פרופ' אייל שחר Profile picture
Jan 6, 2021 12 tweets 5 min read Read on X
1/
Sweden mortality in the last two “flu years”:

Oct 2018 – Sep 2019
Oct 2019 – Sep 2020

Inference from trend over 2 decades.
2/
Preliminaries:

Annual statistics usually computed by Gregorian calendar.

Why? Does it make sense to split winter (flu) mortality between two years? Winter deaths are not divided uniformly on December 31.

3/
More sensible to include a full winter season in one “mortality year”: Week 40 (October) to Week 39.

Let’s call it “flu year”.

Elaborated here.
4/
Here is illustration of three “flu years” in Sweden.

Oct 2019 – Sep 2020 contains the spring wave

The current winter wave belongs to the subsequent “flu year”. As explained above, there is no scientific reason to count it in 2020 (Gregorian year). Image
5/
Notation:
A “flu year” will be labeled according to the Gregorian year in which it ends (contains 9 of 12 months)
For example:
2019 will denote Oct 2018 – Sep 2019
2020 will denote Oct 2019 – Sep 2020
Used thereafter
6/
Mortality measure: deaths per million

Account for changes in population size (but not directly for changes in age distribution)

Model: linear regression
7/
Graph shows a clear pattern of decline over the years.
BUT: 2019 and 2020 are outliers! Both deviate from the trend, as will be seen.

Therefore, using 2019 to infer on excess mortality in 2020 is questionable practice (e.g. comparing 2020 to average of 2015-2019) Image
8/
We can fit a line (linear regression model) to flu years 1999-2018.

R^2=0.96

And get an equation by which we estimate the following:
Predicted deaths for 2019, 2020 (and other years)
Deviation of observed deaths from predicted Image
9/
Table shows data & results.
2019: mortality deficit of 300 per million (-3.35%)
2020: excess mortality of 364 per million (+4.1%)
2020 essentially “balanced the deficit” of 2019.
True excess mortality did not exceed 1%. Image
10/
To see that deaths were balanced over two “flu years”, we may take the average of pairs:
Oct 1998 – Sep 2000
Oct 2000 – Sep 2002
.
.
Oct 2018 – Sep 2020
Nothing unusual is seen in Sweden

Similar conclusion here
Image
11/

The effect of the current winter wave?
To be determined by Sep 2021 (“flu year” of Oct 2020-Sep 2021).
So far, Covid replaced the flu in Sweden and elsewhere.

@HaraldofW
@TLennhamn
@EffectsFacts
@DaFeid
@covidtweets
@sdbaral Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with פרופ' אייל שחר

פרופ' אייל שחר Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @prof_shahar

Jan 9, 2022
1/
Thread.

Cumulative excess deaths in Europe.
EuroMOMO data (accessed Jan 6), recreated by “flu years” (Oct-Sep) instead of calendar years, by @OS51388957

All ages & by age group.

What may be learned about the pandemic?
A lot.

1)Magnitude
2)The price of panic
2/
First, why flu years (Oct-Sep) instead of calendar years?
To avoid splitting winter mortality.
Explained here.
shahar-26393.medium.com/not-a-shred-of…
3/
Notation:
PY = Pandemic Year
PY1: Oct 2019-Sep 2020 (contains the spring wave)
PY2: Oct 2020-Sep 2021 (contains last winter)
PY3: Since Oct 2021 (ongoing, one-quarter)
Read 14 tweets
Nov 14, 2021
1/
Thread.

Does waning protection end in null effect, or in VED?

Are we looking at evidence of VED in Qatar data? (buried in the Appendix, Table S11)

Note: highly technical thread, but don’t miss the red flags at the end.

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
2/
We see the same alarming results for symptomatic infection.
3/
Let’s compared two analyses of VE against infection:
Table 2 (main article)
Table S11 (appendix)

Striking difference between the results as of the 5th month after 2nd dose:
Still some protection (Table 2) vs. harm (Table S11)
Read 12 tweets
Nov 7, 2021
1/
Vaccine protection against NON-COVID death is “pseudo protection”.
It is evidence that VE against COVID death is over-estimated.

Solidifying the evidence for pseudo protection: “person-time”-based analysis of NON-COVID death.
England data, weeks 1-38

Graphs by @OS51388957
2/
We recently documented lower non-CVOID mortality in vaccinated than unvaccinated (England).
Implies: vaccinated are healthier (on average).
Implies: rates of COVID mortality in vaccinated are lower, in part, because they are healthier.
3/
We now show “person-time”-based analysis of England data.
Partition person-time by each week into “unvaccinated person-time” and “vaccinated person-time”.
(Classical rate computation in epidemiology.)
Read 13 tweets
Nov 4, 2021
1/
Thread:
England data show COVID vaccine “protection” against NON-COVID death.

That’s evidence that VE against COVID death is confounded & over-estimated.

Likely substantially.

Graphs by @OS51388957
2/
ONS published data on COVID death and all-cause death by V-status and age:
10-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Age range too wide for <60.
Restrict to 60+ (most deaths)
ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…
3/
From ONS data on all-cause mortality & COVID mortality, we can compute rates of NON-COVID mortality.

Focus on:

Any vax vs. unvax: Comparing those who intended to be fully vaccinated to those who did not.

2 doses vs. unvax: VE is typically based on this comparison.
Read 10 tweets
Nov 3, 2021
This is an interesting study, which raises a few methodological questions.

>>>

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
“We analyzed the odds of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in the 28 days prior to spontaneous abortion compared with the odds of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in the 28 days prior to index dates for ongoing pregnancies”

Why define the hazard period as 28 days and not longer?
>>>
Look at their examples (with my additions).

Subjects 2 and 6 are both labeled unexposed to V. But one was truly unexposed and the other was exposed (>28 days earlier).

["exposed" and "unexposed" are generic terms in epidemiology/methodology]

>>> Image
Read 6 tweets
Nov 2, 2021
Correct interpretation of this study:

All participants were vaccinated. So nothing can be inferred about the effect of vaccination.

By analogy, imagine a study of (only) low-dose aspirin users. Can you say anything about effects of aspirin?

No.

>>>
Graphs show the effect of prior infection (vs. no-prior infection) on having a second (or first) infection in vaccinated.

Risk of a second infection much lower than risk of first infection (in vaccinated).

That's the effect of naturally-acquired immunity (in vaccinated)
>>>
Again, nothing can be inferred from this study about the effect of vaccination. Nothing.

Every epidemiologist should know it.
>>>
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(