Even a superficial understanding of statistics reveals how misleading this piece is, and likely written with a clear agenda. It is crucial to examine how much of the population, for example, is vaccinated, and which proportion of these individuals is high-risk.
I am going to allow myself to quote a comment from Alan Morse on The Expose piece:
'Sadly, the article focuses on absolute numbers, which creates a misleading picture. For example, it ignores the portion of the population that is vaccinated, which portion has changed over time.
Another, more damning, interpretation of the first chart would be that vaccination increases your risk of death if you should contract Covid-19. This is based on the fact that 27% of the cases and 12% of the deaths are unvaccinated; in other words, if you are unvaccinated, you are half as likely to die as vaccinated.
A more complete view might include a comparison of “case rates per thousand” and “death rates per thousand” of each population (vaccinated and unvaccinated).'
And from the original source (COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, UK Health Security Agency, PDF pp. 34-35):
'Interpretation of data These data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations...'
People, it's time basic principles of statistics are taught in school!
Statistics is a a subject that confuses The Exposé so much, that no one there is willing to put an author or two on the article, so that we can look up qualifications. They are made up of non-statisticians or ones who can't find legitimate work, who evidently write articles to show others just how confusing statistics can be to them. Pity. Here's what they say about themselves in the "Who are we" section on their About page:
"The Exposé is run by extremely ordinary, hardworking people who are sick and tired of the fear-mongering, lies and propaganda perpetuated by the mainstream media. We felt it was our duty to bring you the facts that the mainstream refuse to, and now here we are.
"We believe our work speaks for itself, and we hope you do too."
"Extremely ordinary"? Okay, maybe, but many extremely ordinary people would learn statistics before reporting on them. Evening classes are available on the web, so no one needs to lose face, if they would just stop working so hard without the tools to do the job. But, yes, the article speaks for itself.
Even a superficial understanding of statistics reveals how misleading this piece is, and likely written with a clear agenda. It is crucial to examine how much of the population, for example, is vaccinated, and which proportion of these individuals is high-risk.
ReplyDeleteI am going to allow myself to quote a comment from Alan Morse on The Expose piece:
'Sadly, the article focuses on absolute numbers, which creates a misleading picture. For example, it ignores the portion of the population that is vaccinated, which portion has changed over time.
Another, more damning, interpretation of the first chart would be that vaccination increases your risk of death if you should contract Covid-19. This is based on the fact that 27% of the cases and 12% of the deaths are unvaccinated; in other words, if you are unvaccinated, you are half as likely to die as vaccinated.
A more complete view might include a comparison of “case rates per thousand” and “death rates per thousand” of each population (vaccinated and unvaccinated).'
And from the original source (COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, UK Health Security Agency, PDF pp. 34-35):
'Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19.
The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations...'
People, it's time basic principles of statistics are taught in school!
Hi Lee,
ReplyDeleteYes, the people of the UK, are not made up differently than people everywhere else. Here's an article on this from UK's Office for National Statistics: Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 1 January and 31 December 2021.
Statistics is a a subject that confuses The Exposé so much, that no one there is willing to put an author or two on the article, so that we can look up qualifications. They are made up of non-statisticians or ones who can't find legitimate work, who evidently write articles to show others just how confusing statistics can be to them. Pity. Here's what they say about themselves in the "Who are we" section on their About page:
"The Exposé is run by extremely ordinary, hardworking people who are sick and tired of the fear-mongering, lies and propaganda perpetuated by the mainstream media. We felt it was our duty to bring you the facts that the mainstream refuse to, and now here we are.
"We believe our work speaks for itself, and we hope you do too."
"Extremely ordinary"? Okay, maybe, but many extremely ordinary people would learn statistics before reporting on them. Evening classes are available on the web, so no one needs to lose face, if they would just stop working so hard without the tools to do the job. But, yes, the article speaks for itself.
Rus