age-standardized case rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccine status.
So the rate of cases 100,000 individuals is showing that those that are double-vaccinated are having higher rates of Covid-19 than the unvaccinated.
Where is your breakdown that there was an unequal number of double-vaccinated studied in this article than with the rest of the population?
They did not explicitly say this did they? The population of double-vaccinated may be higher than unvaccinated but the population of Scotland is not 100,000 people. Where in the pdf source that I linked to does it say of the 100,000 people studied:
Please see the fine italicized print under the chart. The final sentence reads: "Age-standardised case rates are per 100,000 people per week, standardised to the 2013 European Standard Population (see Appendix 6)".
This means they are testing 100,000 people per week, not per status per week. Nowhere in the document does it reference 400,000 people were tested.
On a second study, I realized I failed to view Table 14 as four separate studies. The way it is set up makes it appear at first view like two studies conducted each week.
I was never so delighted to be proven wrong! Thanks for hanging in there with me.
I'm glad we were able to get to the bottom of this, I probably wouldn't have looked deeper at it either if we didn't have our discussion 😁 now we can share with our friends with a better understanding of the data.
They are properly infection rates (i.e. accounting for differences in population size), but there is a potential confounder in the methodology of age standardization - meaning they have some formula by which the adjust the data according to age. It would be better to have the data stratified by age.
Such data is available from the UK and shows quite similar results
The UK vaxxed population as been having higher rates of infection than the unvaxxed for months now but with Omicron the stats are off the charts bad. It appears likely that Omicron has evolved the capability to leverage the immune response from prior vaccination to its advantage somehow, increasing the odds of contracting COVID and, for those double vaxxed more than 6 months ago, even worsens the disease progression relative to an unvaxxed person. Boosters apparently restore some vaccine efficacy but only by a small margin.
And that's only if you make it past the first 2 weeks where you're injected but not yet officially "boosted".. check this out:
Finally a government accidentally released data showing the massive increase in risk directly after injection as it fucks over your immune system. This is why every time they roll out the "vaccine", the cases go through the roof.. but it's all listed as unvaccinated because it's inside of 2 weeks.
age-standardized case rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccine status.
So the rate of cases 100,000 individuals is showing that those that are double-vaccinated are having higher rates of Covid-19 than the unvaccinated.
Where is your breakdown that there was an unequal number of double-vaccinated studied in this article than with the rest of the population?
They did not explicitly say this did they? The population of double-vaccinated may be higher than unvaccinated but the population of Scotland is not 100,000 people. Where in the pdf source that I linked to does it say of the 100,000 people studied:
X are unvaccinated
X are single dose
X are double vaccinated...
etc
Please see the fine italicized print under the chart. The final sentence reads: "Age-standardised case rates are per 100,000 people per week, standardised to the 2013 European Standard Population (see Appendix 6)".
This means they are testing 100,000 people per week, not per status per week. Nowhere in the document does it reference 400,000 people were tested.
Page 38 of the sourced material
https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11223/22-01-19-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf
It was not 100,000 people, much more for each category of "unvaccinated", "1 dose", "2 dose", "3 dose", "4 dose".
Page 40 will show you the graphs from the archived tweet.
By George, I do believe you are right!
On a second study, I realized I failed to view Table 14 as four separate studies. The way it is set up makes it appear at first view like two studies conducted each week.
I was never so delighted to be proven wrong! Thanks for hanging in there with me.
No problem!
I'm glad we were able to get to the bottom of this, I probably wouldn't have looked deeper at it either if we didn't have our discussion 😁 now we can share with our friends with a better understanding of the data.
They are properly infection rates (i.e. accounting for differences in population size), but there is a potential confounder in the methodology of age standardization - meaning they have some formula by which the adjust the data according to age. It would be better to have the data stratified by age.
Such data is available from the UK and shows quite similar results
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/unboostered-brits-infected-and-dying
The UK vaxxed population as been having higher rates of infection than the unvaxxed for months now but with Omicron the stats are off the charts bad. It appears likely that Omicron has evolved the capability to leverage the immune response from prior vaccination to its advantage somehow, increasing the odds of contracting COVID and, for those double vaxxed more than 6 months ago, even worsens the disease progression relative to an unvaxxed person. Boosters apparently restore some vaccine efficacy but only by a small margin.
And that's only if you make it past the first 2 weeks where you're injected but not yet officially "boosted".. check this out:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/alberta-gets-caught-palming-cards
Finally a government accidentally released data showing the massive increase in risk directly after injection as it fucks over your immune system. This is why every time they roll out the "vaccine", the cases go through the roof.. but it's all listed as unvaccinated because it's inside of 2 weeks.