How might Covid vaccines reduce mortality?
There are two possible mechanisms, thoughtfully explained in a thorough review and a recent article on Brownstone: Covid vaccines might reduce the risk of infection, or reduce the risk of death — if infected, or both. We can explain the mechanisms in words, with reference to ‘marginal and conditional probabilities’, or we can depict them in a causal diagram — a powerful methodological tool.
The first mechanism is simple: If a Covid vaccine reduces the risk of infection, it will also reduce the risk of death, because there is no doubt that getting infected increases the risk of death. Theoretical exceptions aside, if A affects B, and B affects C, then A affects C.
What if A does not affect B? What if a Covid vaccine does not reduce the risk of infection? Then it cannot reduce the risk of death through this mechanism. The causal chain does not exist. A link is broken.
By now we know that Covid vaccines appear temporarily to increase the risk of infection, and any subsequent benefit is nullified within months, if not turned again into harm (negative vaccine effectiveness). Therefore, according to the first mechanism, there is a short period when a Covid vaccine increases the risk of death, a limited period (a few months) when it decreases the risk of death, and a later period when the effect is null at best.
The second mechanism is more complicated. One aspect was explained in the Brownstone article and is related to a causal concept called ‘effect modification’. Like numerous epidemiological concepts, there are layers of complexity below superficial simplicity. I will keep it simple.
When two causes — Covid vaccine and Covid infection — operate on a single outcome (death), we may ask two causal questions:
- What is the effect of a Covid vaccine on the risk of death — if infected?
- What is the effect of a Covid vaccine on the risk of death — if not infected?
The second question is asking about vaccine-related death, the worst adverse effect. (A vaccine can be a cause of death even when someone is infected, but that’s another issue.)
Theoretically, the two types of effect could be different, in any possible way: magnitude and direction. Both might be harmful effects, yet of different magnitude. One might be beneficial and the other null, and so on. Add to that complexity time-varying effects, as noted earlier, and you can see how complicated causal reality might be.
Coincidentally, I encountered a relevant study at about the same time that I read the Brownstone article. That study provides insight into the two mechanisms by which Covid vaccines might reduce the risk of death, although the authors missed one aspect of their data (regarding reduced infections) and stopped short of the computation for the other (reduced mortality, if infected).
That’s not surprising. At times of biased media and biased science, we sometimes find insight from narrative-matched publications that missed interesting inference from the data.
Published as a ‘research letter‘, the study compared Covid mortality with mortality from seasonal flu. Using databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the researchers identified patients who were hospitalised with an admission diagnosis of Covid or influenza and ascertained deaths. Most patients were elderly, the age group where Covid mortality is concentrated and effective vaccines are needed.
Did Covid vaccines reduce infections? Although the design was a classical retrospective cohort, the baseline data in the first table may be viewed as data from a hospital-based case-control study. (I cannot get into a technical explanation of ‘propensity score weighting’, but it can be ignored for a basic case-control analysis.)
We may consider Covid patients as cases (numbering 8,996) and seasonal influenza patients as controls (there are 2,403). In a typical hospital-based case-control study, controls are selected from multiple disease categories, but I don’t see a major problem with this control group, and perhaps there are referral-related advantages.
Many complicated issues arise from a case-control study. Nonetheless, the basic analysis is simple. We visually compare the distribution of the suspected causal variable (Covid vaccination status) in cases and controls and compute odds ratios. If the vaccines meaningfully reduced the risk of infection, we should get odds ratios much smaller than 1.
We have no such evidence in these data. The odds ratios are close to 1 (close to zero vaccine effectiveness) and they line up in the ‘wrong’ (unexpected) order of magnitude: the larger the number of doses, the weaker the apparent effect. The causal chain from vaccination to reduced mortality through reduced Covid infections is not corroborated.
Interestingly, we may also view influenza patients as cases and Covid patients as controls and compare the distribution of flu vaccination status in the two groups. Check their table above. There is no meaningful association either.
Might biases account for near-null associations? Biasing paths typically lead to a statistical association when there is no real cause-and-effect relation. Random error aside, it is unusual for biases to turn strong effects into near-null associations.
Did Covid vaccines reduce mortality, if infected? We turn next to the second mechanism by which a Covid vaccine might reduce mortality: reducing the risk of death, if infected. That part was addressed in the original design. Every member of the cohort was infected, either by SARS-Cov-2 or by influenza.
The authors have focused on a comparison of Covid mortality with flu mortality, but they added a secondary conclusion:
The increased risk of death was greater among unvaccinated individuals compared with those vaccinated or boosted — findings that highlight the importance of vaccination in reducing risk of COVID-19 death.
How important is vaccination? What was the vaccine effectiveness — if infected? They don’t say.
If Covid vaccines no longer reduce the risk of infection, that’s the only source of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against death.
Below you will find their table and my computation:
VE of 30% or 40% in the vulnerable population is far from ‘highly effective’, a perpetuated claim. The incremental benefit of booster vaccine (one or more doses, per supplementary material) was even smaller (risk ratio 0.83, VE 17%).
Moreover, 30% to 40% is not necessarily the true effectiveness. We have clear evidence of ‘healthy vaccinee bias‘, a type of confounding bias, in both the U.S. and the U.K.. People of the same age who were vaccinated against Covid were healthier, on average, than their unvaccinated counterparts, as evident by lower non-Covid mortality. Therefore, the unbiased VE should be smaller. For example, a modest bias correction factor around 1.5 would drive VE of 40% close to zero.
Billions have been vaccinated under the slogan ”safe and effective’.
It was neither.
Dr. Eyal Shahar is Professor Emeritus of Public Health at the University of Arizona. This article first appeared on Medium.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
John Cleese Talks To The Babylon Bee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASgZUd7Aelc
Comedy legend John Cleese, who changed comedy forever with Monty Python, sits down to talk to guys from The Babylon Bee about being at a conference with a bunch of gun-toting rednecks and whether monkeys are funny. The Babylon Bee
Stand for freedom Yellow Boards By The Road
Have courage, and fight the Cult of Covid & Climate
Friday 22nd July 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction Cricket Hill Lane/
B3272 Reading Rd,
Yateley GU46 7AA
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Shout out to a Wokingham lockdown sceptic who I think goes to the SITP that we met on the plane flying to Stockholm – semi-retired gentleman travelling with his Mrs. We had a lovely chat and set the world to rights. Hope he enjoyed Sweden as much as we did.
I joined the Vaccine Control Group referred to above some time ago, then cancelled. £6 a quarter is not a lot, but because so many people signed up they’re receiving millions of pounds a year and there’s still nothing on their website about who is actually behind this. A bit of delving a while back suggested it was started by someone in South Africa but that’s all I could find. Who’s running it? What are their scientific/medical/academic credentials?
First of all you can join this group for free. You don’t need to pay anything.I joined them a year ago.
It is a legitimate group. They are doing a lot to support unvaccinated people, who as you know have been having a very difficult time in many countries.
They are now starting to pull data together to produce scientific papers.
Having an unvaccinated control group is the only way we can get scientific about vaccine research.
Reply to myself (for the benefit of others). One of the founders has commented below.
Ditto with regards to trying to find out who is behind the group. I gave up trying to find out. The site itself seems unfinished.
Please look again at the front page of the website – there is video called meet the founders.
Hi (again), Diny. I can see that the website, in its form now, does have this ‘Meet the Founders’ link to a video, and mentions your name, and another name. But was this on there 9-12 months ago? ie when I joined? (And when ‘Gefion’ joined?) Because I tried hard to find out who had started the site, and I definitely would have noticed if it had been started by ‘two Mums’. As I would have felt a lot more comfortable about the whole thing. Anyway, good to see that there now and will watch the video!
https://t.me/joinchat/MBA1FS5a1epkNGY0
This Telegram link may answer some of your questions?
Hi, thank you for supporting us initially, and I am sorry that you have been misinformed. As one of the founders of the Control Group, I would just like to correct information that you have said above about us.
The vast majority of people who join us do so for free, those who choose to fund us with £6 per quarter are Associates (a small percentage of our participants), who are our only funding source and this is how we remain completely independent.
If you look lower down on the front page of the website, you will see a video called Meet the Founders. There is also a wiki that tells you about our structure, our funding mechanism and everything else you could want to know. We also run weekly zooms that anyone can join and talk directly to the founders. We don’t put our bios on the website to keep ourselves safe, but we are very accessible. (click ABOUT on the website or https://www.vcgwiki.com/index.php)
We are from the UK – Eastbourne to be precise.
As architects of the database, designers of the cards and running a massive support community, we don’t need scientific credentials – however, those who analyse our data and advise us our questionnaires do.
You will find testimonies from doctors and scientists who support us here: https://www.vcgwiki.com/index.php/tesimonials
We are also affiliates of the World Council for Health.
A first paper has been produced from our Winter Questionnaire by Dr Robert Verkerk, PhD, Dr Kat Lindley and 2 other authors and this has been published on Authorea: Link to Authorea Preprint: https://www.authorea.com/users/489959/articles/573441-self-reported-outcomes-choices-and-discrimination-among-a-global-covid-19-unvaccinated-cohort
I hope that helps you to understand a bit more about us. Please do feel free to join one of our weekly chats (find them here: https://www.vcgwiki.com/index.php/community?view=category&layout=blog&id=42) or email support and request a personal zoom with the founders.
Kind regards, Diny
I know Dr Kat personally & can attest to her independence & integrity for truth & ethics in medicine. She is a Warrior as well as a wonderful woman.
OK, thank you. This information is a surprise to me, as I joined over a year ago, and am wondering why I was paying £6 a quarter when it was possible to join for free. Assuming that nothing has changed since you started the site, I must have misunderstood, so thank you for correcting me. One of my motivations (at the time) for joining was to have the card. Perhaps that’s how the confusion arose? Also, at the time I joined, and after that as well, I tried hard to find out who the founders were, but was unable to obtain any information. So. thank you for commenting on here. This is reassuring. I will look at your links and consider rejoining, as it seems to me you have my previous information logged still.
“and am wondering why I was paying £6 a quarter when it was possible to join for free.”
That’s a deal breaker.
Hi
It has always been possible to join for free – those who do get a digital version of the ID card. Anyone who choses to fund us gets sent a plastic printed version of the card. This is all stated on the website. Most people join for free and we are incredibly grateful to those who become Associates – we could not run without them.
Diny, I’ve just been onto the site. It has allowed me to log in, and my previous information (logged health record) is still there. So although my ‘subscription’ has been cancelled (April), does that mean I am still a member, ie I just continue to update my monthly health record? Also, since cancelling the £6 DD (which I may just reinstate :-)) I haven’t been receiving the reminders to update my information. So not quite sure what to do now.
Hi Deborah
All subscriptions got cancelled when Paypal closed our account (they didn’t like us!). We now use Stripe and anyone can re-subscribe if they want to using the re-subscribe link, however, accounts remain active if you don’t and just become free participants accounts.
You should have received an email every month from us reminding you to complete your health report, but often this goes into spam, it gets blocked or the email address may have a typo (do please check). Thank you for being a participant.
Diny
Thank you Diny.
I won’t be signing the change.org petition calling for the USTA to find a way to allow Djokovic to play in the US Tennis Open, because the main reason he cannot play is because of the US Federal Govt (who control the borders) and their decision that only the “vaccinated” are allowed to enter the USA. They are responsible and that stupid rule needs to be removed for everybody, not just Novak.
That’s what I was thinking as well. Granting exemptions for the ‘elites’ only furthers the us and them culture as exemplified by the Hollywood ‘stars’ attending their gala’s whilst staff where masked.
Exactly. It’s the official rule that is the problem not the USTA who are only following orders, er, I mean guidance. Nevertheless, I am glad that Djokovic continues to draw this sort of media attention as it helps to point out the ongoing absurdity and keeps it in the public eye.
Yes – whether he’s at a tournament or not, they have to talk about him. He’s clear and consistent in his position – firm, polite but unapologetic. A fine spokesman for our cause.
Having endorsed Braverman and then Badenoch – which seemed logical choices – Swayne is now backing Sunak. Perhaps he knows something we don’t about his true attitude to things but it’s puzzling and the comments on his Twitter post are 100% slaughtering him for it.
There’s an interesting backgrounder on Rishi Sunak and his WEF links here: https://alilybit.substack.com/p/dear-uk-it-is-getting-worse WEF graduate William Hague gave up his safe seat to give it to Rishi who was new to politics.
So. Berenson reporting that
This morning, the German Federal Ministry of Health posted a stunning tweet, admitting that 1 out of every 5,000 Covid jabs cause “serious side effects.”
So. How about this as a thought experiment.
Think of being at a football match with 40000 supporters. There is a sniper. 8 will be seriously injured. Divide the ground up into quarters. You are sitting in one quarter. Would you be concerned you might be one of the two there to get a bullet.
The admission as to the level of risk associated with the drug being promoted is still one-sided, with nothing to say about the risk caused by the infection itself. Any proper assessment should compare them both for each person, so that a true “informed consent” can be made.
I agree! The risk from the disease is negligible in comparison to the risk to the immediate & short term data we have for the majority of the population & that is without early treatment.
With early treatment the risk of death or serious illness is incredibly low, even for the elderly & those with underlying illness & long term post covid complications are also prevented with early treatment as the toxic bioweapon spike protein doesn’t get the chance to multiply & damage the body.
Early elimination of the spike protein is key.
The admission as to the level of risk associated with the drug being promoted is still one-sided, with nothing to say about the risk caused by the infection itself.
This may just be my completely unqualified and unscientific misunderstanding of the issues at hand but for me, the crucial difference is the risk associated with vaccination can be avoided while the risk associated with infection cannot. Further, it’s exceedingly likely that everyone already came in contact with Sars-CoV2 before vaccination was even available.
My conclusion from that is I’ll avoid the avoidable risk and see how it goes with the other.
So the BBC reckon only 4million people in UK are un jabbed ! This cannot be accurate can it ??
“Unvaccinated, review: painfully patronising documentary treated vaccine sceptics as idiots.”
Even a non complimentary piece in The Telegraph cannot start with any honesty. Whitty declares 5 million have refused the injections yet ONS states 18 million. The Telegraph comes up with 4 million.
For crying out loud.
BTL comments on this Telegraph piece are encouraging though; almost universally scathing of the programme and highlighting the very obvious and blatant conflict of interests regarding the “experts” that took part in the “persuasion”.
A disgraceful piece of propaganda and anyone still funding the BBC needs to have a long hard look at themselves, (IMHO).
The Daily Mail TV critic is also non-complimentary about the programme whilst at the same time portraying the seven subjects as woefully misinformed. The critic himself is more than willing to line up for his fourth jab simply because a doctor towards the end of the programme said that 95% of people seriously ill with Covid and 100% of deaths are unvaccinated. Where were BBC’s ‘fact checkers’ regarding that load of bull?
But they were The Official Facts!!
I’ve seen some ridiculous things in my lifetime, but this jumps in near the top spot. It’s just not cricket is it…
Quidditch changing name to distance sport from JK RowlingThe governing body said the change ‘indicates a firm stance with our trans players and members’.
*Having read the article, I suspect this may actually be motivated by money as the trademark for Quidditch is owned by Warner Brothers.
“What did you do in the war Daddy?”
“I ran around with a stick between my legs that was meant to be a wizzard’s broomstick, and pretended to fly, whilst thinking that men are women, the common cold’s a death sentence, and you can better heat your house with cold air rather than oil or gas boilers”
“Daddy, didn’t all that mean that you got the 7 colours of sh*t kicked out of you on a regular basis?”
“Yes eventually it did darling…..btw, I’m actually your mother” .
I was making scrambled eggs for breakfast this morning. I cracked all the eggs into the pot, Gordon Ramsay style, before cooking them.
As I was cracking in the eggs I started thinking about times in the past where I’ve seen it being recommended to crack the eggs individually onto a plate in case one is off.
I’ve never cracked open an off egg in all my life and I don’t think I’ll ever crack them open separately on the off chance I find one. If it happens I’ll throw the eggs away and start again with another lot of eggs.
I’m sure there are people out there who will crack them separately before mixing them together and I imagine these are the same sort of people who carry CO2 monitors on public transport or hold their breath while taking a leak at a petrol station because they had to remove their mask (there’s an MD on Twitter claiming he caught Covid at a petrol station because he didn’t hold his breath while charging his Tesla, I added the taking a leak bit).
Point is you can choose to spend half your life worrying and trying to avoid things that are unlikely to happen or just get on with life and have more time to think about this sort of thing.
I enjoyed that, thanks
I do however crack eggs separately. There has been an odd occasion when I have had an ‘off’ egg and if I have my cake mixture ready for the eggs I don’t want to have to start again because of a bad ‘un; unlike the tories.
‘Extreme heat deaths’ predicted by the histrionics put into context with data.
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/worlds-largest-study-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-year-abnormal
A new substack from John Dee on the temperature being due to climate change.
He’s a data geek & a witty writer to boot.
https://jdee.substack.com/p/my-garden-part-1