> Actually, deaths from underlying health conditions are all up in addition to COVID deaths, try again.
What does say about your WW2 mortality claim then?
Okay, so looking at the first study linked in the post article [1]:
Scroll down to the first table.
Not Fully Vaccinated: 569,142 cases, 6,132 deaths. Mortality in this group: 0.010774113
Fully Vaccinated: 46,312 cases, 616 deaths. Mortality in this group: 0.013301088
Look at those mortality rates closely, the Fully Vaccinated group is actually higher.
The next section has a different total number of cases, unexplained in the table itself, but let's take a look at the most vulnerable population in that table, 65 and over.
Now, that's a difference of 0.023472434 in mortality. I don't know what kind of math it takes to make 2.3% look like 11x better outcome, but I'm sure it's not math based in reality. That's about a 30% relative reduction in rate, and that's using highly specious numbers IMO, especially considering the CDC put out guidance to NOT TRACK 'breakthrough' cases unless the patient is hospitalized. Since this table includes a 'hospitalizations' column, one has to wonder how these vaccinated cases even got tracked in the first place.
Mind you, this is if you believe the CDC and their data in the first place, which I don't.
> What does say about your WW2 mortality claim then?
That statement doesn't even make sense. I'm refuting you statement that folks are not dying of COVID, their dying with COVID. It's just not true, if that were the case, we would see a corresponding drop in other causes of death. We didn't they actually went up, pretty close to how much they go up every year. But COVID deaths on top have gotten us to the point of WWII death rates in 1943. So in short, it completely proves my point.
> Look at those mortality rates closely, the Fully Vaccinated group is actually higher.
I think failure to interpret the study correctly does not actually make it incorrect. Try reading the whole thing instead of cherry picking numbers to try to prove your point.
> Mind you, this is if you believe the CDC and their data in the first place, which I don't.
What's there to "believe"? Deny what doesn't fit your world view is not a good playbook. Did you "believe" the CDC when Trump was in charge? Was it different then? Sometimes things we don't like still happen, even though we really don't want them to. Denying reality doesn't make it true.
> But COVID deaths on top have gotten us to the point of WWII death rates in 1943
Except, they didn't, as we discussed already.
> think failure to interpret the study correctly does not actually make it incorrect. Try reading the whole thing instead of cherry picking numbers to try to prove your point.
I don't need someone to interpret numbers for me, that's the difference. The rest of the 'study' is drivel. Not to mention, the data's already cherry picked.
> What's there to "believe"?
For starters, we have to take their numbers at face value. We know they're not aggressively collecting adverse reaction data, we know they're not doing much investigating vaccine caused death and illness, we know their numbers are most likely skewed to show the vaccines are beneficial. Despite this, the best they can come up with is a report that shows the mortality among vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated.
What does say about your WW2 mortality claim then?
Okay, so looking at the first study linked in the post article [1]:
Scroll down to the first table.
Not Fully Vaccinated: 569,142 cases, 6,132 deaths. Mortality in this group: 0.010774113
Fully Vaccinated: 46,312 cases, 616 deaths. Mortality in this group: 0.013301088
Look at those mortality rates closely, the Fully Vaccinated group is actually higher.
The next section has a different total number of cases, unexplained in the table itself, but let's take a look at the most vulnerable population in that table, 65 and over.
Vaccinated mortality: 0.049678391 Unvaccinated mortality: 0.073150825
Now, that's a difference of 0.023472434 in mortality. I don't know what kind of math it takes to make 2.3% look like 11x better outcome, but I'm sure it's not math based in reality. That's about a 30% relative reduction in rate, and that's using highly specious numbers IMO, especially considering the CDC put out guidance to NOT TRACK 'breakthrough' cases unless the patient is hospitalized. Since this table includes a 'hospitalizations' column, one has to wonder how these vaccinated cases even got tracked in the first place.
Mind you, this is if you believe the CDC and their data in the first place, which I don't.
1: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm...