Because you're adding your numbers wrong. You are taking 1.5 years of pandemic deaths and dividing by total pop then comparing it to 2 years worth of pandemic deaths divided by total pop which includes the original 1.5 years.

All you said here is "more people died" over the next six months. Unless literally zero people died after that date the rate will be higher because you're doing the math incorrectly

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 2 2022 11:29pm

Explain this.

Why did the mortality rate of people dying due to COVID go up after vaccine rollout?

Note, mortality rate = percentage of people in a population dying

I'm not asking why deaths went up.




Also let me clarify - I'm not adding my numbers wrong, I'm adding them in a way that you suggested, and suddenly don't like because it destroys your narrative. This is now the second time you've said the calculus is incorrect.

This post was edited by tugofpeace on Jan 2 2022 11:42pm

Are you using seasonally adjusted numbers, because mortality isn't even throughout the year. If you have a respiratory virus it spreads faster in winter. So even if the vaccine is highly effective you can still get higher values from increased seasonal spread.

However by looking at the comparison between vaxed and unvaxed this is already accounted for and the difference is really obvious.

So basically you're giving me a non answer? lmao. What data do you want to use buddy?

How about we look at the UK data which isn't run by a propaganda machine?



Let's say the unvaccinated group consists of the Unvaccinated and Received 1 Dose of Vaccine columns < 21 Days after Dose 1, The vaccinated group consists of the Received 2 Doses of Vaccine column, and Received 1 Dose of Vaccine >= 21 Days after Dose 1 columns. . Note this is for all age groups.

Unvaccinated mortality rate: (165 + 5)/(121,402 + 21,088) = 0.119% mortality rate
Vaccinated mortality rate: (224 + 60)/(28,773 + 33,003) = 0.459% mortality rate

Do these numbers work for you, or are they incorrect as well? They are from the New England Journal of Medicine.

Before you complain that this doesn't work since only 49.6% of the UK population was vaccinated at the time, that has no relevance since this chart is only talking about incidence within people who are COVID positive, and not per the population.





I quoted you so you could see my response above.

This post was edited by tugofpeace on Jan 2 2022 11:59pm

You are absolutely adding your numbers wrong. The mortality you're calculating for post vaccination includes deaths that occured pre and post july 1. Thats why it seems like mortality is going up in your numbers.

Here's the real math now that I'm home and not responding from my phone (Your raw numbers because I'm too lazy to go find my own):

July 1st, before vaccines:

CA: Total deaths = 63,141 = .16% mortality rate
TX: Total deaths = 51,480 = .17% mortality rate

December 31st, after vaccines:

CA: Total deaths = 75,847 = .19% mortality rate
TX: Total deaths = 74,491 = .25% mortality rate

California deaths from july1 to dec 31: 75847-63141 = 12,706 deaths
Texas deaths from july 1 to dec 31: 74491-51480 = 23,011 deaths

Population of CA: 39.5 million
Population of texas: 29 Million

Deaths per million people from July 1 to December 31

California: 12,706 / 39.5 = 321 deaths per million people
Texas: 23,011/29 = 793 deaths per million people

This demonstrates post july 1 when the vaccines were widely available to the general public, texas had more than double the deaths per million people compared to california. This doesn't say anything about vaccination status or rates just raw numbers of covid deaths. You can then take these computed numbers and plot them against the vaccination rates on the NYT tracker and boom you've replicated the original graph I posted. Math is both easy and fun! In fact upon more thought, the numbers you have for mortality show that both texas and california had similar rates of mortality prior to the vaccine being widely available, but then texas faltered in its vaccination effort at the same time Delta reached the US and they paid the price for it.

This post was edited by Sioux on Jan 3 2022 12:01am

I did the math on this before you posted, thought I'd see if you would come up with it, good job.

So, the difference in vaccination rates between CA and TX is a mere 10%.

How are you attributing this difference in mortality rate to the vaccine? Does 10% fewer vaccinations double the mortality rate of COVID?

Your data is skewed by the fact that it's based off of april 30th data, where only old people could be vaccinated and young had only just started being eligible. It's padded by thousands of young healthy individuals who are already less susceptible.

If we look at the 50+ section we see that despite accounting for only 10% of cases, the unvaccinated accounted for 32% of deaths. In relation to the vaccinated group, they are dying at 3.5 times the rate.

Did you read the full post, because I already stated:




Based on what you're telling me, young healthy individuals shouldn't be getting the vaccine? Or that we shouldn't be pushing the vaccine on people as a blanket solution since mortality rates differ between age groups? Also because the "vaccine" doesn't prevent transmission or infection?

In the < 50 age group the mortality rate due to vaccination is reduced by a mere 0.010%. Does that warrant the various mandates, restrictions, adverse reactions, etc?

To put it into context, the mortality rate for unvaccinated < 50 is 0.026%, while it is 0.016% in vaccinated.

This post was edited by tugofpeace on Jan 3 2022 12:35am

The hoops people will jump through to not admit they were wrong



No, but if you look at all the statewide data in aggregate there is a correlation between vaccine compliance and protection from covid mortality. There's absolutely other factors at play, especially when you consider a person who is anti-vax is likely to be anti-mask/other case-control measures. You're using a lot of words to try to dance around the fact that more vaccination, less covid death in basically every instance though. The data is legit, we just walked through two examples of the data ourselves for the audience here. If you're so motivated do the rest of the states but I'd bet the graph is correct.

Vaccines work.

Also your graph with the UK data is from a letter to the editor of the NEJM not a peer reviewed article from NEJM but I'm sure you knew that which is why you posted a rehosted picture instead of a source link. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113090

This post was edited by Sioux on Jan 3 2022 12:36am