State of Vermont data lacks transparency
by William Moore, VT Stands Up
As a spokesperson for Vermont Stands Up, I am glad to provide data and analysis provided below. We hope the State of Vermont, and especially Governor Phil Scott and Health Commissioner Dr. Mark Levine, see to it that these questions and critiques are addressed in the future.
Vermonters deserve the best, most comprehensive, and robust information be used to set SARS CoV-2 policy and for guidance to critical institutions, especially Vermont schools. We deserve better and expect the need for critical analysis to become more integral to the Vermont Legislature as they also craft policy and respond in the development of bills before them. Vermonters will not stand for anything less.
Analysis:
The VT Department of Health COVID dashboard has a chart that shows cases in the fully vaccinated versus the not fully vaccinated as rates per 100,000. Looking at this chart, the cases in the “not fully vaccinated” appear to be outpacing cases in the “fully vaccinated”. However, looking at the absolute numbers, meaning the total number of individuals in either category who tested positive, the opposite picture emerges. The number of individuals testing positive for COVID in the “fully vaccinated” category currently outnumbers those in the “not fully vaccinated” group (7629 fully vaccinated versus 5593 not fully vaccinated for the week of January 9, 2022).
Further, when looking at absolute numbers of individuals in the hospital with COVID, the picture becomes even murkier. These numbers are so small that the “fully vaccinated” and “not fully vaccinated” become statistically indistinguishable; yet the public is repeatedly told that based on rates of COVID cases, especially the rate of cases amongst the unvaccinated, hospitals and the healthcare system are strained.
Why does the State only present their data as rates instead of showing both rates and absolute numbers?
The problem with using rates is people are misled into believing a higher rate means there are a higher number of individuals who are impacted. As the charts demonstrate, this is simply not true. Since there is such a disproportionate number of Vermonters who are not “fully vaccinated” (155,278 “not fully vaccinated” versus 468,710 “fully vaccinated”), the higher rate among the “not fully vaccinated” actually represents a smaller absolute number.
Utilizing only rates also assumes that the main difference between these two groups is vaccination status when there might be a number of confounding factors impacting whether someone comes down with COVID or not (health, age, mobility, exposure, risk tolerance, etc.). Therefore, these comparisons are problematic, especially when trying to make claims about causality.
However, setting that aside, if the COVID vaccines worked, the expectation is that virtually no one, or only a very small portion, of the “fully vaccinated” would test positive, but this has never been true. The absolute number of cases in the “fully vaccinated” and “not fully vaccinated” since the beginning of the Delta wave in August 2021 has ranged between 40-60% in both categories, meaning the average is 50% each, or virtually no difference at all. For the past three weeks, cases in the “fully vaccinated” have outpaced cases in the “not fully vaccinated”. This is not insignificant. Other countries, who have been open with their data and who are seeing a similar pattern, are now concluding the vaccines have a negative efficacy, meaning the “fully vaccinated” *more* likely to get COVID, especially with the booster.
Vermonters should be able to readily see these numbers on the COVID dashboard instead of having to dig for them on the Vermont Open Geodata Portal. Earlier last year, the State presented absolute case numbers among the data, but this oddly dropped off after the summer when they started comparing groups by vaccination status. Was this because the absolute numbers didn’t fit the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative?
It is malfeasance if the State is purposefully misleading the public by leaving out important parts of the COVID data set. Vermonters need to demand transparency. It is clear now these vaccines do not protect one from getting and spreading COVID, and therefore, have no population benefit whatsoever. It is an inexcusable that this distinction is still being used to encourage discrimination against the small minority of Vermonters, who have chosen for personal reasons not to get COVID vaccinations.
Data Source: https://geodata.vermont.gov/datasets/13db4a47cb084c1c8b2226fd7ab7a160_0/explore
The author is a Johnson resident.
Categories: Commentary
Thank you, Mr. Moore. Were you able to find in the data the AGES of the deaths by vax/unvax status? From what I’ve seen in other places, like the UK, deaths are primarily in the very old, regardless of vax status. And so the question to ask is, in a state like Vermont, with the elderly population “officially” near 100% vaxxed, who is both elderly AND unvaxxed? Might it be someone already too sick and weak to handle the additional stress of vaccination?
Good comment. There actually are a good chunk of elderly that can’t be vaxxed because it would actually be too dangerous for them. I wonder how many of these are the ‘unvaxxed’.
Thank you for teasing this much-needed analysis out. Has the health department provided data showing NO VAX vs PARTIAL (1 DOSE) VS 2 DOSES VS BOOSTED and stratified? Are they still counting partially vaccinated as “not fully vaccinated?”
“State of Vermont data lacks transparency”
Can you find out if pharma somehow provides income to state health dept. employees? Speaking fees, maybe?
What is the representation trend of the vaccinated in hospitalization data over time?
This article and/or the data it is sourcing however – STILL does not include the most important facts with regard to the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated vs. partially vaccinated differences:
1.) Positive cases do NOT necessarily mean sick people, in fact, most do NOT: the government has people testing CONSTANTLY – even WITHOUT symptoms! Of course there are going to be a plethora of positive cases.
2.) How ill are those testing positive? Were they hospitalized? Were they in the ICU?
3.) How many were positive & asymptomatic?
4.) Which vaccine(s) were utilized?
5.) In terms of hospitalizations & deaths, what were the patient’s AGES?
6.) In terms of that same demographic – how MANY underlying diseases/disorders did the patient possess PRIOR to contracting Covid19?
7.) Finally, what types of therapeutics were these patients given? (If any……..we know treatments have largely been suppressed)
Lastly, the vaccine manufacturers have stated from the onset that these vaccines do NOT so much protect against contracting Covid19, but they protect against SEVERE illness and death INSTEAD.
WHY are we beleaguering this issue chronically?? The state & feds wants the public testing like hell-bent hypochondriacs precisely in order to keep up the fear & fervor they have created.
This constant comparison between vaccinated & unvaccinated only, IMO, feeds the frenzy further.
Virtually EVERYONE will contract this. Many will never know it except through a antibody test. Some will be asymptomatic & know it through testing, others will be mildly ill. Some will feel horrid for a while but never need to be hospitalized. And the VERY elderly & frail, vaccinated or unvaccinated, may still succumb as long as the government continues to use this virus as a political weapon & withhold proper, early treatments.
Also, isn’t “not fully vaccinated “ a bit like being “slightly pregnant “? I’d say you either got the jab or you didn’t. The deleterious impacts on immune response will likely be found in those who even only got one jab. Lumping them in with the unvaxed isn’t really presenting a clear picture.
Vaccination in people with hypovitaminosis D causes an immediate drop in immune competence, making them more susceptible to covid in the waiting period.
There needs to be clear categories. Unvaxed meaning no shot not taken at all (pure blood) ; partially vaxed; and fully vaxed.
We also can’t forget that the data is not distinguishing between hospitalized “for/from” COVID and “with” COVID. We know that many (perhaps as much as 50-60%) will be hospitalized for another condition, test positive in the hospital and then be categorized as a “COVID hospitalization”. This needs to be clarified.
We could even look deeper and ask the question: are the hospital staff/nurses testing the vaccinated at same rates as unvaccinated people, or is there a bias?
Overall, great points in this article. I look forward to more analysis and more pressure being placed on the Dept. of Health!
This is just the beginning of sorrows…Just search “Insurance Co.’s death claims rising in working age adults” and the latest from Dr. Robt. Malone. “All cause deaths” are up massively in ALL vaccinated (western) countries w/no explanation & allowing for OD deaths in the USA also. If these numbers are an early indication we could be seeing the vaccines causing deaths in the 18 through 65 age groups. This is barely the tip of the spear. Search “Non-COVID Death Spikes In Americans Aged 18 to 49″ in the Epoch Times & Insurance Companies Note 40 Percent Rise In Deaths” from the same outlet. This rushed, barely tested, never before used mRNA “platform” could make the Swine Flu disaster in the 70’s look tame in comparison if this “vaccine” is shown to be causing these “all cause mortality”.
Funny thing about numbers you can screw with them for the desired results
Levine seems to be performing more than informing of late. All of the Vermont government policies, mandates and push for vaccinations conform a little too closely to the rhetoric spewed from fauci.
Apparently, peer reviewed, CDC published studies on SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity mean nothing and only the steamroller tactic of “the vax” will save us. While Scott and his administration talk some of the impacts to Vermont and our children, the fear and terror of omicron is still pounded out from the podium. Interesting study from Johns-Hopkins shows the impacts of lockdowns, yet government continues this failed idea. https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
It is a numbers game and those arranging the numbers have obfuscated the reality.
Great story. Its important to recognize that “not fully vaccinated ” includes anyone who hasn’t received a shot in last 6 months. They may have been initiated “vaccinated ” and boosted. My real concern is why are non covid hospitalizations and deaths so high? Is anyone correlating this data with “vaccination ” status and brand of mrna manufacturer?
When the rules of a mutually agreed upon relationship between people change at the whim of one person, it’s no longer a mutual relationship.
This certainly is a long way from the 96% efficacy and safety number Levine and Scott were repeating from the Pharma folks. At what point do they fall on their sword and beg our forgiveness for this failed experiment?
I wonder with people like Levine — does he have the same questions “we” do? Isn’t he also personally disappointed by the “Little Vaccine That Couldn’t?” He does understand that these shots are more akin to a flu shot or medical treatment than a true vaccine? He’s not stupid, right? So, unless he’s a brain-dead boogger-head, he is intentionally lying and misleading people with dubious numbers because he has been told that lying to us, for our own good, to encourage ever more endless shot taking, is what he needs to do now, “for our own good.”
Excellent point. Not that Levine is lyng or not. After all it’s walking on thin ice to assume to know someone’s mental state, to know whether or not they’re stupid or smart. The question is, whose right is it to determine any course of action ‘for our own good’? I submit that that authority rests with the individual in question. You and me and Dr. Levine. Levine has every right to choose his own poison. And you have the right to choose yours. The outcome of those choices can not be definitively predetermined with the exception of understanding that the outcomes will be different (to some extent at least) in every indiivdual case. And, if it’s to be the ‘progressive’ line that only equal outcomes are acceptable, we might as well all shoot ourselves in the head right now.
As for me, I’ll make my own choices, thank you very much.
Precisely. We MUST be free to make our own choices in life — the good ones and the stupid ones. ESPECIALLY the stupid ones. Otherwise we are little more than farm animals, milling about in stalls, looking over fences. I had covid early, March of 2020. Wasn’t even eligible (because of my age) to get the vaccines until May/ June 2021. I wasn’t really very interested in the shots–brand new medical technology? I mean, brand spanking new. No long term tests? Rushed? Personally didn’t need it…all I wanted to do was WAIT. See how it played out. See if it worked, how dangerous it might be. Pharma has been wrong before…
But no, by July, just a few months after the shots were even released to the public, the calls were out to FORCE people to take them. By September my job was on the line. Here it is February 2022–cases through the roof, everyone sick, shots clearly inadequate, natural immunity discredited, my job is still not secure, mandates in place, protests worldwide, all because somebody decided (lots of somebody) that EVERYONE MUST TAKE THE SHOT. The shot that doesn’t work against the new variants. The shot that doesn’t prevent transmission, or infection. The shot with a “breakthrough” rate so high the public health officials are scrambling to find SOME statistic to make it look effective. But no questions allowed! “Shut up, cows and take your medicine!”
So here I am, a normal person who used to plod along in my daily life, working my regular job, growing flowers and pleasantly living my life. In the space of 6 months, because of my usual and life-long caution in accepting a new medical procedures for a disease I’ve already recovered from, I’ve had the President of the United States tell me that I deserve to die. To die! Two years ago I was a liberal Democrat, voting for Bernie. But now those same “LIBERALS” appear willing and happy for me to die on the street in order for them to feel just a tiny bit safer from the dread disease with a 99% survival rate. Talk about radicalizing a marginalized population. The Democrats have severely miscalculated this one.
The people who voluntarily took the shots a year ago don’t understand the anger that those of us who haven’t taken it feel – because they CHOSE to take the shots. Free choice. Their choice. We all deserve that same choice.
Good point and the answer is obvious to your rhetorical question(s) , how could they not know? Regardless, Since day 15 its now statistically provable they have been lying and deceiving the masses. Unfortunately in this state more than the rest, “its easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Im not optimistic.