Thursday, 3 March 2022

Official mortality data for England reveal systematic undercounting of deaths occurring within first two weeks of Covid-19 vaccination

Our new research (full paper with first author Clare Craig available on ResearchGate) has discovered over 26,000 covid and non-covid deaths expected to have occurred within two weeks of first dose vaccination have been omitted from the latest UK ONS deaths by vaccination status report:

 Estimated deaths for England that were not included in the ONS dataset

 

The ONS data also fails to include millions of people categorised in the UK NIMS database as ‘within 21 days vaccination’ status:


Our analysis compares expected deaths in the ONS dataset to those that have occurred in the whole population. We only use data from UK government sources including data from NIMS and UKHSA. We found implausibly low number of non-covid deaths in the ‘within 21 days of first dose’ category:

The ONS dataset only includes the number of non-covid deaths equivalent to the number expected to have occurred in the third week after vaccination only. So the expected deaths for the first two weeks post first dose vaccination are missing. This is the case for all age groups 60+. For example, here is the 70-79 age group:

 

For covid deaths the same patterns are evident, across all age groups 60+. This is a significant and rather troubling anomaly warranting an explanation. Covid deaths are also implausibly lower than expectations:


Here the expected covid deaths occurring in the 80+ age group during the first two weeks are missing from the ONS data:

Note that the peaks in the graphs are synchronised with the vaccine roll out for each age group and hence are not natural or due to random error. Errors appear systematic and strongly suggest that deaths have been miscategorised as hypothesised in our last research paper.

A variety of factors could have led to deaths being omitted, including miscategorisation, reporting lags and data handling or transcription errors:

Vaccination record data flow highlighting potential sources of error

Hence, we believe that the dataset is corrupted, making any inferences about vaccine efficacy or safety, reliant on the data, moot.

We have presented these findings to the ONS and they have acknowledged in correspondence that our analyses are valuable and important. They have also promised to release all raw data to allow independent analysis and to investigate the serious anomalies reported by our paper.

Clare Craig has published a twitter thread with more insights from the research.

Full details of the new paper:

Craig, C., Neil, M., Fenton, N., McLachlan, S., Smalley, J., Guetzkow, J., Engler, J., Russell, D., Rose, J. (2022). "Official mortality data for England reveal systematic undercounting of deaths occurring within first two weeks of Covid-19 vaccination". https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12472.42248

 


 





16 comments:

  1. Well done Norman and team. Thanks for all you're doing. Will be eager to learn what form such further analysis will take.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it very puzzling that the ONS weekly mortality for January is below average of previous year for January - whereas fror the last six months of the previous year it was 10% -15% above average. Could there be some data-fiddling here that accounts for this?
    Taking the 7 weeks of ONS data available for this year, weekly deaths, it is 5% lower than the weekly averages of previous 5 years given by the ONS, whereas for the 7 weeks of data up to Xmas of the previous year it was 13% above that average. That is a huge and abrupt swing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might have realised by now that it’s because ONS changed which years are used to calculate the 5 year average. During 2021 ONS used 2015-2019, missing out the ‘pandemic’ year 2020, this year they used 2016-2019+2021, but because 2021 had very high mortality it’s inclusion has increased the weekly average quite a bit compared to if they had used 2015-2019 again, missing out the 2 ‘pandemic’ years 2020 & 2021 from their weekly average calculation. So, it has made a high mortality appear to be less.

      Delete
  3. Those people who sadly die soon after receiving the vaccine should not be counted as unvaccinated, it's flipping obvious! Any agency that adulterates the data by arbitrary rules, without clearly sign-posting the fact, must surely be accused of fraud, and investigated. These omissions implicate the report writers, either civil servants or agencies, in a shared responsibility for loss of life or well-being to any injured child, with the politicians that either directed or listened to the advice to create a demand for a vaccinated youth.
    Will anyone listen? Are there any legal pathways to request the ONS to explain and change their method?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks are due to the team for this report, well done you tippy-tappers and number crunchers, r-r-respect!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our free guide is tell victims what to do following a slip or trip at work – our claims solicitors are also here 7 days a week to start your Slip Or Trip At Work Claimsfor compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who Can Be Charged For Contempt Of Court?




    There are a variety of situations that can lead to contempt of court charges. san diego criminal lawyers It’s important to note, a minor can also be charged with being in contempt of court by violating a lawful court order. If this happens to be the situation you are in, contacting a criminal defense lawyer should be a priority. Here are some examples that illustrate who can be charged with PC 166.


    Example 1:


    Devon has a restraining order in place against her ex-husband, Tracy. It was issued due to multiple domestic violence charges. best criminal lawyer in san diego The restraining order stipulated he could not come within five-hundred feet of her, her home, or her workplace. Tracy got drunk, drove to Devon’s workplace, and made a scene. He smashed her car window and yelled hateful epithets at her. Not only is Tracy guilty of being in contempt of court for violating the restraining order, but he would also be financially liable for the damage he caused to Devon’s vehicle. In cases like this, if Devon’s employment was negatively impacted as a result of Tracy’s behavior, she would also be within her rights to sue for punitive damages, such as any loss of wages.


    Example 2:


    affordable criminal defense attorney san diego Sarah, a witness, began acting obnoxious and belligerent when she was being cross-examined in court. Angry that her testimony was being questioned, she began ignoring the material questions and posting questions of her own. The judge gave her several verbal warnings before deeming her in contempt of court. In this case, Sarah was not a criminal who was under trial. However, she did agree to be a witness and respect the authority of the court of justice as well as the judge, prosecution, and legal defense teams involved. Her disrespectful and combative behavior while on the witness stand do rise to the status of being in contempt.


    Example 3:


    Valerie was a witness to a violent attack and was scared to get involved at all. Nevertheless, she had been the person who called the cops and got the perpetrator arrested. She agreed to testify in a criminal trial. Unfortunately, she got cold feet when the time came to sit on the witness stand. She refused to be sworn in as a witness during the criminal trial. Although Valerie got nervous, she was still obligated to testify after having made legal statements and agreeing to appear on the witness stand. Her refusal to being sworn in as a witness during this criminal trial is enough to rise to the level of contempt of court under PC 166.


    Example 4:


    A judge orders witnesses to corporate fraud, Rhea and Frank, to stay away from each other until the criminal trial is concluded. This court order was issued to prevent any witness tampering and/or conflict of interest, which included talking about the on-going trial with one another. Frank was romantically interested in Rhea and decided to ask her out anyway. She agreed and they went out to lunch together. Unfortunately, they revealed details about the trial and were overheard by several people, including a journalist. Their conversation also involved conjecture about the case, assumptions that were voiced without supportive evidence to back it. Simple actions like this can result in contempt of court charges under PC 166. Especially when the judge specifically outlined the terms of the court order and they had initially agreed to follow them. Rhea and Frank violated the court orders for failing to stay away from each other and for talking about the trial in a public place where their discussion was easily overheard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is it not possible to request official data from all deaths in 2021 with the following columns?
    - Date of death
    - Age
    - Gender
    - Cause of death
    - Date of first COVID-19 vaccine dose (empty if unvaccinated)
    - Date of second dose (idem)
    - Date of third dose (idem)

    It looks like a very simple request that they could handle in 10 minutes (we're in 2022!). And it would give us all we need to know about efficacy vs. safety.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Prof. Fenton

    The data I am referring to comes from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31december2021

    However, I seem to have better excell than the current version, with <21d and >21d for all vaccinated group? They have taken a few groups away?

    This is example of my excel:

    The english data table 3 total mortality
    Nov 2021 excell row age adjusted mortality per 100k :
    1594 per 100k non-vaxed; rounded to 1,6%, of which 0,4% covid related and 1,2% other (tables 1 and 2).
    multipliers to 1594 for < 21d and over 21d vaxed
    1st 1,9 2,3
    2nd 1,2 1,6
    boost 3rd 0,34 0,43

    They even have "ever vaxed" tabulation with less than 1% mortality, summing up all these vaxed categories. How come to this?

    Why is mortality always significantly less during the first 21st days? The only stable thing here is the 1.6% mortality for non-vaxed?

    Like oneworld does, they tend to compare last vaxed to no-vax: here it is boosted ca. 0,4 i.e. 60% efficacy. Before boosters, 2nd vax coefficients were much less than 1000 per 100k. They started to rise after booster roll-outs, at ever increasing pace. Even if they classify "<21d", they might dump the first 14d to previous category, as per your analysis?

    JR
    since I can't refer to actual excel, it can be sent to your attention.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting
    HDFC bank share price

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi
    From the Ons referencetable, 1.1.21-31.1.22
    jan 2022 all causes data deaths person y age-adjusted mortality
    2022 January Unvaccinated 1977 483972 1662,6
    2022 January 1st, <21 d 25 17662 3297,6
    2022 January 1st, >21 d 625 157406 3554,8
    2022 January 2nd, <21 d 33 31767 2108,2
    2022 January 2nd, 21d 6 m 6146 223234 4584,6
    2022 January 3rd B, <21 days 992 241823 1721,0
    2022 January 3rd B, >21 days 28569 1865182 897,2
    2022 January Ever vaxed 36844 2823160 1036,7

    How an earth do they get ever vaxed to be smaller than unvaxed? All categories are higher except 3rd dose longer term?

    Let's imagine the data is exact and not misclassified (the unvaxed is pretty stable at 1,6%). The vaxed categories gets worse with time. The "first dose kills" is real, and of course it should improve the later coming figures, while the "weaks" die unproportionally? Despite this, 2nd dose long term is not good at all.

    Those who got to the 3rd dose have survived the minefield and find cover in a bunker... a lot of corpses on the field, though.
    JR

    ReplyDelete
  11. Arm injuries cover a wide range of different specific problems. Some only affect a small part of the arm, such as one hand or the bicep, whilst others are more general throughout the Work Injury Claims

    ReplyDelete
  12. When landing on three, four or five reels, they can appear as single or triple height symbols covering the entire reel. They can also สล็อตค่ายใหญ่ be used interchangeably. This makes it easy to link these characters across paylines. Danny and Sandy combined in the same triple height symbol are 80x, 200x, or 400x, with a bright red love heart as the wild symbol of the game. UEFA Slots It not only acts as a whole but spreads to help complete the combination.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When landing on three, four or five reels, they can appear as single or triple height symbols covering the entire reel. They can เกมสล็อตฟรี also be used interchangeably. This makes it easy to link these characters across paylines. Danny and Sandy combined in the same triple height symbol are 80x, 200x, or 400x, with a bright red love heart as the wild symbol of the game. UEFA Slots It not only acts as a whole but spreads to help complete the combination.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When landing on three, four or five reels, they can appear as single or triple height symbols covering the entire reel. They can เกมslot also be used interchangeably. This makes it easy to link these characters across paylines. Danny and Sandy combined in the same triple height symbol are 80x, 200x, or 400x, with a bright red love heart as the wild symbol of the game. UEFA Slots It not only acts as a whole but spreads to help complete the combination.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do you think pushing this tripe to your blog is peer-review?

    ReplyDelete