough cases apparently have so many comorbidities that it's not surprising at all they'd get vaccinated with high priority but also have an immune system that doesn't do a great job learning new skills from the shots.
The people for whom the shot is least effective are the ones that get it the most.
Yeah it's kind of ridiculous both sides skewing statistics. (Granted, it's ridiculous that there are "sides" to this thing at all).
But I get super annoyed when I see things like CNN reporting 99% of deaths since January were unvaccinated. I mean, duh, hardly anybody was vaccinated then and those first months were the highest death rates. I'd like to give them a pass because, hey, maybe it'll convince more people to vaccinate. But it also creates cannon fodder for anyone who is viewing it critically. Both sides are so stupidly irresponsible.
>>The people for whom the shot is least effective are the ones that get it the most.
It's not that the vaccine is less effective for them. It's that they're starting with much poorer immunity, so even with the significant immunity boost provided by the vaccine, they still have significant susceptibility to the virus.
Without the vaccine, their numbers would look much worse than the unvaccinated.
Also it is very likely that the people with most comorbidities where vaccinated earlier, so have had the longest period of post-vaccination.
So we are likely looking at a sub-group that both has multiple comorbidities _and_ has had the longest period of post-vacination. Even assuming that the decay of effectivenesss is small over time it may be a contributor.
Glancing though the report you linked, it says 55-70% reduction in symptomatic disease after 1 dose and more after 2. Higher effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalisation and death. For delta, they quote a 10-15% drop of effectiveness after two/one doses respectively. That seems in line with the “official” line and different to your numbers? Or am I reading you wrong?
Another nugget in there is that something like 95-97 of the population has Covid antibodies, from either disease or vaccination. I’m surprised actually that is is going as strong as it is still. I know antibodies are no silver bullet, but that means that a huge proportion of the country has either been sick already or had a vaccine recently. That seems as good as it can be for a “herd immunity” case, and yet infections are high. Hmm...
> Another nugget in there is that something like 95-97 of the population has Covid antibodies
That is almost certainly wrong. Vaccine uptake in under-12 is 0% and vaccine uptake in young adults is low. There's no way to make those kinds of seroprevalence numbers work.
You appear to have missed the conclusions of the report:
“Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 24.4 and 24.9 million infections and between 108,600 and 116,200 deaths”.
Seatbelts are highly effective at preventing car crash deaths, but if everyone wears seatbelts then 100% of people who die in car crashes will be seatbelt users.
It was always expected that vaccination would be less effective in elderly patients. Some research is underway now to see if that can be improved by administering rapalogs.
I think your analysis doesn't account for the fact that the majority of double vaccinated people are also at far higher risk of covid to begin with. There was an interesting article about this (Simpson's Paradox, as it's known in the world of data analysis) recently: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... -- the overall trend is reversed when the data are grouped properly.
The preponderance of evidence shows that the covid vaccines are overwhelmingly effective and safe for the vast majority of people. Your alarmism and calling Government vaccination campaigns propaganda is contributing to the spread of an incurable but now preventable disease that is killing thousands of people daily and you should feel bad about that. You are a menace to society.
Propaganda is simply information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
How else would you explain the fact they used old data? Incompetence?
Its clear the vaccines don't prevent much, you still catch, spread, and die from covid after being fully jabbed. This is what the report shows, and unfortunately been seen by myself through friends, and family.
Could calling people a menace to society do damage to a society simply because they are showing other points to your own?
I think there are a couple points you missed:
From that Table 5. in the PHE report, younger ages 20-59 are having less deaths still than unvaccinated. It is a clear pattern from this table the younger you are - the better off when double vaccinated.
68.1% efficacy against death is huge, and for that period is likely to be mostly delta variant, we can't just forget about Alpha variant which vaccine does amazing with, which the previous data shows.. not sure how this points to them being "government propaganda" campaign. Although I agree it's a bit disappointing they are not painting the full picture.
But people reading that "73% of new deaths were unvaccinated" would cause panic among people that don't understand you need to take into account ~90% of population aged >60 have been double vaccinated for a while now .
There is literally nothing dishonest in this report, and yet you seem very eager to call it propaganda.
The Delta variant does change things a lot over the past two months, but that's a different story that will warrant additional study and likely a v.2 of the vaccine.
I haven't said there is anything dishonest about the ONS report, simply that the data is out of date.
Propaganda is simply information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view.
Facts like these don't matter to the COVID-obsessed. Turns out that screaming 24/7 for 18 months at people they're going to die messes with their cognitive abilities. Go figure! And here I thought doing this would keep us calm and rational.
We basically have a best-case scenario today and an awful lot of people don't care and still think it's doomsday. Vaccines are fantastic at reducing COVID to a cold, kids are at no risk, the overwhelming majority of adults are at no risk, vaccines are available, natural immunity is great, and ironically, vaccines DONT stop transmission. So, we're all gonna get it, anyone who wants to be protected can be, and unvaccinated people don't matter because COVID is already endemic and we're all gonna get it so we have a clear path towards herd immunity. This is great!
And here we are, instead making illogical and probably illegal rules that accomplish literally nothing, make everything worse, perpetuate irrational fear, etc. We scapegoat "the unvaccinated" and start this medical class warfare and just ramp up unnecessary hatred of each other. And worst of all, it doesn't protect anyone and probably will make COVID worse.
Linked is a fascinating dataset showing exactly what you are talking about. The average american thinks if they get covid, their odds of dying from it around 10%. In younger age brackets this is almost 1000x wrong.
People are very, very badly misinformed about their risks for covid. This makes it almost impossible to have rational, grounded discussion of public policy. If everybody is walking around thinking covid is a death sentence, of course they will beg of all the crap we are doing right now.
> kids are at no risk, the overwhelming majority of adults are at no risk
What I've been looking for for a long time now is data on infection, hospitalization rates and mortality by vaccination status and age. They all get mixed and it's never really clear to me what the risk for, say, a vaccinated 40 year old or an unvaccinated 1 year old really is.
I guess you could say that, but this isn't really "news". There have been a variety of studies[0][1] over the past 6 months from various countries showing the remarkable effectiveness of covid vaccines. Just some people apparently don't want to believe it.
Because there are articles showing the vaccines are not effective and even dangerous as well. We can't hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
I don't think this is a particularly interesting stat without a baseline of what % of people fell into that category. Since this is computed over the time period January 2 to July 2 and mass vaccination didn't really take off until the spring, you wouldn't have a large number of people in that category until near the end of the study period.
I think you need to read it again. Especially table 1.
In the data they have they found that:
1. For all unvaccinated people, they had 38,964 covid-related deaths and 65,170 of other, non-covid-related deaths of unvaccinated people.
2. For all vaccinated people 21 days or more after second dose they found 458 covid-related and 57,263 non-covid-related deaths.
It doesn't matter when these were recorded (unless we want to account for Delta, but there is not enough data for this here).
So unless we are seeing huge increase in non-covid-related deaths of vaccinated people, this data suggests that vaccination makes it many, many times less likely that you are going to die of covid as compared to you dying to other things.
Which I think is wonderful news to see in actual numbers from a large sample of data gathered over longer period of time.
If that's is not a clear indication to you then I don't know what is.
In unvaccinated people 37.4% of all deaths was from COVID (38,964/104,134)
In fully vaccinated people 0.8% of all deaths was from COVID (458/57,721)
This is all amazing news! However we still don't know how much worse the vaccines are against the Delta variant, since most deaths during the period were not from the new variant. It can't be too bad though.
As stated in the report, “ the characteristics of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are changing over time, which limits the usefulness of comparing counts between the groups.”
Yes, what is the the overall mortality rate for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Ballpark estimates looking at the vaccination rate over time, it seems like vaccinated people had almost double the mortality rate of unvaccinated.
Defined in the glossary. It seems to mean where the person had an active covid infection at time of death, and excludes people who recovered from covid but died anyway.
This data needs to be framed against the % of the population that was vaccinated at the time they contracted the virus, right? Otherwise, for all we know, the vaccine could actually increase mortality if the % vaccinated was smaller than the % of deaths that group represents. I'm assuming that isn't the case but hard to make meaningful conclusions about efficacy without that context. The apparent efficacy of vaccination is at the very least somewhat inflated because between Jan and July is when everyone got vaccinated, I'm assuming in England, like here in the US, basically no one was vaccinated in Jan, Feb.
Also, bucketing people who were vaccinated with previously infected makes sense as an additional lens to look at things through, but it seems odd that they then omitted reporting those group separately. I'm very curious how one did compared to the other.
> This data needs to be framed against the % of the population that was vaccinated at the time they contracted the virus, right?
No, it does not.
It compares chance of you dying to covid compared to all other possible causes.
This dimensionless number does not depend on relative population sizes.
So if in one population you get 458 deaths from Covid compared to 57,263 from all other causes and in the other population you get 38,964 from covid compared to 65,170 from all other causes, we can immediately tell that one population fared much better at least when it comes to your chance to die of covid compared to chance of dying to all other causes.
Just by the fact of being in one population than in the other you get (38964/(38964+65170)) / (458/(458+57263)) ~= 47 times less chance of dying to covid assuming rates of deaths to all other causes were the same between both populations.
So what are these population? To be in the better-faring population you had to be fully vaccinated for at least 21 days and the worse population was completely unvaccinated.
Now, I am pretty sure there are other factors that factor in that number 47.
It is likely that vaccinated people treat Covid more seriously and are more likely to practice social distancing, washing hands and be generally mindful of various things you do to minimize chance of getting infected. They might also possibly wait shorter amount of time before calling for help if they see signs. While this is pure conjecture on my part I think it is reasonable to assume this happens to some extent and reduces rates of infection within vaccinated population.
I think the problem with this report is the headline figure is due to an apples and oranges comparison. The big number of deaths is mostly due to a point in time where LOTS of people were dying from Covid19 in the UK.
We end up comparing the population at one point in time where there were lots of deaths and a low vaccination rate to another point in time where there were few deaths and a much higher vaccination rate. No doubt part of the reason why there are fewer deaths now is due to the vaccine. However, I suspect part of the reason is also not vaccine related. You can see this if you look at the raw data. There was a very high rate of deaths for the unvaccinated in the first few months of the year. But now there is a very low rate of deaths for the unvaccinated. However, this comparison is fraught with danger because there is a selection effect with a lot of vulnerable people opting into the vaccine leaving the unvaccinated population much less susceptible to the virus.
Also, it is important to note that data has been apparently truncated at a point where it paints a more positive picture for vaccines.
Personally, I think the vaccine has had very large impact for some vulnerable groups. For some other groups I suspect it has had a negligible impact. But I also think there has been a strong push to juice the figures to make the vaccines look better than they are.
The problem with this generalization is that the vaxxed/unvaxxed populations are ultimately very different.
Vaxxed group is older, unvaxxed are younger.
i.e. groups are not randomly distributed.
They are going to have different risk factors and die of different things.
This showed up in British Columbia's health data that showed infections and hospitalizations way, way down for the vaxxed relative to unvaxxed, but the ratio between the two for actual deaths was not as extreme, because vaccinated population skewed older, more vulnerable, more likely to die even when fully vaxxed.
Should note that age-standardized mortality rates are included in the study.
>>> So if in one population you get 458 deaths from Covid compared to 57,263 from all other causes and in the other population you get 38,964 from covid compared to 65,170 from all other causes, we can immediately tell that one population fared much better at least when it comes to your chance to die of covid compared to chance of dying to all other causes.
I think your math is off. What if the first population only has 458 people in it? 100% mortality for that population would obviously suggest you want to be part of the other population even if their total deaths were higher. The issue I'm calling out is that we don't know the size of each population. I certainly don't think vaccines increase mortality, I actually believe it has a large positive impact. The point is this data doesn't help us understand how impactful it really is and, given all the debate over this, if they'd framed the data with better context, this could actually be a very useful study in ending that debate.
Note this does assume that you are not immortal and will eventually die. If you’re holding out hope for Mr Bezos to discover an anti-aging elixir, you might interpret these stats more pessimistically.
I wonder how many of those unvaccinated people were people that for some reason could 't be vaccinated? Like immunocompromised patients that already have a higher risk of dying? This seems like an important factor?
UK recommendation was that immunocompromised people be vaccinated; they were prioritised, in fact, so ~all of the immunocompromised people would've been vaccinated for most of the time period.
Very important for thise people, but nut much for population statistics. And immunocompromised people can generally be vaccinated, the question which is still open is how effective the vaccine is for them.
There is a bit of a statistical artifact here: the number of person-days of people with both doses in the UK is very small during this period. Most adults had no doses or one dose for most of this period.
Vaccination is still great and I encourage everyone who can to get vaccinated, but the 640 people is drawing upon a much smaller population and time period.
You are mis interpreting the data, there were 640 Covid deaths among those who received both doses, not 640 participants. There were also 68,733 Non Covid deaths among that cohort. Not to mention everyone who didn't die.
I'm definitely not saying there are 640 participants, just that the size is unknown. Non-Covid deaths is a poor proxy of the population size, as that population is older because of how the vaccination programme worked. I don't think I'm making an interpretation, just pointing out the unknown
When I look at the first table I see a number of 220k non Covid death overall compared to 60k after the 2nd dose. Assuming those non Covid cases are constant over time I would assume the sample size is still bigger than 1/4. while not perfect that doesn’t look like „not enough samples“ to me.
I didn’t say “not enough samples,” only that the population size of fully vaccinated people is not known, and that it changed in the observation period. Therefore, computing mortality rates is not possible, no denominator
I don't understand, there were over 50k non-covid deaths in the twice vaccinated and around 500 covid deaths. That sounds significant, or is it due to the age distribution of twice vaccinated?
Apart from the fact that the data are not up-to-date with the newly emerged variants. The high correlation with unvaccinated and death may also be caused by third factors. The main one is that getting vaccinated is not a random event. It says something about the people in addition to the willingness to get vaccnated, especially in current divided atomosphere. The unvaccinated may do much more dangerous things like make contacts with more people, and not applying other measures that could lower the risk of contract COVID such as wearing a mask.
Readit News
The most up to date data comes from Public Health England.
Public Health England published a report last week which gave us this data for the period of August 9th to September 5th.
It shows that of 2,381 deaths in this period, 1,659 or 69.7%, more than two thirds, were in the double vaccinated. Six hundred deaths or 25.2% were in the unvaccinated. This is very different to the ONS statistics as quoted in the press that 99% of deaths were in those not double vaccinated.
In the over-50s, the PHE report showed that 1,621 of 2,222 deaths or 73% were in the double vaccinated compared to 499 or 22.5% in the unvaccinated. Once you take into account the proportions of the over-50s vaccinated and unvaccinated this works out at a vaccine effectiveness against death of 68.1% – respectable, but a far cry from the kind of claims being made by the ONS.
It’s not clear yet how well vaccine effectiveness is holding up against serious disease. Data from Israel indicates that it may drop to 55% in the over-65s over six months. The age profile of Covid patients in the U.K. has also been rising again, which may indicate declining efficacy.
It’s depressing to see the ONS seemingly allowing itself to be used as a vehicle for the Government’s vaccine propaganda campaign.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-...
Anecdotally, my wife has been working covid ICU this month and to her it's not surprising. The people with breakthrough cases apparently have so many comorbidities that it's not surprising at all they'd get vaccinated with high priority but also have an immune system that doesn't do a great job learning new skills from the shots.
The people for whom the shot is least effective are the ones that get it the most.
But I get super annoyed when I see things like CNN reporting 99% of deaths since January were unvaccinated. I mean, duh, hardly anybody was vaccinated then and those first months were the highest death rates. I'd like to give them a pass because, hey, maybe it'll convince more people to vaccinate. But it also creates cannon fodder for anyone who is viewing it critically. Both sides are so stupidly irresponsible.
It's not that the vaccine is less effective for them. It's that they're starting with much poorer immunity, so even with the significant immunity boost provided by the vaccine, they still have significant susceptibility to the virus.
Without the vaccine, their numbers would look much worse than the unvaccinated.
So we are likely looking at a sub-group that both has multiple comorbidities _and_ has had the longest period of post-vacination. Even assuming that the decay of effectivenesss is small over time it may be a contributor.
Another nugget in there is that something like 95-97 of the population has Covid antibodies, from either disease or vaccination. I’m surprised actually that is is going as strong as it is still. I know antibodies are no silver bullet, but that means that a huge proportion of the country has either been sick already or had a vaccine recently. That seems as good as it can be for a “herd immunity” case, and yet infections are high. Hmm...
That is almost certainly wrong. Vaccine uptake in under-12 is 0% and vaccine uptake in young adults is low. There's no way to make those kinds of seroprevalence numbers work.
Deleted Comment
“Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 24.4 and 24.9 million infections and between 108,600 and 116,200 deaths”.
It was always expected that vaccination would be less effective in elderly patients. Some research is underway now to see if that can be improved by administering rapalogs.
The preponderance of evidence shows that the covid vaccines are overwhelmingly effective and safe for the vast majority of people. Your alarmism and calling Government vaccination campaigns propaganda is contributing to the spread of an incurable but now preventable disease that is killing thousands of people daily and you should feel bad about that. You are a menace to society.
How else would you explain the fact they used old data? Incompetence?
Its clear the vaccines don't prevent much, you still catch, spread, and die from covid after being fully jabbed. This is what the report shows, and unfortunately been seen by myself through friends, and family.
Could calling people a menace to society do damage to a society simply because they are showing other points to your own?
68.1% efficacy against death is huge, and for that period is likely to be mostly delta variant, we can't just forget about Alpha variant which vaccine does amazing with, which the previous data shows.. not sure how this points to them being "government propaganda" campaign. Although I agree it's a bit disappointing they are not painting the full picture.
But people reading that "73% of new deaths were unvaccinated" would cause panic among people that don't understand you need to take into account ~90% of population aged >60 have been double vaccinated for a while now .
The Delta variant does change things a lot over the past two months, but that's a different story that will warrant additional study and likely a v.2 of the vaccine.
Propaganda is simply information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view.
That seems like great news?
We basically have a best-case scenario today and an awful lot of people don't care and still think it's doomsday. Vaccines are fantastic at reducing COVID to a cold, kids are at no risk, the overwhelming majority of adults are at no risk, vaccines are available, natural immunity is great, and ironically, vaccines DONT stop transmission. So, we're all gonna get it, anyone who wants to be protected can be, and unvaccinated people don't matter because COVID is already endemic and we're all gonna get it so we have a clear path towards herd immunity. This is great!
And here we are, instead making illogical and probably illegal rules that accomplish literally nothing, make everything worse, perpetuate irrational fear, etc. We scapegoat "the unvaccinated" and start this medical class warfare and just ramp up unnecessary hatred of each other. And worst of all, it doesn't protect anyone and probably will make COVID worse.
Are we having fun yet?!
People are very, very badly misinformed about their risks for covid. This makes it almost impossible to have rational, grounded discussion of public policy. If everybody is walking around thinking covid is a death sentence, of course they will beg of all the crap we are doing right now.
https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/
What I've been looking for for a long time now is data on infection, hospitalization rates and mortality by vaccination status and age. They all get mixed and it's never really clear to me what the risk for, say, a vaccinated 40 year old or an unvaccinated 1 year old really is.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
2 random examples:
[0]https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fc...
[1]https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-says-99-covid-dea...
In the data they have they found that:
1. For all unvaccinated people, they had 38,964 covid-related deaths and 65,170 of other, non-covid-related deaths of unvaccinated people.
2. For all vaccinated people 21 days or more after second dose they found 458 covid-related and 57,263 non-covid-related deaths.
It doesn't matter when these were recorded (unless we want to account for Delta, but there is not enough data for this here).
So unless we are seeing huge increase in non-covid-related deaths of vaccinated people, this data suggests that vaccination makes it many, many times less likely that you are going to die of covid as compared to you dying to other things.
Which I think is wonderful news to see in actual numbers from a large sample of data gathered over longer period of time.
If that's is not a clear indication to you then I don't know what is.
In unvaccinated people 37.4% of all deaths was from COVID (38,964/104,134)
In fully vaccinated people 0.8% of all deaths was from COVID (458/57,721)
This is all amazing news! However we still don't know how much worse the vaccines are against the Delta variant, since most deaths during the period were not from the new variant. It can't be too bad though.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
Vaccinated are less likely to die of Covid-19, but more likely to die? Not very reassuring.
But overall, very positive results, certainly.
Also, bucketing people who were vaccinated with previously infected makes sense as an additional lens to look at things through, but it seems odd that they then omitted reporting those group separately. I'm very curious how one did compared to the other.
No, it does not.
It compares chance of you dying to covid compared to all other possible causes.
This dimensionless number does not depend on relative population sizes.
So if in one population you get 458 deaths from Covid compared to 57,263 from all other causes and in the other population you get 38,964 from covid compared to 65,170 from all other causes, we can immediately tell that one population fared much better at least when it comes to your chance to die of covid compared to chance of dying to all other causes.
Just by the fact of being in one population than in the other you get (38964/(38964+65170)) / (458/(458+57263)) ~= 47 times less chance of dying to covid assuming rates of deaths to all other causes were the same between both populations.
So what are these population? To be in the better-faring population you had to be fully vaccinated for at least 21 days and the worse population was completely unvaccinated.
Now, I am pretty sure there are other factors that factor in that number 47.
It is likely that vaccinated people treat Covid more seriously and are more likely to practice social distancing, washing hands and be generally mindful of various things you do to minimize chance of getting infected. They might also possibly wait shorter amount of time before calling for help if they see signs. While this is pure conjecture on my part I think it is reasonable to assume this happens to some extent and reduces rates of infection within vaccinated population.
We end up comparing the population at one point in time where there were lots of deaths and a low vaccination rate to another point in time where there were few deaths and a much higher vaccination rate. No doubt part of the reason why there are fewer deaths now is due to the vaccine. However, I suspect part of the reason is also not vaccine related. You can see this if you look at the raw data. There was a very high rate of deaths for the unvaccinated in the first few months of the year. But now there is a very low rate of deaths for the unvaccinated. However, this comparison is fraught with danger because there is a selection effect with a lot of vulnerable people opting into the vaccine leaving the unvaccinated population much less susceptible to the virus.
Also, it is important to note that data has been apparently truncated at a point where it paints a more positive picture for vaccines.
Personally, I think the vaccine has had very large impact for some vulnerable groups. For some other groups I suspect it has had a negligible impact. But I also think there has been a strong push to juice the figures to make the vaccines look better than they are.
Vaxxed group is older, unvaxxed are younger.
i.e. groups are not randomly distributed.
They are going to have different risk factors and die of different things.
This showed up in British Columbia's health data that showed infections and hospitalizations way, way down for the vaxxed relative to unvaxxed, but the ratio between the two for actual deaths was not as extreme, because vaccinated population skewed older, more vulnerable, more likely to die even when fully vaxxed.
Should note that age-standardized mortality rates are included in the study.
I think your math is off. What if the first population only has 458 people in it? 100% mortality for that population would obviously suggest you want to be part of the other population even if their total deaths were higher. The issue I'm calling out is that we don't know the size of each population. I certainly don't think vaccines increase mortality, I actually believe it has a large positive impact. The point is this data doesn't help us understand how impactful it really is and, given all the debate over this, if they'd framed the data with better context, this could actually be a very useful study in ending that debate.
Regardless of opinions on the topic. We (the UK public) have practically reached the 90% vaccination status.
Can we all just get back to life now. There's nothing else to do other than making this flu shot available to those at risk who want it.
Life is ultimately fatal. It's not about the destination it's the journey that matters.
And source https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-integ...
Vaccination is still great and I encourage everyone who can to get vaccinated, but the 640 people is drawing upon a much smaller population and time period.