Dec 28, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
This is great work as usual. Vaccination (any dose) has a vulnerable two-week period where the vaxxed are uniquely susceptible to getting infected. Counting cases among persons in during this period as unvaxxed is totally wrong and purposely drives up the unvaxxed rates.
To me, unvaxxed is ONLY someone who never got any vax shots. Everyone else is not "unvaxxed".
Also, any statements such as "60x more likely to end up in ICU" assumes that the denominator -- number of unvaxxed -- is known. This number is often understated, on purpose or by mistake, resulting in inflating the "xxx times more likely to end up in ICU" statistic.
Dec 28, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I did a freedom of information request about this very issue. The vaccination surveillance report, released weekly, has no column for those who received their positive test within 14 days of the second dose. Blatant absurdity.
Dec 28, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Here's a link to current Hospital Utilization in the USA. It displays visualizations on utilizations and capacity status. Interesting that it notes that covid-19 ICU bed utilization includes both confirmed and suspected cases of covid-19.
Hospital Utilization | HHS Protect Public Data Hub
Yes. From Administration's point of view the "management" must be the same for suspected and "confirmed" cases, otherwise they may be criticised for allowing a "SuperSpreader" loose on the innocent. They thus incur the same costs.
Look very carefully at the "laboratory-confirmed" diagnostic criteria, it is very difficult, even in many original studies, to ascertain what were used.
Dec 28, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Yeah I spotted the same thing so I emailed them asking for clarification. No response. The other thing to note is their use of ONS population stats instead of NIMS, which understates numbers of unvaccinated.
I've seen a lot of speculation about this factor, too. If a nursing home resident is in such poor health that they don't think he can endure the spiked protein injections and he's then hospitalized, that hospitalization does not tend to indicated that refusing the spiked protein injections is bad for your health.
Dec 31, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Very interesting analysis. However by their own definition it is clear that they consider those who get positive test within 14 days of second dose as being "one dose". This is implied in their definition since the doses are normally given more than 14 days apart. Unless some people had the second dose less than 14 days after the first, only those would not fit in any of their definitions.
Dec 31, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
If you take their own definition of "one dose" strictly, it should include those whose second dose was "invalidated" by a positive test result in the 14 days after the second dose, because the first dose should have been given more than 14 days before that same positive test result, and that is precisely their definition of "one dose". Whether they actually counted the cases correctly according to their own definition is a different matter. In any case this whole 14 day rule is completely unacceptable. If anything, these cases should have been counted in separate categories. See the work of Professor Norman Fenton on how this missassignation of vax to unvax has potentially masked very significant levels of vaccine injury. In a sane world this would be front page news and a lot of people would be losing their jobs over this.
Dec 31, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Great article, which I hadn't read. Thank you. In connection with this, have you looked into UK's NHS emergency calls data? See the article below. In particular the graph "999 calls to ambulance service (by year)" seems to tell an interesting story...
Dec 29, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Two things: data from May will be temporally skewed by the population vaccination rate of ~50% or so. There is also evidence that immediately after vaccination you are ~30% more likely to get COVID (behaviours, innate immune suppression) so the "unvaccinated" will have a skewed amount of people just jabbed.
Dec 29, 2021·edited Dec 29, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Are the vaccinated and unvaccinated treated differently once inside the hospital?
Most "COVID hospitalizations" are patients admitted for completely independent ailments (70% in London only the most recent confirmation), who just happen to test positive upon (or after, nosocomial) admission. Are these asymptomatic patients treated differently based on vaccine status?
For example, a man has an accident and is admitted for orthopedic surgery. He incidentally tests positive for COVID per mandatory testing but has no symptoms whatsoever. Is he sent to a different ward, or given a different designation based on whether or not he is vaccinated?
I have been told (in the US) that vaccine status is a determining factor in some of these cases in some hospitals, but I cannot get independent verification that it is widespread.
None of this data is useful whatsoever if this is happening system wide.
Dec 29, 2021Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Thank you for your analysis, which raises key questions.
You noted the common perception (reported back in September by Vallance!) that 10% of the population is unvaccinated, but ONS noted in the Week 50 report that dose 1 has been taken up by 67.9% of the eligible English population, which leaves 32.1% unvaxed, or 15.3 million, plus the ineligible young of approximately 8.2 million, totalling 23.5 millions. Thus, 42% of the population of England remains "pure blood".
This is great work as usual. Vaccination (any dose) has a vulnerable two-week period where the vaxxed are uniquely susceptible to getting infected. Counting cases among persons in during this period as unvaxxed is totally wrong and purposely drives up the unvaxxed rates.
To me, unvaxxed is ONLY someone who never got any vax shots. Everyone else is not "unvaxxed".
Also, any statements such as "60x more likely to end up in ICU" assumes that the denominator -- number of unvaxxed -- is known. This number is often understated, on purpose or by mistake, resulting in inflating the "xxx times more likely to end up in ICU" statistic.
There should be a separate categorisation for those in the two-week worry-window. I propose we refer to them as "reverse-vaccinated".
I did a freedom of information request about this very issue. The vaccination surveillance report, released weekly, has no column for those who received their positive test within 14 days of the second dose. Blatant absurdity.
Here's a link to current Hospital Utilization in the USA. It displays visualizations on utilizations and capacity status. Interesting that it notes that covid-19 ICU bed utilization includes both confirmed and suspected cases of covid-19.
Hospital Utilization | HHS Protect Public Data Hub
https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization
Suspected are included with confirmed?? Gotta be $ driven 😬
Yes. From Administration's point of view the "management" must be the same for suspected and "confirmed" cases, otherwise they may be criticised for allowing a "SuperSpreader" loose on the innocent. They thus incur the same costs.
Look very carefully at the "laboratory-confirmed" diagnostic criteria, it is very difficult, even in many original studies, to ascertain what were used.
Appreciate the response 👍
thank you for the painstaking analysis. merry Christmas & happy new year!
Yeah I spotted the same thing so I emailed them asking for clarification. No response. The other thing to note is their use of ONS population stats instead of NIMS, which understates numbers of unvaccinated.
Great thanks, let me know if they reply to you
More analysis of the UK data https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/27/according-to-the-latest-icu-data-the-unvaccinated-are-not-overwhelming-the-nhs/
Are the hospitalizations age standardised? Are the amount of co morbities included anywhere?
I'd be interested to know the average age of the unvaccinated.
I wonder if any were told medically not to have the vax?
I've seen a lot of speculation about this factor, too. If a nursing home resident is in such poor health that they don't think he can endure the spiked protein injections and he's then hospitalized, that hospitalization does not tend to indicated that refusing the spiked protein injections is bad for your health.
Very interesting analysis. However by their own definition it is clear that they consider those who get positive test within 14 days of second dose as being "one dose". This is implied in their definition since the doses are normally given more than 14 days apart. Unless some people had the second dose less than 14 days after the first, only those would not fit in any of their definitions.
I don’t think that’s what it says or implies
If you take their own definition of "one dose" strictly, it should include those whose second dose was "invalidated" by a positive test result in the 14 days after the second dose, because the first dose should have been given more than 14 days before that same positive test result, and that is precisely their definition of "one dose". Whether they actually counted the cases correctly according to their own definition is a different matter. In any case this whole 14 day rule is completely unacceptable. If anything, these cases should have been counted in separate categories. See the work of Professor Norman Fenton on how this missassignation of vax to unvax has potentially masked very significant levels of vaccine injury. In a sane world this would be front page news and a lot of people would be losing their jobs over this.
Ah ok I see what you mean. I guess that could be the case, however they need to make that clear. I still think otherwise due to the missing patients.
I wrote something similar to Norman Fenton at the time. https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/correlation-between-increased-mortality
Great article, which I hadn't read. Thank you. In connection with this, have you looked into UK's NHS emergency calls data? See the article below. In particular the graph "999 calls to ambulance service (by year)" seems to tell an interesting story...
https://www.nhsconfed.org/articles/system-under-pressure-november-release-nhs-performance-statistics
Thanks I'll take a look
Two things: data from May will be temporally skewed by the population vaccination rate of ~50% or so. There is also evidence that immediately after vaccination you are ~30% more likely to get COVID (behaviours, innate immune suppression) so the "unvaccinated" will have a skewed amount of people just jabbed.
Are the vaccinated and unvaccinated treated differently once inside the hospital?
Most "COVID hospitalizations" are patients admitted for completely independent ailments (70% in London only the most recent confirmation), who just happen to test positive upon (or after, nosocomial) admission. Are these asymptomatic patients treated differently based on vaccine status?
For example, a man has an accident and is admitted for orthopedic surgery. He incidentally tests positive for COVID per mandatory testing but has no symptoms whatsoever. Is he sent to a different ward, or given a different designation based on whether or not he is vaccinated?
I have been told (in the US) that vaccine status is a determining factor in some of these cases in some hospitals, but I cannot get independent verification that it is widespread.
None of this data is useful whatsoever if this is happening system wide.
The vaccinated are given Ivermectin 😂
Thank you for your analysis, which raises key questions.
You noted the common perception (reported back in September by Vallance!) that 10% of the population is unvaccinated, but ONS noted in the Week 50 report that dose 1 has been taken up by 67.9% of the eligible English population, which leaves 32.1% unvaxed, or 15.3 million, plus the ineligible young of approximately 8.2 million, totalling 23.5 millions. Thus, 42% of the population of England remains "pure blood".
If I am wrong, happy to be informed otherwise.
I think 67.9% refers to the total population (including children)
Send me the report you are talking about and I'll have a look
h/t dailyexpose
I assume you have seen this? Personally doubt he read any of them, over receiving a summary from paid-up assistants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtXuNUEM3vg
lol thanks!
No prob, thanks for your work. :)