Very good analysis. And even though you said it, it seems important to highlight hospitalisation with vs due to covid. This is Sweden so no CDC shenanigans and hence "due to", but also they say "Of the 47 individuals hospitalised due to COVID-19 in the VE analysis, 28 (60%) had 284 previously been hospitalised for another condition".
And in the conclusion "While vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation during the omicron era, the absolute risk among general adolescents was extremely low and similar to that of influenza. In contrast, in a large proportion of adolescents hospitalised due to COVID-19, certain risk factors were present, and the effectiveness of vaccination in these individuals was similar to in the total cohort."
Nobody in Sweden or the rest of Europe cares if people below 65 are vaccinated against flu. The obsession with flu vaccines is a unique American thing. So pretty much this seals the deal. If you are not high risk, don't take the shot.
If you are high risk, it still seems a poor tradeoff as it only gives short term protection against a now endemic illness, while having chances of side effects for each shot.
Thanks! It is an American thing that developed over the last 20 years without me ever realizing it. There was so little attention to the flu vaccine when I was growing up that until earlier this year, when I finally got around to researching flu for myself, I was convinced the flu vaccine did not even exist beyond a few one-offs before 2000, haha.
Something interesting, I noticed...not sure if anyone else noticed. Those were previous infection, had higher infection rates than those never-infected. As if, infection leaves you more vulnerable 10x more vulnerable. It went from 0.017 to like 0.18.... Something about that Table 3 seems suspicious.
Does Natural Immunity no longer exist? Does natural immunity actually make you ten times more likely to catch covid-19? Something about that seems so .... off/odd/wrong to me. How about you guys? In both unvaccinated and vaccinated, your infection risk went way up after you'd have a previous infection according to Table 3. I always believed catching the flu once in a season, reduced your risk of catching it twice. No?
Also, unvaccinated, never caught covid (0.017%/0.014% depending on date range) was lower risk that double vaccinated with previous infection (0.025%). So really, even less reason for mandates as once you've caught covid after vaccination, you're better off unvaccinated (assuming you haven't caught covid unvaccinated -- if you had caught covid, somehow you're magically ten times more infectable... huh?!).
Table 3 - It's not infections, just hospitalizations. And it's 11 out of 6,042. So whatever is going on with those 11 doesn't really say anything about the other 6,031 previously infected + unvaccinated. Rare outcomes cannot describe group properties, which is why it's crazy to vaxx any kids with anything, ever, imo.
Nov 3, 2022·edited Nov 3, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Very valid point. When I think of the sickest child in a elementary school of 549 students. So perhaps 25 full-classrooms 22 students, or maybe 3 classrooms of each grade from 1 to 7. Thus a fairly large elementary school, the sickest 1 out of 549 is probably suffering from multiple allergies to many allergens and likely type 1 diabetes (0.3% of adolesents or 1 in 333) -- greater odds that hospitalization from covid... or cancer, or both! Honestly, I think that's a good metric. You should ask yourself, how many type 1 diabetic kids do you know? If they say ...zero or one or just two ever. Follow up with, that's probably double the rate of unvaccinated kids admitted to the hospital.
Exactly. And all of the hospitalizations could have been "with, not for" - just teens in for something else who happened to test positive for Omicron. On the other hand that might not be as much of a problem in Sweden as in the US with our messed up treatment payment incentives.
I share your concern of course, but the extremely low number (47) out of ~850.000 total population seems reasonable. Especially if you consider hospitalisation includes also kids that were only monitored for safety (perhaps explicitly because they may have had a prior condition) but did not actually need active intervention.
It's also interesting to know the baseline numbers of "hospitalisations per day" for the cohort. There should be a few cases of appendicitis, a few broken legs during the ski season, a few, but lesser number, of broken legs from football or hockey, a few car crashes, etc.
2019, 2020, and 2021 should be assessed separately, as Sweden chose policies equivalent to "The Great Barrington Declaration" in 2020, and went "full vaxx" in 2021- 2019 as a useful baseline as the proposed Covid mortality was not apparent in adolescents.
Then you should really look at monthly numbers (I'm a Seasonality Theorist) and then your data disappear into the statistical noise as indicated by Mr. Mowrey's asterisk on the p-values.
The important question is never asked, because the answer reduces profits for the medical-industrial complex: why was number 9007 at risk of hospitalization without the vax boost, while 1-9006 were fine without that added risk? Immunity is not a binary condition, either healthy or dead, but is infinitely variable based on mostly voluntary actions that reduce immune strength. Avoiding those actions can be learned, but are seldom taught. Their business model requires our sickness. Those who hope to survive a little longer are on their own.
Correct - actually the language is even clearer there as it says "during hospital stay." And everywhere in the main study text it says "hospitalizations" when referring to the safety analysis, there is no other metric mentioned that would be involved in table 2. The disparity in the totals for events shown in table 2 vs. total reported follow-up hospitalizations is because table 2 only shows the 30 pre-selected events of interest.
I modified my text to make the difference between overall hospitalizations and events of interest more clear; I wrote it without realizing that the "all events of interest" rates are so hugely uneven, a fact the authors seem to intentionally not point out. *edit: Scratch that, just slightly uneven when the affluence diseases are removed (+1.517, which suggests that non-highlighted events of interest are negative).
In the text - "In the safety analysis (N=844,377), there were a total of 19,660 hospitalisations among 14,320 individuals during follow-up. In vaccinated individuals, 1.69% (N=10,918) were hospitalised at least once, compared to 1.71% (N=3,402) in those never vaccinated (P=0.29 for difference)."
"Richard," you're right. It's time to come clean. There is no "Richard." It is a fraud - just me, posting from another browser. That is why I have never banned "Richard."
Oh, God. I said I'd come clean, but I'm back at it again. Pushing a fake commenter that has never been isolated as well as the VAXX bio weapon that murders children.
75% is a very high estimate. You’d really have to look at a different number: let’s say only 2 teens out of 100,000 would have needed hospitalization. Did the injection cause less hospitalizations in those 2 people? It’s impossible to say. When the risk is already so low for teens; it’s absolutely impossible to say that the vaccines dropped their risk. Yet we CAN say that the vaccines causes cardiac AES in a lot more than 2 people.
Very good analysis. And even though you said it, it seems important to highlight hospitalisation with vs due to covid. This is Sweden so no CDC shenanigans and hence "due to", but also they say "Of the 47 individuals hospitalised due to COVID-19 in the VE analysis, 28 (60%) had 284 previously been hospitalised for another condition".
And in the conclusion "While vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation during the omicron era, the absolute risk among general adolescents was extremely low and similar to that of influenza. In contrast, in a large proportion of adolescents hospitalised due to COVID-19, certain risk factors were present, and the effectiveness of vaccination in these individuals was similar to in the total cohort."
Nobody in Sweden or the rest of Europe cares if people below 65 are vaccinated against flu. The obsession with flu vaccines is a unique American thing. So pretty much this seals the deal. If you are not high risk, don't take the shot.
If you are high risk, it still seems a poor tradeoff as it only gives short term protection against a now endemic illness, while having chances of side effects for each shot.
Thanks! It is an American thing that developed over the last 20 years without me ever realizing it. There was so little attention to the flu vaccine when I was growing up that until earlier this year, when I finally got around to researching flu for myself, I was convinced the flu vaccine did not even exist beyond a few one-offs before 2000, haha.
Something interesting, I noticed...not sure if anyone else noticed. Those were previous infection, had higher infection rates than those never-infected. As if, infection leaves you more vulnerable 10x more vulnerable. It went from 0.017 to like 0.18.... Something about that Table 3 seems suspicious.
Does Natural Immunity no longer exist? Does natural immunity actually make you ten times more likely to catch covid-19? Something about that seems so .... off/odd/wrong to me. How about you guys? In both unvaccinated and vaccinated, your infection risk went way up after you'd have a previous infection according to Table 3. I always believed catching the flu once in a season, reduced your risk of catching it twice. No?
Also, unvaccinated, never caught covid (0.017%/0.014% depending on date range) was lower risk that double vaccinated with previous infection (0.025%). So really, even less reason for mandates as once you've caught covid after vaccination, you're better off unvaccinated (assuming you haven't caught covid unvaccinated -- if you had caught covid, somehow you're magically ten times more infectable... huh?!).
Table 3 - It's not infections, just hospitalizations. And it's 11 out of 6,042. So whatever is going on with those 11 doesn't really say anything about the other 6,031 previously infected + unvaccinated. Rare outcomes cannot describe group properties, which is why it's crazy to vaxx any kids with anything, ever, imo.
Very valid point. When I think of the sickest child in a elementary school of 549 students. So perhaps 25 full-classrooms 22 students, or maybe 3 classrooms of each grade from 1 to 7. Thus a fairly large elementary school, the sickest 1 out of 549 is probably suffering from multiple allergies to many allergens and likely type 1 diabetes (0.3% of adolesents or 1 in 333) -- greater odds that hospitalization from covid... or cancer, or both! Honestly, I think that's a good metric. You should ask yourself, how many type 1 diabetic kids do you know? If they say ...zero or one or just two ever. Follow up with, that's probably double the rate of unvaccinated kids admitted to the hospital.
Exactly. And all of the hospitalizations could have been "with, not for" - just teens in for something else who happened to test positive for Omicron. On the other hand that might not be as much of a problem in Sweden as in the US with our messed up treatment payment incentives.
They claim this is "due to".
I share your concern of course, but the extremely low number (47) out of ~850.000 total population seems reasonable. Especially if you consider hospitalisation includes also kids that were only monitored for safety (perhaps explicitly because they may have had a prior condition) but did not actually need active intervention.
It's also interesting to know the baseline numbers of "hospitalisations per day" for the cohort. There should be a few cases of appendicitis, a few broken legs during the ski season, a few, but lesser number, of broken legs from football or hockey, a few car crashes, etc.
2019, 2020, and 2021 should be assessed separately, as Sweden chose policies equivalent to "The Great Barrington Declaration" in 2020, and went "full vaxx" in 2021- 2019 as a useful baseline as the proposed Covid mortality was not apparent in adolescents.
Then you should really look at monthly numbers (I'm a Seasonality Theorist) and then your data disappear into the statistical noise as indicated by Mr. Mowrey's asterisk on the p-values.
The important question is never asked, because the answer reduces profits for the medical-industrial complex: why was number 9007 at risk of hospitalization without the vax boost, while 1-9006 were fine without that added risk? Immunity is not a binary condition, either healthy or dead, but is infinitely variable based on mostly voluntary actions that reduce immune strength. Avoiding those actions can be learned, but are seldom taught. Their business model requires our sickness. Those who hope to survive a little longer are on their own.
Will be ignored like all the rest.
Brian, do you think that table 2 describes hospitalizations, as per last page of the study's flowchart?
Correct - actually the language is even clearer there as it says "during hospital stay." And everywhere in the main study text it says "hospitalizations" when referring to the safety analysis, there is no other metric mentioned that would be involved in table 2. The disparity in the totals for events shown in table 2 vs. total reported follow-up hospitalizations is because table 2 only shows the 30 pre-selected events of interest.
Sorry where is the total number of hospitalizations, I must have missed it
ok i see line 44
I modified my text to make the difference between overall hospitalizations and events of interest more clear; I wrote it without realizing that the "all events of interest" rates are so hugely uneven, a fact the authors seem to intentionally not point out. *edit: Scratch that, just slightly uneven when the affluence diseases are removed (+1.517, which suggests that non-highlighted events of interest are negative).
In the text - "In the safety analysis (N=844,377), there were a total of 19,660 hospitalisations among 14,320 individuals during follow-up. In vaccinated individuals, 1.69% (N=10,918) were hospitalised at least once, compared to 1.71% (N=3,402) in those never vaccinated (P=0.29 for difference)."
VAXX Bio Weapons that MURDER children. Give it up.
Richard, you're really not adding anything helpful, and I believe Brian asked you to knock it off?
So telling the truth is not helpful? Gotcha.
"Richard," you're right. It's time to come clean. There is no "Richard." It is a fraud - just me, posting from another browser. That is why I have never banned "Richard."
Why are you being a goof? You keep pushing a fake virus that has never been isolated as well as the VAXX bio weapon that murders children
Oh, God. I said I'd come clean, but I'm back at it again. Pushing a fake commenter that has never been isolated as well as the VAXX bio weapon that murders children.
75% is a very high estimate. You’d really have to look at a different number: let’s say only 2 teens out of 100,000 would have needed hospitalization. Did the injection cause less hospitalizations in those 2 people? It’s impossible to say. When the risk is already so low for teens; it’s absolutely impossible to say that the vaccines dropped their risk. Yet we CAN say that the vaccines causes cardiac AES in a lot more than 2 people.
Ya. There’s no statistical reason to get jabbed in that data. And lots more risk for some serious concerns (myo/peri).
I didn’t see cancer on there. Yet we’ve heard lots about those rates going up a lot for youngsters...
Wasn't in the pre-selected event list, so there's no telling what the rates are.
What you don't look for, you can't find....or conveniently, do not find.
Because it’s being covered up by coward traitor doctors and fake scientists.