A newly published CDC study prompted the MSM to run headlines like “New study finds unvaccinated are 11 times more likely to die from Covid, CDC says,” “Unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die of covid-19, CDC report finds,” and “Unvaccinated People Are 11 Times More Likely To Die Of COVID-19, New Research Finds.”  It surely looks scary if you read only those headlines.  I was curious about what the report actually says, and doesn’t say.  Below is what I found.

1. The purpose of the report is for propaganda

The report admits in its Discussion section that “the data assessed from 13 jurisdictions accounted for 25% of the U.S. population, and therefore might not be generalizable.”  But it still suggests that “[t]he data might be helpful in communicating the real-time impact of vaccines (e.g., persons not fully vaccinated having >10 times higher COVID-19 mortality risk) and guiding prevention strategies, such as vaccination and nonpharmacologic interventions.”  No wonder the MSM outlets quickly spread this message around.

It could be dangerous to continue the mass vaccination campaign that, at least, helped to drive the delta variant to become the predominant virus in the United States today.  The report admits that “[f]indings from this crude analysis of surveillance data are consistent with recent studies reporting decreased VE [vaccine effectiveness] against confirmed infection.”  If the CDC keeps up this mass vaccination campaign to continue to drive the delta variant out, what are we going to do when the next, more dangerous variant comes?

2. The representation of the data used in the study

The raw data used by the study were collected from thirteen jurisdictions, including “Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Los Angeles County (California), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Seattle/King County (Washington), and Utah.”  That accounts for 25% of the U.S. population.  Interestingly, the study did not include the seven states with the lowest partial vaccination rates.  Those states could be a reference to compare.  The CDC study itself is not so confident about the data representation; “therefore[, it] might not be generalizable.”  Well, the MSM is already generalizing, using the misleading numbers published by the CDC.

3. Model fitting issue

Fitting a model to data means choosing the statistical model that predicts values as close as possible to the ones observed in your population.

I was curious about how the raw data were manipulated by the study to generate the authors’ conclusion, which says, “[A]fter Delta became the most common variant, fully vaccinated people had reduced risk of 5X infection, >10X hospitalization, >10X death.”

First, let’s look at the data used by the study.  In the report, it says, “Two analysis periods, April 4–June 19 and June 20–July 17, were designated, based on weeks with <50% or ≥50% weighted prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for the 13 jurisdictions.”

I happened to count the days in those two periods: 80 days and 30 days.  The question is why those two periods were selected.  The middle point, June 19, has a specific meaning, as explained in the report when the delta variant reached a threshold of >50%.  But why did the study choose 2.7 times more days for the first period?  That certainly raises a model-fitting suspicion.  Below is a screenshot of a diagram in the report, Figure 1

Read More