The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021_09_28 KGould_COVIDFrom:Kincaid Gould To:Board of Health; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Heidi Eisenhour; aunthank@co.clallam.wa.us;aberry@co.clallam.wa.us Subject:Jefferson County COVID Cases since 08/04/2021 Date:Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:28:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Board of Health, Board of County Commissioners, Dr. Berry— I have asked several times now for additional data to be included on the county’s COVID-19data dashboard. On several occasions, I mentioned my concern with the statistic of fullyvaccinated vs not fully vaccinated deaths within the county. This statistic is strangelymeasured starting from 02/01/2021, a time when the vast majority of the population was noteligible to receive a vaccine. The reason for this has not been explained. I was (and am still)disappointed that this wasn’t addressed at the 09/27/2021 BOCC meeting. I’ve also calledJefferson County Public Health to try to find out the reasoning (needless to say, to no avail). But, after the last BOCC meeting, I had an idea. Jefferson County Public Health has beenuploading the changes in the data every week, and I realized that it’s possible to extrapolate(some of) the hidden data from the figures being presented. I went onto JCPH’s Facebookpage and looked at the data. The statistic measuring the percentage of cases among fully vaccinated vs not fully vaccinatedindividuals was only added 08/04/2021. At that point, 525 total cases were in the database, andamong those, 92.1% (or 483 people) were in the “not fully vaccinated” category, while 7.9%(or 42 people) were in the “fully vaccinated” category. The data I am reporting here therefore considers August 4th, 2021, as a baseline measure. Because the breakdown offully vaccinated vs not fully vaccinated is not included for any time before that date (meaningthat a great number of cases among “not fully vaccinated” individuals could have occurred because a vaccine simply wasn’t available), data before August 4th, 2021, will not be includedexcept as a baseline measure. Despite this setback, the data still provide an accuratepicture of the situation after 08/04/2021, meaning that the data give information for thepast two-month period (approximately). Here are the two data tables I’ve drawn up—you can check that the data matches theinformation on JCPH’s Facebook page if you need to verify. This first table shows the rawdata reported by JCPH. The second table contains the same information, only it has beenreformatted and all data from before 08/04/2021 has been omitted (thereby allowing for ananalysis of just the past two-month period). The tables have been split in two for improvedreadability. And here’s a disclaimer: This isn’t fake news. This isn’t misinformation. This is the data that Ihave been forced to calculate on my own because the JCPH, BOH and BOCC refuse to makeit easily accessible (for whatever reason). Date # OfCases(Total) % CasesAmongNot FullyVaccinated # Of CasesAmongNot FullyVaccinated Change in #of Cases(Not FullyVaccinated) % CasesAmongFullyVaccinated # Of CasesAmongFullyVaccinated Change in #of Cases(FullyVaccinated) 08/04/2021 525 92.1%484 -7.9%41 - 08/09/2021 554 89.3%495 11 10.7%59 18 08/16/2021 597 86.1%514 19 13.9%83 24 08/23/2021 640 83.4%534 20 16.6%106 23 08/30/2021 685 81.9%561 27 18.1%124 18 09/07/2021 805 77.5%624 63 22.5%181 57 09/13/2021 871 77.76%677 53 22.24%194 13 09/20/2021 932 76.67%715 38 23.33%217 23 09/27/2021 977 75.9%742 27 24.1%235 18 Here’s the second data table. (‘New’ refers to cases recorded after 08/04/2021.) Date # OfNewCases # Of New CasesAmong NotFully Vaccinated % Of New CasesAmong NotFully Vaccinated # Of New CasesAmong FullyVaccinated % Of New CasesAmong FullyVaccinated 08/04/2021 ----- 08/09/2021 29 11 37.9%18 62.1% 08/16/2021 43 19 44.2%24 55.8% 08/23/2021 43 20 46.5%23 53.5% 08/30/2021 45 27 60.0%18 40.0% 09/07/2021 120 63 52.5%57 47.5% 09/13/2021 66 53 80.3%13 19.7% 09/20/2021 61 38 62.3%23 37.7% 09/27/2021 45 27 60.0%18 40.0% TOTAL 452 258 57.1%194 42.9% As we can see, during the time frame with usable data, the difference in the share of thepopulation that has been fully vaccinated vs that of the population that has not been fullyvaccinated is 14.2% (the difference between 57.1% and 42.9%). Although this indicates thatthe percentage of people who have had positive cases is slightly higher among the not fullyvaccinated group, this statistic gives a completely different impression than the 92.1% vs 7.9%(a difference of 84.2%) reported at the start of August. This new percentage is roughly 1/6 ofthat figure! It’s even a much lower number than what’s currently being reported (thedifference between 75.9% and 24.1% is 51.8%, more than 3.5 times higher than 14.2%). Astime goes on, one would logically assume that the two percentages would level off (note thecontinuous downward trend in % of cases among the not fully vaccinated). The averagepercentages over the two-month span are 57.1% and 42.9%. For a product that is “effective,”these percentages are abysmal! Both figures are close to 50%, which would be chance levels(i.e., you’re just as likely to get COVID if you’re vaccinated as if you’re not). While this data is illuminating, it still has problems. For example, it’s unclear what percentageof the people who fall into the “Not Fully Vaccinated” category have received a shot. The waythe category’s name is phrased implies that anybody who has received both shots of a two-dose vaccine but caught COVID within 13/14 days of their second shot would still be includedin that category. These categories shouldn’t be mixed if getting a single shot confers even aslight increase in immunity. And because this is bound to be the case for at least some of thepeople who have been labeled as ‘not fully vaccinated’ (otherwise, why would the category benamed the way it is), the percentages would shift even more (though to what degree remains amystery, given the lack of data that’s being shared). Another interesting question to consider is what the percentages are for people who have beenhospitalized. No information on the percentages of people who have been vaccinated vs notvaccinated vs not fully vaccinated who have been hospitalized has been listed on thedashboard, so this is anybody’s guess. (Well, probably not… I’m certain the data is there,though for whatever reason not being reported.) What percentage of ‘COVID hospitalizations’are actually symptomatic? (Asymptomatic individuals who test positive for COVID-19wouldn’t be hospitalized; however, an individual who is already hospitalized for some reasonand then tests positive for COVID-19 still counts as a ‘hospitalization,’ which, again, seemslike another way to inflate numbers and increase fear.) Furthermore, using articles from TheLeader (because the dashboard doesn’t include the information), the COVID death count forJefferson County includes 8 people who were fully vaccinated vs 5 people who were not. 8/13is just over 61%. If death and hospitalization are the main concerns (as opposed to just cases ingeneral)—and they are—and if it is claimed that the vaccines prevent severe cases andhospitalizations/deaths—which is being claimed—these numbers need to be reported on. Andyet they’re nowhere to be found on the website. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to ask! You keep saying that the data isreadily available, and yet I haven’t received a single response to my inquiries and the data isclearly not readily available. If the data supports these claims—and especially if it doesn’t—why is it not being shared with the public? Kate Dean accused me (with no proof) of “not liking the data” that’s being shared with me…and yet I haven’t had any data shared with me! Dr. Berry has not replied to a single one of myemails, nor have any members of the Board of Health or Board of County Commissioners. I’mnot ‘not liking the data’ you’re sharing with me because you’re not sharing data with me! If Imay channel my inner Kate Dean, you are the ones who ‘don’t like the data’ that’s beingshared with you. Here’s an example from the 09/27/2021 BOCC meeting that I particularly dislike. Kate Deanmisused the ‘95% efficacy’ figure, saying that ‘5% of cases are breakthrough cases.’ (Whichmeans she either didn’t read the article appearing in The Lancet which I sent you all or shedidn’t understand the math (which would mean that she, also, could not have given informedconsent when getting vaccinated.)) The current data displayed on the county website clearlyrefutes that claim, with 24.1% of cases being ‘breakthrough’ cases in fully vaccinatedindividuals. Using the data I’ve supplied you with, that number was 42.9% in the past twomonths. On another note, you the Commissioners indicated that the data was strong enough to supportvaccine mandates during the 09/27/2021 meeting, apparently in response to my request thatDr. Berry or the BOH hold a public Q&A session regarding the vaccines. Perhaps there’senough evidence for you to think so, but there’s certainly not enough for me or any of theother people you are pressuring to get vaccinated. This would be a golden opportunity for both‘sides’ to be heard and to dispel any misinformation. To give people the opportunity to have aconversation about an important topic. Thanks for taking the time to read this… Sincerely, Kincaid Gould P.S. Here’s another problem to consider:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437699/pdf/main.pdf