Jean Fisch
@jeanfisch.bsky.social
Analysis, rationalism & objectivity are my sins
I always focus on content ... in this case rubber-stamped by @tandfresearch.bsky.social
But thanks for the heads up although it still does not explain how such a piece passes peer review ... but there you go!
But thanks for the heads up although it still does not explain how such a piece passes peer review ... but there you go!
December 14, 2025 at 5:52 PM
I always focus on content ... in this case rubber-stamped by @tandfresearch.bsky.social
But thanks for the heads up although it still does not explain how such a piece passes peer review ... but there you go!
But thanks for the heads up although it still does not explain how such a piece passes peer review ... but there you go!
ADDENDUM 2: Here the method I used
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
December 14, 2025 at 3:46 PM
ADDENDUM 2: Here the method I used
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
- I have the same mortality data from ISTAT and vax data from ISS
- I scraped the study's 15d moving average incidences by vax status and checked that they matched total mortality per ISTAT
- I used that data to redo the analysis properly (ie time synchronized)
ADDENDUM 1: For completion, here the correct time-based analysis vs. vaccination intensity for the two other age bands analysed in the study
December 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
ADDENDUM 1: For completion, here the correct time-based analysis vs. vaccination intensity for the two other age bands analysed in the study
So I am left completely baffled: How on earth can a study be published on ST mortality post vaccination with
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
December 14, 2025 at 3:44 PM
So I am left completely baffled: How on earth can a study be published on ST mortality post vaccination with
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
a) a blatantly incorrect temporal analysis?
b) no cause-based analysis of the mortality bump?
@tandfresearch.bsky.social does look anything but great here
END
So yes, you read that correctly: The study's analysis does not even stack up
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
December 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM
So yes, you read that correctly: The study's analysis does not even stack up
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
But there is more / I happen to have the same mortality data as they authors do by region and week and age in Italy
Clearly, the bump in the 70-79 (remember which is PRE-VAX) looks covid related
4/
When I looked at the data, I realised that the data they presented was DAILY vaccination uptake vs 15D MOVING AVERAGE mortality incidences
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
December 14, 2025 at 3:41 PM
When I looked at the data, I realised that the data they presented was DAILY vaccination uptake vs 15D MOVING AVERAGE mortality incidences
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
When I redid their analysis correctly, ie CENTER-AVERAGING all the data, the bumps are in fact BEFORE the vaccination!
Here for 70-79
3/
The authors got hold of mortality by age and vaccination status in Emilia-Romagna and found that, soon after the vaccination in an age-band started, there was a "bump" of mortality
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
December 14, 2025 at 3:40 PM
The authors got hold of mortality by age and vaccination status in Emilia-Romagna and found that, soon after the vaccination in an age-band started, there was a "bump" of mortality
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
They claim that this shows a mortality signal among vaccinated in the days following the dose
2/
Quick caveat: Several readers alerted me that the growth patterns do not match for the new variant to explain the fact that the rebound started already a few weeks ago
Here a summary from Dominik (in German but I assume it's easy to translate)
bsky.app/profile/domi...
Here a summary from Dominik (in German but I assume it's easy to translate)
bsky.app/profile/domi...
BA.3.2* scheint in den Niederlanden ähnlich zu wachsen wie in Deutschland (Figur x.com/DPruss6).
Sehe nicht, wie es das deutsche Wachstum seit Anfang November erklären soll.
Grafiken Infectieradar und @rv-enigma.bsky.social
Sehe nicht, wie es das deutsche Wachstum seit Anfang November erklären soll.
Grafiken Infectieradar und @rv-enigma.bsky.social
December 11, 2025 at 11:44 AM
Quick caveat: Several readers alerted me that the growth patterns do not match for the new variant to explain the fact that the rebound started already a few weeks ago
Here a summary from Dominik (in German but I assume it's easy to translate)
bsky.app/profile/domi...
Here a summary from Dominik (in German but I assume it's easy to translate)
bsky.app/profile/domi...
Yes, I got a similar comment on twitter: the rebound pre-dates the growth of the new variant
I will add a caveat, thanks for flagging!
I will add a caveat, thanks for flagging!
December 11, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Yes, I got a similar comment on twitter: the rebound pre-dates the growth of the new variant
I will add a caveat, thanks for flagging!
I will add a caveat, thanks for flagging!
So there you go
- No, ONS did not try to hide deaths away, it just had a great thought which yielded bad forecasts in practice
- Yes, ONS is to blame for continuing to communicate on this ... but should not be blamed for having tried a new thing
END
- No, ONS did not try to hide deaths away, it just had a great thought which yielded bad forecasts in practice
- Yes, ONS is to blame for continuing to communicate on this ... but should not be blamed for having tried a new thing
END
December 10, 2025 at 11:32 AM
So there you go
- No, ONS did not try to hide deaths away, it just had a great thought which yielded bad forecasts in practice
- Yes, ONS is to blame for continuing to communicate on this ... but should not be blamed for having tried a new thing
END
- No, ONS did not try to hide deaths away, it just had a great thought which yielded bad forecasts in practice
- Yes, ONS is to blame for continuing to communicate on this ... but should not be blamed for having tried a new thing
END
Where, to me, ONS started to be seriously at fault is how it then handled the situation
To this day, it does not spend a word about the implausibility and it continues to report on a weekly basis on "again, negative excess" as if everything was fine
7/
To this day, it does not spend a word about the implausibility and it continues to report on a weekly basis on "again, negative excess" as if everything was fine
7/
December 10, 2025 at 11:32 AM
Where, to me, ONS started to be seriously at fault is how it then handled the situation
To this day, it does not spend a word about the implausibility and it continues to report on a weekly basis on "again, negative excess" as if everything was fine
7/
To this day, it does not spend a word about the implausibility and it continues to report on a weekly basis on "again, negative excess" as if everything was fine
7/
And indeed, the method, while good in principle, started to generate implausibly high expected deaths
So far, I don't see anything to fault ONS: I like it when (stuffy) stats offices dare to try some things out and "hey, you win a few and you lose a few"
6/
So far, I don't see anything to fault ONS: I like it when (stuffy) stats offices dare to try some things out and "hey, you win a few and you lose a few"
6/
December 10, 2025 at 11:31 AM
And indeed, the method, while good in principle, started to generate implausibly high expected deaths
So far, I don't see anything to fault ONS: I like it when (stuffy) stats offices dare to try some things out and "hey, you win a few and you lose a few"
6/
So far, I don't see anything to fault ONS: I like it when (stuffy) stats offices dare to try some things out and "hey, you win a few and you lose a few"
6/
I loved the lateral thinking of the idea when ONS shared it two years ago!
but
When playing with the numbers, I immediately got concerned about the impact in practice as this left the 2020-2025 deaths with very high levels of expected deaths in the summer
5/
but
When playing with the numbers, I immediately got concerned about the impact in practice as this left the 2020-2025 deaths with very high levels of expected deaths in the summer
5/
December 10, 2025 at 11:31 AM
I loved the lateral thinking of the idea when ONS shared it two years ago!
but
When playing with the numbers, I immediately got concerned about the impact in practice as this left the 2020-2025 deaths with very high levels of expected deaths in the summer
5/
but
When playing with the numbers, I immediately got concerned about the impact in practice as this left the 2020-2025 deaths with very high levels of expected deaths in the summer
5/
So the smart brains at ONS had an interesting and innovative idea:
"Can I deduce what was caused by the pandemic and what was trend in the 2020-2024 years?"
They came to the conclusion: "Yes, if we simply forget about weeks with lots of covid deaths (>15%)"
4/
"Can I deduce what was caused by the pandemic and what was trend in the 2020-2024 years?"
They came to the conclusion: "Yes, if we simply forget about weeks with lots of covid deaths (>15%)"
4/
December 10, 2025 at 11:30 AM
So the smart brains at ONS had an interesting and innovative idea:
"Can I deduce what was caused by the pandemic and what was trend in the 2020-2024 years?"
They came to the conclusion: "Yes, if we simply forget about weeks with lots of covid deaths (>15%)"
4/
"Can I deduce what was caused by the pandemic and what was trend in the 2020-2024 years?"
They came to the conclusion: "Yes, if we simply forget about weeks with lots of covid deaths (>15%)"
4/
To estimate the deaths to be expected in 2024 and 2025, it looked at the trend emerging from the actuals of the previous five years ... but faced an issue
These were pandemic years and we know that a pandemic is not going to be "the average expected" for the coming years
3/
These were pandemic years and we know that a pandemic is not going to be "the average expected" for the coming years
3/
December 10, 2025 at 11:30 AM
To estimate the deaths to be expected in 2024 and 2025, it looked at the trend emerging from the actuals of the previous five years ... but faced an issue
These were pandemic years and we know that a pandemic is not going to be "the average expected" for the coming years
3/
These were pandemic years and we know that a pandemic is not going to be "the average expected" for the coming years
3/
If your thought is: "hold on, ONS is just smart and expected loads of LC covid / vaccine deaths", it didn't do anything of that sort
ONS introduced state of the art expected mortality estimation approaches (mortality trend based) but faced an issue
2/
ONS introduced state of the art expected mortality estimation approaches (mortality trend based) but faced an issue
2/
December 10, 2025 at 11:29 AM
If your thought is: "hold on, ONS is just smart and expected loads of LC covid / vaccine deaths", it didn't do anything of that sort
ONS introduced state of the art expected mortality estimation approaches (mortality trend based) but faced an issue
2/
ONS introduced state of the art expected mortality estimation approaches (mortality trend based) but faced an issue
2/
If you think of it, it's exactly what we did once Omi hit the streets and we were confident that a risk of hospital massive overfill was no longer on the agenda and we know it had similar mensurations as that 09-10 flu (something countries realized by mid-end Jan 2022)
December 8, 2025 at 11:23 AM
If you think of it, it's exactly what we did once Omi hit the streets and we were confident that a risk of hospital massive overfill was no longer on the agenda and we know it had similar mensurations as that 09-10 flu (something countries realized by mid-end Jan 2022)
It's interesting because (and please correct me), if the next concerning virus is like that 09-10 one, the logic will probably be as last time
- try to spread impact without hard NPIs (too costly)
- make sure of business continuity (so not every ill at the same time in the nuclear power station)
- try to spread impact without hard NPIs (too costly)
- make sure of business continuity (so not every ill at the same time in the nuclear power station)
December 8, 2025 at 11:21 AM
It's interesting because (and please correct me), if the next concerning virus is like that 09-10 one, the logic will probably be as last time
- try to spread impact without hard NPIs (too costly)
- make sure of business continuity (so not every ill at the same time in the nuclear power station)
- try to spread impact without hard NPIs (too costly)
- make sure of business continuity (so not every ill at the same time in the nuclear power station)
Thanks Thomas, my question was not very clear I realize: I wanted to have a feel for what the 2009-2010 virus was and you kindly answered it
- R=1.4 (so not massive)
- IFR/IFR classic for flu (so I guess IFR <0.1%)
- and cross-immunity among the older from previous strains
1/
- R=1.4 (so not massive)
- IFR/IFR classic for flu (so I guess IFR <0.1%)
- and cross-immunity among the older from previous strains
1/
December 8, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Thanks Thomas, my question was not very clear I realize: I wanted to have a feel for what the 2009-2010 virus was and you kindly answered it
- R=1.4 (so not massive)
- IFR/IFR classic for flu (so I guess IFR <0.1%)
- and cross-immunity among the older from previous strains
1/
- R=1.4 (so not massive)
- IFR/IFR classic for flu (so I guess IFR <0.1%)
- and cross-immunity among the older from previous strains
1/
Thanks for the perspective, very insightful
On the strain of H1N1 in 2009-2010: What are the current best / least bad guesses about its R0, IFR/IHR, and level of cross-immunity we had when virus when it hit the world? Do you have info on that?
On the strain of H1N1 in 2009-2010: What are the current best / least bad guesses about its R0, IFR/IHR, and level of cross-immunity we had when virus when it hit the world? Do you have info on that?
December 8, 2025 at 7:59 AM
Thanks for the perspective, very insightful
On the strain of H1N1 in 2009-2010: What are the current best / least bad guesses about its R0, IFR/IHR, and level of cross-immunity we had when virus when it hit the world? Do you have info on that?
On the strain of H1N1 in 2009-2010: What are the current best / least bad guesses about its R0, IFR/IHR, and level of cross-immunity we had when virus when it hit the world? Do you have info on that?