1/ I actually don't like working with VAERS. One would need a data-prep tool, which CDC has, but me not (out of scope to develop). Still, I took a look.
The issues with lot IDs and VEARS deaths/AE are:
-Age confounded (average administered dates).
-Different batch sizes.
2/ We immediately see the high age of most deaths and related batches. We do have confounding to resolve. Deaths, both C19 and vaxx, is an elderly business and includes a lot of comorbidities in both cases. The young don't die in relevant numbers from Covid not vaxx.
3/ One thing that looks strange are the low death batches / weeks in many cases for the very old groups. It should follow an exponential life table to my view. There should be no points in the red circled area (high age, low deaths).
4/ Those lots here look strange. Almost like if they were placebo. But even then, we should expect to see the age confounding (so died "with" vaxx). But maybe the lot size was small. Without batch sizes...very difficult to say much.
5/ Filtering to the first 30 weeks, we get a quite decent exponential trend, like expected in the case of age confounding (died “with” or died from vaxx due to higher risk when old and fragile).
6/ The death age relation follows an exponential trend. It would be clearer if normalizing by doses per age bin. We also see Moderna having same count similar as Biontech, despite a 20% lower number of doses.
This is likely a true signal: the 3x higher dose in Moderna.
7/ To do this better we need to merge in:
Doses by lot, manufacturer and age (lso sex).
Categories: pre-existing conditions.
Population sizes.
As this is not straightforward, I dislike to work with VAERS. It's still much better than having nothing (like in EMA, PEI, Lareb).😌
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
London is glowing today. Wide urban heat plume. Not “climate change.” Just real estate and concrete. The effect is visible. Quantifiable. Known. This should be a good study day to quantify UHI in more detail once the IR satellite pictures come in.
2/ We start low tech. Actually nothing more is needed. There is over 6°C urban heat. It's embarrassing to pretend today's 33°C are comparable to 100 years ago. Subtract 6–8°C for UHI and you get... 25–27°C. Welcome back to reality.
3/ Nighttime, Tmin. Watch how they flatten the colors. You’re not supposed to notice the 7°C UHI. We unflatten the colors. Look again: you see it now?
We can also do from SE raw. And we can also show how rural stations look. Frederik does like them. Climate agenda is measured in downtowns of the capitals?
Not sure if it’s normal that amateurs now have to lecture academics…?
The downtown station logs hourly=no need for even Ekholm, no need for re-sampling. Does Frederik even know what we mean? Nothing is adjusted. Also PHA leaves it as is as it only detects breakpoints (not UHI).
Yes. Hausfather & Berkeley Earth are pushing it.
But it’s not a measurement. Not one station shows that.
It’s what you get when you aggregate rot over time.
On the left: 8 pristine USCRN sites. Same y-scale.
Now look what they did.👇
2/ Was wir hier sehen: Die Datenreihe ist ein Komposit (sehr beliebt, wenig seroes, in der Klima-„Wissenschaft“).
Die Messmethode (und mehr) hat sich verändert – von analogen zu digitalen Sensoren. Die Entropie der Nachkommastellen zeigt das – deutlich.
1/ The result is simply wrong.
There are 2 stations there — we can compare.
🟥Red: Carlwood
🟩Green: Gatewick
We clearly see the overshoot.
Moreover: They’re using subhourly spikes (error) from a single, low-inertia sensor.
Total incompetence.
2/ Using TMAX from a low-quality single urban sensor is already peak incompetence.
But they go further — they take the spikes.
Even top-tier stations like USCRN show 2–3°C error at peak forcing.
USCRN uses triple sensors — worst spikes get voted out.
3/ The UK has nothing like the USCRN triple-sensor setup.
So when two nearby stations disagree, the right move is simple:
Discard the implausible one — in this case, Charlwood.
What does the agenda-captured @metoffice do?
They run with the error.
They hoax the public.
ISO9001🤡
Not a high-quality reference site like
Valentia Observatory (Ireland) or h-USCRN sites.
But: Lower urban bias than cities like Kyoto or Tokyo. It starts to show the well known flatliner we see at stable sites.
3/ To see it better, here’s 4 months side by side:
🟥 Kyoto
⬛️ Tokyo
🟦 Suttsu
This is man-made. The T trend is just unrelated to climate. It measures the site and environment change. Suttsu as expected least impacted. But it still is.