Anti-vax concerns force removal of deaths by vaccine status data from Public Health Scotland reports

[whatbogsends]

Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on Covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status due to concerns the data is being wilfully misrepresented by anti-vaccination campaigners.

The public health watchdog announced the change in policy on Wednesday in its most recent Covid-19 statistical report, saying the frequency and content of the data would be reviewed.

The report published on Wednesday will be the last weekly publication to include the data which includes information on Covid-19 infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated, as well as hospitalisation and death rates, broken down by the number of doses received.

Officials said that two central issues relating to the unvaccinated population and testing habits meant the data was no longer reliable or robust and open for misinterpretation without adequate context.

This is due to the fact that the population data used for the unvaccinated population is based on GP registration details, meaning it includes thousands of individuals who are registered but may no longer live in Scotland or simply failed to deregister.

Anti-vaxxer concerns force removal of deaths by vaccine status data from Public Health Scotland reports

Of course the data was being used by "anti-vaxxers". It showed that the vaccinated were a) getting infected at a higher rate, b) that they were being hospitalized at a higher rate and c) they were dying at a higher rate.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): daily data for Scotland

Trust the science, hide the data.

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course the data was being used by "anti-vaxxers". It showed that the vaccinated were a) getting infected at a higher rate, b) that they were being hospitalized at a higher rate and c) they were dying at a higher rate.

For some reason this post failed to link to the source of these tables. Perhaps it is because they're accompanied by warnings like this :

Data in this table should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors in different populations. For more information, please see the Interpretation of data and Vaccine effectiveness summary sections above.
​

The full explanation of why using the raw data is a bad idea starts at page 31 of this report : https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11763/22-02-16-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf

​

It's such a common tactic in anti-vaxx propaganda that the people who collect this data even put together a blog post to explain it : Transparency and data – UKHSA’s vaccines report - UK Health Security Agency. For example :

A simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes. This is because these figures are susceptible to a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

If we look at the numbers of cases in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people, the rate of cases in the vaccinated people appears higher for many age groups. This is because there are key differences in the characteristics and behaviour of individuals who are vaccinated compared to those who are unvaccinated. The rates therefore reflect this population's behaviour and exposure to COVID-19, not how well the vaccines work. We also know that, as infection rates have been high over the summer, many people were previously infected, and this has had an impact on the rate of infection in recent weeks.​

So as in previous times these charts were posted, we're stuck having to believe that both
a) the data is 100% accurate and unbiased
b) the people collecting it don't know what they're doing, or are biased and trying to hide the actual data, or some other excuse for ignoring what they tell us about their detailed analysis of the numbers they also summarized in the 100% accurate proves-vaccines-don't-work charts (see point a, above).

Or we could go with the obvious conclusion, consistent with all of the other available data : vaccines work. Oh, and math is hard, leave it to the professionals.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on Covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status due to concerns the data is being wilfully misrepresented by anti-vaccination campaigners.

The public health watchdog announced the change in policy on Wednesday in its most recent Covid-19 statistical report, saying the frequency and content of the data would be reviewed.

The report published on Wednesday will be the last weekly publication to include the data which includes information on Covid-19 infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated, as well as hospitalisation and death rates, broken down by the number of doses received.

Officials said that two central issues relating to the unvaccinated population and testing habits meant the data was no longer reliable or robust and open for misinterpretation without adequate context.

This is due to the fact that the population data used for the unvaccinated population is based on GP registration details, meaning it includes thousands of individuals who are registered but may no longer live in Scotland or simply failed to deregister.

Anti-vaxxer concerns force removal of deaths by vaccine status data from Public Health Scotland reports

Of course the data was being used by "anti-vaxxers". It showed that the vaccinated were a) getting infected at a higher rate, b) that they were being hospitalized at a higher rate and c) they were dying at a higher rate.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): daily data for Scotland

View attachment 312892

View attachment 312893

View attachment 312894


Trust the science, hide the data.

Waaaaah! The data is anti-vaxx! Hide it, quick!

 

[whatbogsends]

For some reason this post failed to link to the source of these tables. Perhaps it is because they're accompanied by warnings like this :

Data in this table should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors in different populations. For more information, please see the Interpretation of data and Vaccine effectiveness summary sections above.
​

The full explanation of why using the raw data is a bad idea starts at page 31 of this report : https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11763/22-02-16-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf

​

It's such a common tactic in anti-vaxx propaganda that the people who collect this data even put together a blog post to explain it : Transparency and data – UKHSA’s vaccines report - UK Health Security Agency. For example :

A simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes. This is because these figures are susceptible to a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

If we look at the numbers of cases in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people, the rate of cases in the vaccinated people appears higher for many age groups. This is because there are key differences in the characteristics and behaviour of individuals who are vaccinated compared to those who are unvaccinated. The rates therefore reflect this population's behaviour and exposure to COVID-19, not how well the vaccines work. We also know that, as infection rates have been high over the summer, many people were previously infected, and this has had an impact on the rate of infection in recent weeks.​

So as in previous times these charts were posted, we're stuck having to believe that both
a) the data is 100% accurate and unbiased
b) the people collecting it don't know what they're doing, or are biased and trying to hide the actual data, or some other excuse for ignoring what they tell us about their detailed analysis of the numbers they also summarized in the 100% accurate proves-vaccines-don't-work charts (see point a, above).

Or we could go with the obvious conclusion, consistent with all of the other available data : vaccines work. Oh, and math is hard, leave it to the professionals.

It's OK, the data had disclaimers!

Don't worry about the data.

I know it looks like the vaccinated are getting Covid - and hospitalized with Covid - and dying from Covid - at higher rates than the unvaccinated (hint: they are), but see here: we've said specifically not to look at the data to draw any conclusions. Data is, at it's core, untrustworthy.

We have the solution. We'll stop showing the data and stick to telling you what we think.

It's lucky that we have such a large group of people who believe whatever we say, even when we say "don't look at the data".

 

[JustSomeBloke]

It's OK, the data had disclaimers!

Don't worry about the data.

I know it looks like the vaccinated are getting Covid - and hospitalized with Covid - and dying from Covid - at higher rates than the unvaccinated (hint: they are), but see here: we've said specifically not to look at the data to draw any conclusions. Data is, at it's core, untrustworthy.

We have the solution. We'll stop showing the data and stick to telling you what we think.

It's lucky that we have such a large group of people who believe whatever we say, even when we say "don't look at the data".

People know that the data is being collated, so I expect that they will request it through FOIA in future. If the authorities refuse, then those who requested it will report that the authorities are hiding it. There is also the possibility that those who are working with the data will leak it.

The authorities are digging deeper and deeper holes for themselves with their refusal to release data. They recently refused to release data on vaccine adverse effects in children. They admitted that the data exists, but a judge ruled that releasing the data was 'not in the public interest'. And one of the reasons given was that it would be 'misinterpreted by anti-vaxxers'. The only positive to come out of that expensive, crowd-funded court case, is that it exposed 'the system'.

This is what we are up against. The entire system is corrupt. The government, the health agencies, the JCVI, the MHRA, the judiciary, and many others. What we need right now is Wikileaks 2.0 and Edward Snowden 2.0.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's lucky that we have such a large group of people who believe whatever we say, even when we say "don't look at the data".

If we aren't supposed to believe what these people publish, it is strange that what they published was used as the primary source for the anti-vaxx claims in the OP. If I didn't know better, I would think that post was cherry-picking numbers out of context to try to push a point that contradicts what the actual data shows.

 

[Torah Keeper]

If we aren't supposed to believe what these people publish, it is strange that what they published was used as the primary source for the anti-vaxx claims in the OP. If I didn't know better, I would think that post was cherry-picking numbers out of context to try to push a point that contradicts what the actual data shows.

This thread is pointing out the cherry-picked data. Out of context? These numbers are from a government agency, Public Health Scotland. How is it out of context? The actual data is what they are hiding. So what else are they hiding? And more importantly, why are they hiding it?

 

[KCfromNC]

This thread is pointing out the cherry-picked data. Out of context?

Yep, the charts were included without the accompanying text from the original source. Heck, the original source wasn't even listed, I had to do it in my post which included the explanation that went along with the raw data.

 

[Rachel20]

Of course the data was being used by "anti-vaxxers". It showed that the vaccinated were a) getting infected at a higher rate, b) that they were being hospitalized at a higher rate and c) they were dying at a higher rate.

Normalizing heart attack and stroke is next. They know.