I’ve been trying to reverse engineer the Australian study for exactly the same reasons you mention (and some others).
Did you notice:
# remove unvaccinated as it is biased group
This suggests to me that the unvaccinated included in the analysis are somehow a rolling cohort of people that went on to become vaccinated, so the comparison in their analysis is probably not between the vaccinated and never the vaccinated which I had assumed. How you achieve that in a study where death is the end point beats me 🤷♂️
The second part of the study was an analysis of Aged Care residents. The total number of aged care residents over 65 in the database is about 1,250,000 but the number included in the Aged Care analysis is only about 175,000.
They seem to have excluded roughly 85% of the Aged Care database. So, who was excluded from the Aged Care analysis?
Most of the exclusions were non-permanent residents. The number excluded is HUGE, it’s just over 1,000,000 aged care residents. This is a remarkable number. It would suggest that the vast majority (roughly 80%) of Australia’s aged care residents are in fact “not Australians”.
The study also suggests the % vaccinated figures quoted by the Government are exaggerated it is very high at about 95% but not the almost 100% (or over 100% if you do the math) they claim.
Spot on! 🎯
I’ve been trying to reverse engineer the Australian study for exactly the same reasons you mention (and some others).
Did you notice:
# remove unvaccinated as it is biased group
This suggests to me that the unvaccinated included in the analysis are somehow a rolling cohort of people that went on to become vaccinated, so the comparison in their analysis is probably not between the vaccinated and never the vaccinated which I had assumed. How you achieve that in a study where death is the end point beats me 🤷♂️
The second part of the study was an analysis of Aged Care residents. The total number of aged care residents over 65 in the database is about 1,250,000 but the number included in the Aged Care analysis is only about 175,000.
They seem to have excluded roughly 85% of the Aged Care database. So, who was excluded from the Aged Care analysis?
Most of the exclusions were non-permanent residents. The number excluded is HUGE, it’s just over 1,000,000 aged care residents. This is a remarkable number. It would suggest that the vast majority (roughly 80%) of Australia’s aged care residents are in fact “not Australians”.
The study also suggests the % vaccinated figures quoted by the Government are exaggerated it is very high at about 95% but not the almost 100% (or over 100% if you do the math) they claim.
See my analysis of the Kristine Macartney paper in the Lancet.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/5-or-more-shots-and-you-are-out-say
John Ioannidis works for Austria?