Why AAP Fact Checks and Dr. Pylon's Analysis are wrong on Australian Vaccination Counts and Mortality

Nsw health surveillance data
LCHF Matt, a data analyst based in Sydney, Australia, analyzed the relationship between vaccination rates and mortality / hospitalization rates in New South Wales, which is controversial.

Truth a casualty in Australian COVID vaccination deaths claim - Australian Associated Press

AAP asserts that it is a hoax because the Australian government has not disclosed the exact number of deaths. However, in fact, New South Wales independently discloses the number of vaccinations, the number of hospitalizations, the number of intensive care units, and the number of deaths.NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report - week ending 3

So this analysis itself is not wrong.

Follow-up report on mortality rate by frequency of vaccination in Australia 4th mortality rate> The tendency of unvaccinated continues | Dr Pilon (Professor Pylon) | note

However, like this pylon teacher, the mortality rate increases as the number of vaccinations increases, which is dangerous! It is completely wrong to analyze it as.

The reason is that New South Wales does not disclose the breakdown of infected people.
It will be easier to understand if you look at the example of the British Ministry of Insurance.

Beware of misunderstanding information that "vaccination is dangerous" | LDP


In the case of the United Kingdom, boosted humans are largely biased towards older people and occupations at high risk of infection, so it is said that more infected people will be infected.
Therefore, excluding minors, the mysterious result is that those who are vaccinated are 4 to 6 times more likely to be infected.

The case in Australia is similarly biased, but it can be inferred that the low population density makes populations at high risk of infection more susceptible to infection, which is more pronounced than in the United Kingdom.

Therefore, in the case of Australia, the data itself is correct, but due to the lack of analytical data, it is wrong to say that vaccination is at higher risk. It can be predicted that inoculation can be concluded to reduce the risk by 3 to 8 times.


In fact, there is a mistake in LCHF Matt's analysis.
This is because the denominator of cases where the number of inoculations is unknown is the total population, so the number is extremely low.
He has not answered the question about this mistake.



メールアドレスが公開されることはありません。 が付いている欄は必須項目です