So we should just continue to clog up the hospitals, and take up precious space needed for other seriously ill patients? Not to mention the burden of work on healthcare workers.

What about the effect on businesses who have to deal with employees having to take time off sick ? The time away from work for those with COVID (even without quarantine) is likely to be a lot longer for those who are unvaccinated than those who are fully vaccinated. Most people who come down with flu or a common head cold will only be off work a couple of days, but those with COVID are likely to off work for significantly longer. How is that fair on businesses, especially small ones who can't easily temporarily backfill a position?

Don't forget a sizeable chunk of the fresh produce, frozen food and canned food that The Bahamas imports from the US is bio-engineered (Genetically Modified) in some way, most likely from GM seed stock. It's not the same stuff as yesteryear either.

How was the fishing on Snake River ?

Instead of watching COVID professors on Youtube (because we all know what type of 'expert professor' makes Youtube videos), you should switch to 'How To' videos on fixing home electrical & plumbing problems, then you can cross #1 off your list, and we can reach herd immunity even quicker :)

Friend, I can't fault your Math, but I think I have a problem with your method.

Firstly, when you assume that the Vax efficacy is, in your words, ‘collapsing’ after 4 months, it is a HUGE assumption on your part, with no data to support it. Not saying it can’t be so, but IMO it’s just guesswork on your part.

If you’re trying to determine which deaths in August were in the proportion of people who were vaccinated 4 months earlier, then you have to have the mortality numbers specific to that data set, you can’t use the mortality numbers for the August period because you don’t know when those people were all vaccinated.

Another issue with your method, is you’ve used the whole of the population of England, when in fact you should be using the population over 16, since no-one under 16 is eligible to be vaccinated.

Additionally, age is a huge factor when looking at the data. The older you get, the more likely you are at risk of death from COVID. Since the number of vaxxed is disproportionately higher in the elderly, and the number of unvaxxed disproportionately higher in the younger, these really skew the data.

Lastly, your numbers for unvaxxed & vaxxed are from August 20th, but your mortality data is from July 20th to August 20th. You can’t choose a specific date for one of your variables and a range of dates for another, that just doesn’t work, especially since the number of vaccinated changed by 4 million (nearly 10% of the whole population) over that time period.

In all honesty, I think the statistical interpretation of the data, given all the variables, is well above both our pay grades and we should leave that job to the professionals.

I beg to differ on the deets.
Please explain your normalizing process and the numbers you used. I'm pretty good at Math, so don't be afraid. Did you normalize for age ?

Looking at the Feb-August numbers, 489 of 742 people (65.9%) who died of the delta variant within 28 days of a positive covid test had received at least one dose. 402 of 742 people (54.1%) had received both doses. Tell me what the actual numbers were (not percentages) for the same period (normailzing for season) in 2020.

Mr Palmer

*The FDA consumer article that he quotes from states that “The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19!” So how can the FDA make its bold claims?*

Are you really serious ? Why the heck do you think we have an FDA in the first place ? If it hasn't gone through the full spectrum of Tox, Pre-clinical and Clinical studies to treat a specific disease or ailment, then it definitely could, and probably will, be dangerous.

It's because companies & doctors were touting treatments for ailments and diseases without any supporting data. Some would refer to it as Snake Oil. What dose would you give a patient ? How frequently would they have to take it ? What age ? Pregnant or breast feeding women ?
Have you ever heard of Thalidomide ?
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug that is used to treat river blindness and intestinal roundworm infection in humans and to de-worm pets and livestock - period. And guess how they determined it's usefulness for those treatments? They performed clinical trials to obtain supporting data, which was then reviewed and approved by appropriate regulatory authorities.
Would you undergo Chemotherapy to treat your appendicitis ? Of course you wouldn't - duh!

*“The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro”*

You know what in-vitro means right ? I thought not!

*A research article published by the Lancet on 17 June, 2001 determined the “Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial”*.

Actually, it was 2021, not 2001. And like it says, it was a "Proof of concept" trial, not a clinical trial. In fact it states very clearly that "large trials with clinical endpoint are necessary to determine the clinical utility of Ivermectin". All this "proof of concept trial" determined was that Ivermectin was generally well tolerated by the 45 volunteers.

*In fact, Theresa Lawrie’s meta study on Ivermectin’s dated 21 June, 2021 concluded “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”*

In the highly regulated drug world, words like 'possible', 'may', 'likely' etc. are used when you don't have validated data to support your claim. Any regulatory authority would see these as red flags.

I'm not saying that Ivermectin could not possibly be used in the future as an additional tool to fight COVID, but until a full spectrum of Randomized & Placebo controlled Clinical Trials have been performed specifically for treating COVID, then it should be considered as a "Snake Oil" treatment along with Lysol Bleach.

@Whogothere. You should be looking at, (and posting about), the total picture, and not just saying "70% of deaths due to delta variant were among the unvaccinated" so you can promote fear and promote not getting vaccinated, (which is what you're really trying to achieve.

Firstly, that 70% is actually 65.9%, but I'll let you get away with rounding up, as I'd probably do the same. Of those "70%" 54.1% were FULLY vaccinated (2 doses) whilst the rest had only received their first dose i.e. NOT fully vaccinated

Also, consider this:

12 months ago, 100% of COVID related death were among the unvaccinated. There was no vaccine available 12 months ago so no deaths could be associated with the vaccinated.

Now, let's suppose 12 months from now every single person on the planet is fully vaccinated. (It's not going to happen, but for purposes of illustration, let's imagine it to be true). If that were the case 100% of COVID related deaths would be in vaccinated people.

Since 80% of the UK population over 16 have now been fully vaccinated, you are going to see a higher percentage of COVID deaths in the vaccinated rather than the unvaccinated. It's basic math my friend.

Quoting percentages is a very dangerous game unless you put them in perspective, which you always flatly refuse to do.

Here's another example of why just quoting percentages is plain stupid.

In 1950, 100% of people killed in automobile accidents were not wearing seat belts (no seat belt laws)

In 1990, 100% of people killed in automobile accidents were wearing seatbelts (seat belt laws in effect)

In 2020, 100% of people killed in automobile accidents were wearing seatbelts and in cars fitted with airbags.
As you can see, just quoting the percentage does not show the positive effect of introducing seat belt laws, or having airbags in vehicles. Or, perhaps if we use your critical thinking skills, we should not bother with seatbelts or airbags?

Your problem is that you are looking for one particular thing to blame - the vaccine, when in fact it is more than certain that it's a whole combination of factors. If it were just one thing (the vaccine), you'd be seeing exactly the same pattern if every single country, bar none. You really have no desire whatsoever to do real research, do you ?

Oh, and I just found this info "As of Tuesday, August 24th, Vietnam had fully vaccinated just 1.9% of its population, while 15.8% of the country’s 98 million citizens have gotten at least one jab"

Haha, I did getcha didn't I

Once again you're not looking at the whole picture. What we don't know is whether the deaths are in the vaccinated or unvaccinated, right ?

And how come you don't seem to be able to see the graph & data on the number of seriously ill/hospitalized patients who are unvaccinated ? Am I the only one who can see it, or are you afraid to "see it" ?

I'm guessing research isn't your strong suit. The problem is very few people have enough science education to do research themselves. They are not researching, they are looking for confirmation. They only "research" confirming material as it It gives them permission to keep their opinion.

Actually from what I've read, they only ordered the Pfizer, Moderna, AZ & Sputnik vaccines in June, and haven't actually received most of them. They weren't supposed to arrive until the end of 2021 or early 2022 (170 Million doses in all).

Also, I think the Pfizer, Moderna and J&J vaccines were only approved for use by Vietnam in July, so they were pretty late to the game.