Why more vaccinated people are dying of covid in UK than unvaccinated?

News Network
July 16, 2021

London, July 16: More vaccinated people are dying of Covid than unvaccinated people, according to a recent report from Public Health England (PHE). The report shows that 163 of the 257 people (63.4%) who died of the delta variant within 28 days of a positive Covid test between February 1 and June 21, had received at least one dose of the vaccine. At first glance, this may seem alarming, but it is exactly as would be expected.

Here’s a simple thought experiment: imagine everyone is now fully vaccinated with Covid vaccines – which are excellent but can’t save all lives. Some people who get infected with Covid will still die. All of these people will be fully vaccinated – 100%. That doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t effective at reducing death.

The risk of dying from Covid doubles roughly every seven years older a patient is. The 35-year difference between a 35-year-old and a 70-year-old means the risk of death between the two patients has doubled five times – equivalently it has increased by a factor of 32. An unvaccinated 70-year-old might be 32 times more likely to die of Covid than an unvaccinated 35-year-old.

This dramatic variation of the risk profile with age means that even excellent vaccines don’t reduce the risk of death for older people to below the risk for some younger demographics.

PHE data suggests that being double vaccinated reduces the risk of being hospitalised with the now-dominant delta variant by around 96%. Even conservatively assuming the vaccines are no more effective at preventing death than hospitalisation (actually they are likely to be more effective at preventing death) this means the risk of death for double vaccinated people has been cut to less than one-twentieth of the value for unvaccinated people with the same underlying risk profile.

However, the 20-fold decrease in risk afforded by the vaccine isn’t enough to offset the 32-fold increase in underlying risk of death of an 70-year-old over a 35-year-old.

Given the same risk of infection, we would still expect to see more double-vaccinated 70-year-olds die from Covid than unvaccinated 35-year-olds. There are caveats to that simple calculation. The risk of infection is not the same for all age groups. Currently, infections are highest in the youngest and lower in older age groups.

Think of it as ball-bearing rain

One way to imagine the risk is as a rain of differently sized ball bearings falling from the sky, where the ball bearings are the people that get infected with Covid. For simplicity’s sake, let’s assume there are roughly equal numbers of ball bearings in each age group. In each age category, there is also a variation in the size of the balls. The balls representing the older groups are smaller, representing a higher risk of death.

Now imagine there’s a sieve that catches many of the balls. Most people who get Covid will not die (most balls get caught in the sieve). But some of the smaller balls fall through. The older you are, the more likely you are to fall through the holes. The balls that make it through the first sieve are hugely skewed towards older age ranges, represented by the smaller ball bearings. Before Covid vaccines came along, the people that fell through the holes represented the people who would die of Covid. The risk was massively skewed towards older people.

Vaccination provides a second sieve underneath the first, to prevent people from dying. This time, because we haven’t vaccinated everyone, it’s the holes in the sieve that are of different sizes. For older people who’ve had both doses, the holes are smaller, so many ball-bearings are stopped. The vaccines will save many of those who would previously have died.

For younger people the holes in the vaccine sieve are currently bigger as they are less likely to have received both doses and so more likely to fall through the sieve.

If all the filtering were just done by the second sieve (with no skew in risk of death by age, represented by the first sieve), then we might expect younger unvaccinated people to account for a larger proportion of the deaths. But it isn’t. The first sieve is so hugely biased towards older people that even with vaccination, more of them slip through the second sieve than the younger unvaccinated people.

Given the UK’s vaccination strategy (vaccinate older, more vulnerable people first), you would expect high proportions of the people who die from Covid to have been vaccinated. And that is exactly what we see in the data.

The fact that more vaccinated people are dying than unvaccinated people does nothing to undermine vaccine safety or effectiveness. In fact, it’s exactly what we’d expect from the excellent vaccines, which have already saved tens of thousands of lives.

Comments

David Dunning White
 - 
Monday, 4 Apr 2022

What a load of absolute rubbish. These vaccines are neither safe or effective and have not even passed the stage 3 trials. They plainly don't prevent transmission or infection and the claims that they prevent hospitalisation are spurious and unproven and are a last resort at trying to assure the public that they are safe and effective. Beware of these gene therapy jabs unless you want heart problems ,fertility problems and a weakened and useless immune system.

Ramesh Mishra
 - 
Tuesday, 27 Jul 2021

COVID-19, VACCINE DOES NOT GIVE A GUARANTEED LIFE TO ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD: People of all ages, races, religions and colours follow the health guidelines issued by the authorities. I have studied, worked and travelled the world for over 50, years, I frequently travel around the world and I have noticed that since the declaration of the pandemic, most of the world was in denial and look at Covid-19, as a joke. The people around the world, and economy is unpredictable due to economic catastrophe and massive death caused by the Covid-19. The law-abiding, disciplined and principled countries would recover fast and the lawless countries would be doomed. The fear of Covid-19 now is in the minds of people around the world and people are afraid to breathe the fresh air. It is our faith that would keep us happy, healthy and alive. Covid-19 is curable and the death incurable.
Ramesh Mishra
Victoria, BC, CANADA

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 21,2024

New Delhi: The Ministry of Law and Justice of Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government has made an amendment to the Conduct of Election Rules, restricting public access to certain electoral documents that were previously available.

The original Rule 93(2)(a) of the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules stated, “all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.” However, following the amendment on Friday, the rule now reads, “all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.”

Activists have raised concerns, claiming that the insertion of the phrase “as specified in these rules” limits access to various official documents created during elections to Parliament and Assemblies, which are not explicitly mentioned in the rules.

RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak pointed out that there are numerous documents, though not listed in the rules, that are generated by election officials such as Presiding Officers, Sector Officers (responsible for constituency vulnerability mapping), and those in charge of EVM movement and replacement of defective machines on polling day. These include reports from general, police, and expenditure observers, as well as Returning Officers and Chief Electoral Officers.

Nayak emphasized, “Access to these documents is crucial for ensuring the fairness of elections and the accuracy of results.”

The amendment comes shortly after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Election Commission to provide video footage and documents related to votes cast at a polling station in the recent Haryana Assembly elections to lawyer Mehmood Pracha. Pracha has criticized the amendment, asserting that it will withhold essential information. “This is a reconfirmation of the Election Commission’s bias,” he said.

Nayak further stated, “This amendment undermines the principle of full transparency established by the Supreme Court in the Electoral Bonds case. The notification of this amendment on the very day Parliament was adjourned sine die has deprived MPs of the opportunity to challenge its necessity in real time.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 23,2024

contry.jpg

The Israeli military has completely destroyed 70 percent of buildings in the Jabalia refugee camp as the occupying regime continues with its deadly aggression against northern Gaza. 

Amos Harel, a military affairs analyst, wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz on Sunday that the Jabalia refugee camp has become a “ghost town” amid Israel’s deadly offensive in the area.

“As far as the eye can see lie miles and miles of destroyed homes. It's hard to look away from the devastated remains of Jabalia's refugee camp in northern Gaza,” Harel said.

“I could see that even the few buildings that are still standing were badly damaged,” he added.

Harel went on to say that the Israeli military has operated in the area twice before, but this time the camp was torn down.

“Jabalia has become a ghost town. Outside, you mainly see pack after pack of stray dogs roaming around and hunting for scraps of food,” he said.

The Israeli regime dispatched tanks again to northern Gaza last month in what it said was aimed at combating members of the Palestinian resistance movement launching retaliatory strikes, and preventing them from regrouping.

The towns of Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun and Jabalia have been besieged for more than 40 days, without food, water, medicine, or aid, and under constant bombing, shelling, and drone attacks.

Israel launched the war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, after Hamas-led resistance groups waged the surprise Operation al-Aqsa Flood against the occupying entity in response to its decades-long campaign of devastation against Palestinians.

The regime’s bloody onslaught on Gaza has so far killed 45,227 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured 107,573 others. Thousands more are also missing and presumed dead under rubble.

The Tel Aviv regime has also imposed a “complete siege” on the territory, cutting off fuel, electricity, food and water to the more than two million Palestinians living there.

Separately on Sunday, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, said its fighters hit a group of nine Israeli soldiers who had taken refuge inside a house in the west of the Jabalia refugee camp.

It made the remarks in a statement on Telegram, noting that several Israeli forces were killed and wounded in the attack which was carried out with a TBG (thermobaric) rocket.

Qassam Brigades further noted that its fighters had killed an Israeli soldier from a long distance in the central area of the Jabalia camp.

Qassam Brigades has been daily carrying out military operations against the Israeli occupation forces since October 7 last year.

On Thursday, Qassam Brigades said its fighters stabbed at close range an Israeli officer and three soldiers at the Jabalia refugee camp, resulting in their deaths.

The retaliatory operation came following another attack on Wednesday, when Hamas fighters killed five Israeli soldiers in central Jabalia, also at close range.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 16,2024

The Supreme Court on Monday while hearing a petition against the stand of Karnataka High Court's view that shouting 'Jai Sriram' inside a mosque was not an offence, sought the stand of the State of Karnataka in the matter.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

"Alright, they were shouting a particular religious slogan. How is that an offence?" Justice Mehta asked, as bench posted the matter for January 2025.

The bench asked if the accused persons had been identified. Kamat replied that CCT visuals had been collected and the police identified the accused persons, as recorded in the remand report. The bench asked if merely spotting the accused near the mosque would mean that they shouted the slogans.

"Are you able to identify the actual accused? What material you have brought?" the Court asked. Kamat clarified that he was only representing the complainant (caretaker of the mosque) and it is for the police to conduct the investigation and collect the evidence. The FIR need only give information about the offence and need not be an 'encyclopedia' containing all evidence, he added.

This comes after a petition was filed in the Supreme Court questioning the Karnataka High Court's order of September 13, 2024 which quashed an FIR lodged against two men for raising the 'Jai Shri Ram' slogan within mosque premises.

The high court's single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had said, "It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Shri Ram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class, when the complainant himself states that Hindu - Muslims are living in harmony in the area".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.