Covid in Norway--Numbers from Week 6: 42% of hospitalisations occur among triple-jabbed, in the past 4 weeks, 'injected' die at 3X the rate of 'unvaccinated'
Covid in Norway--Numbers from Week 6: 42% of hospitalisations occur among triple-jabbed, in the past 4 weeks, 'injected' die at 3X the rate of 'unvaccinated'
It gets worse every week: most injected are 50+, virtually all triple-jabbed are in high-risk groups, the IPH doesn't want you to read crucial studies (and 'bends' reality)
In Sweden testing is suspended barring where the patient is severly ill and Covid infection fits the symtoms - which is situation normal, really. "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras" and all that.
As such, the only readily available numbers for spread, rate and severity of infection is the ICU registry which doesn't differentiate along vaccination status or reinfection. As of 14:11 today, there are 72 Covid patients in ICU wards, zero new admissions today.
That's 72 patients out of 11 000 000 possibles, with 85% of the population at least double jabbed (as an average).
Looking at the graphs in the public part of the ICU registry, I can see that we are plateuing right now. New cases are flat to dropping and total cases since 2020 is again flattening out. However, last week some school districts have "Winter sports holidays" - this is psread out so the whole country doesn't have it the same week. Meaning snotty kids and adults taking to the fjells for skiing and skating and other fun in the snow. So we will probably see the usual annual uptick in two or three weeks.
Tangentially related, 25 February marks the start of Vasaloppsveckan, so if the mRNA injection increases or causes risk of heartfailure we might see this happening then, since a great many people will partake and the average age of those running the actual Vasalopp (90km crosscountry skiing, with deadlines to keep) is middle-age to older, the majority being men.
Going 90km on skiis in under 4 hours puts some strain on the heart. Last year, Tord Asle Geirdalen (Norway) did it in 3:28:18.
Oh, wow, what cool data points, thanks a lot. Seems that Sweden is doing this like Norway (or vice versa, or both like Denmark, sort of, you know what I mean). This, by the way, specifically includes the idiocy about the data whereby I can get detailed age brackets for all-cause hospitalisations, but not for the injection status (and vice versa).
Oh, the idiocy, but I do wonder if this is 'just' stupidity--I mean: it's not that difficult to kinda break this down, and my guess is that this data is also available, but not to the general public (even though the IPH's admission of the spread of risk stratification two weeks ago is at least something). I do suppose that the good people over at the public health bodies will not release these data--for the simple reason that doing so would be tantamount to admitting that we've hunkered down for two years to…well, who or what were we protecting? The elderly who were at ± the same risk from influenza or pneumonia?
Thanks for bringing up the cross-country event, for this will certainly be interesting to check out in terms of 'sudden heart attack' or 'stroke' among above-average fit Swedes.
Much as I love to rag on various civil servants, they are only allowed to do what is stipulated by law and ordinances, and lawfully given instructions within the scope of said ordinances.
So even if a statistician at Folkhälsomyndigheten (Public Health Agency of Sweden, rubbish translation of the name which should read 'Ministry for Public Health' really) would want to compile detailed and wide-ranging data they may not do so without orders. From the governement via the correct minister via the head of the agency - I think it's similar in structure to Austria's system?
This goes for scientists to - they must ask for permission both from the board of ethics as well as the relevant official depending on issue or matter to be researched. As such, it is sadly a fact that only regime loyal researchers whose conclusions are "on message" and virtually decided from how they form their poposal gets apporval and funding. Our leaders only want to see what they think reality should be. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Feb 18, 2022·edited Feb 18, 2022Liked by epimetheus
There was an interesting paper in Nature about covid-related myocarditis. Clare Craig looked at the data in the Supplementary Appendix and found that, for elderly men, the risk of myocarditis for the unvaccinated was 0.00037 and the risk for the vaccinated was 0.00058. (Published at dailysceptic (search "clare craig dailysceptic heart myocarditis"))
We need to be on the alert for vaccine-induced side effects like myocarditis.
Feb 18, 2022·edited Feb 18, 2022Liked by epimetheus
I would like to see data broken out by age, vaccination status, hospitalization, and death. I would also like to see any vagueness in statistical definitions laid out, too--at the top.
Well, the IPH offers age breakdowns in reasonable brackets for hospitalisations and ICU admissions, but not for death (even though the median ranges for all three categories are typically provided).
No age breakdowns (save median age ranges) for the injection status of these are typicall provided, hence the above risk assessment table is ± what is there, I think. There's some more 'data' available at the IPH's website, but it's super-convoluted, badly accessible (they only show you the last 10-14 days or so), and generally rather poorly executed.
Now, I don't know if this was intentional or not (i.e., I'm unsure if this is stupidity of malevolence), the bottom line is that these kind of answers take some time to compile, as there are no really helpful (read: easily accessible) data sets available.
As I said above, I'll get to this, but it'll take some time.
Great, but if you write in english post graphs in english or write a little legenda after every graph, so I know what is the red and blu lines, or the other colored lines in other graphs. Thank you!!
Could you please look at all-cause mortality statistics for Norway for working age people for 2021 in comparison with 2020? If you could break down that data by cause of death, that would also be helpful. Also, please check whether deaths in the 75+ y.o. group has declined from 2020. I would like to see if the US trends are found elsewhere.
I shall do what you ask for, but it will take some time: there's no such analysis for 2020, and my detailed data spreadsheets cover 'only' the period from week 39 (2021) through today yet. I'll get there, but it'll take time.
In Sweden testing is suspended barring where the patient is severly ill and Covid infection fits the symtoms - which is situation normal, really. "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras" and all that.
As such, the only readily available numbers for spread, rate and severity of infection is the ICU registry which doesn't differentiate along vaccination status or reinfection. As of 14:11 today, there are 72 Covid patients in ICU wards, zero new admissions today.
That's 72 patients out of 11 000 000 possibles, with 85% of the population at least double jabbed (as an average).
Looking at the graphs in the public part of the ICU registry, I can see that we are plateuing right now. New cases are flat to dropping and total cases since 2020 is again flattening out. However, last week some school districts have "Winter sports holidays" - this is psread out so the whole country doesn't have it the same week. Meaning snotty kids and adults taking to the fjells for skiing and skating and other fun in the snow. So we will probably see the usual annual uptick in two or three weeks.
Tangentially related, 25 February marks the start of Vasaloppsveckan, so if the mRNA injection increases or causes risk of heartfailure we might see this happening then, since a great many people will partake and the average age of those running the actual Vasalopp (90km crosscountry skiing, with deadlines to keep) is middle-age to older, the majority being men.
Going 90km on skiis in under 4 hours puts some strain on the heart. Last year, Tord Asle Geirdalen (Norway) did it in 3:28:18.
Oh, wow, what cool data points, thanks a lot. Seems that Sweden is doing this like Norway (or vice versa, or both like Denmark, sort of, you know what I mean). This, by the way, specifically includes the idiocy about the data whereby I can get detailed age brackets for all-cause hospitalisations, but not for the injection status (and vice versa).
Oh, the idiocy, but I do wonder if this is 'just' stupidity--I mean: it's not that difficult to kinda break this down, and my guess is that this data is also available, but not to the general public (even though the IPH's admission of the spread of risk stratification two weeks ago is at least something). I do suppose that the good people over at the public health bodies will not release these data--for the simple reason that doing so would be tantamount to admitting that we've hunkered down for two years to…well, who or what were we protecting? The elderly who were at ± the same risk from influenza or pneumonia?
Thanks for bringing up the cross-country event, for this will certainly be interesting to check out in terms of 'sudden heart attack' or 'stroke' among above-average fit Swedes.
Much as I love to rag on various civil servants, they are only allowed to do what is stipulated by law and ordinances, and lawfully given instructions within the scope of said ordinances.
So even if a statistician at Folkhälsomyndigheten (Public Health Agency of Sweden, rubbish translation of the name which should read 'Ministry for Public Health' really) would want to compile detailed and wide-ranging data they may not do so without orders. From the governement via the correct minister via the head of the agency - I think it's similar in structure to Austria's system?
This goes for scientists to - they must ask for permission both from the board of ethics as well as the relevant official depending on issue or matter to be researched. As such, it is sadly a fact that only regime loyal researchers whose conclusions are "on message" and virtually decided from how they form their poposal gets apporval and funding. Our leaders only want to see what they think reality should be. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
There was an interesting paper in Nature about covid-related myocarditis. Clare Craig looked at the data in the Supplementary Appendix and found that, for elderly men, the risk of myocarditis for the unvaccinated was 0.00037 and the risk for the vaccinated was 0.00058. (Published at dailysceptic (search "clare craig dailysceptic heart myocarditis"))
We need to be on the alert for vaccine-induced side effects like myocarditis.
Ha, thanks for the suggestion, I shall have a look!
I would like to see data broken out by age, vaccination status, hospitalization, and death. I would also like to see any vagueness in statistical definitions laid out, too--at the top.
Also, one has to work with the data one has, not with the data on wishes to have, unfortunately ;-)
Well, the IPH offers age breakdowns in reasonable brackets for hospitalisations and ICU admissions, but not for death (even though the median ranges for all three categories are typically provided).
No age breakdowns (save median age ranges) for the injection status of these are typicall provided, hence the above risk assessment table is ± what is there, I think. There's some more 'data' available at the IPH's website, but it's super-convoluted, badly accessible (they only show you the last 10-14 days or so), and generally rather poorly executed.
Now, I don't know if this was intentional or not (i.e., I'm unsure if this is stupidity of malevolence), the bottom line is that these kind of answers take some time to compile, as there are no really helpful (read: easily accessible) data sets available.
As I said above, I'll get to this, but it'll take some time.
Great, but if you write in english post graphs in english or write a little legenda after every graph, so I know what is the red and blu lines, or the other colored lines in other graphs. Thank you!!
Could you please look at all-cause mortality statistics for Norway for working age people for 2021 in comparison with 2020? If you could break down that data by cause of death, that would also be helpful. Also, please check whether deaths in the 75+ y.o. group has declined from 2020. I would like to see if the US trends are found elsewhere.
I shall do what you ask for, but it will take some time: there's no such analysis for 2020, and my detailed data spreadsheets cover 'only' the period from week 39 (2021) through today yet. I'll get there, but it'll take time.
In order to get an idea of what might be useful, please check out a database for the US...https://deadorkicking.com/death-statistics/us/2021/
This is the norwegian central statistics bureau (US Census I think you call it?):
[https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/fodte-og-dode/statistikk/dode]
The figures for 2021 will be added on the 9th of March.
Comparing deaths total among males during 2010 with 2020 shows that 17 more men died in 2020 than in 2010.
And as per usual our broderfolk to the west are showing us up with regards to accesibility and clarity of the statistics.