Question about "unvaccinated, vaccinated with one, two, three or four doses at least 21 days previously. The case numbers in the category “vaccinated within the last 21 days” were also available, but lower and therefore prone to outliers, so that the data analysis was restricted to those with a dose of vaccine given at least 21 days ago." I would think that ADE would contribute to infection and death during the three weeks after vaccination. Why were these excluded?
Norman Fenton has noted that during the vaccinated, but pre-immune period in the UK these hospitalizations and deaths were moved into the "unvaccinated" category and thus helped create an "epidemic of the unvaccinated" and reduce "vaccine hesitancy". This seemed to be common in other countries as well including the US. It is non-scientific/ unethical to include the vaccinated, pre-immune as "unvaccinated"; they are VACCINATED and should be included in that category. Moreover looking at data from the US and Singapore and Iceland (elsewhere), it is clear that the highest Covid infection and death rates occurred during the mRNA vaccine rollouts, and these should not be covered up as "unvaccinated" for political reasons.

Authors and reviewers of this article appear entirely unaware of just how much forensic investigation has occured regarding ONS data. Many analysts - especially from the UK - have eviscerated their data. Numerous biases and anomalies have been identified. These appear to include gross exclusion of unvaccinated people and gross misclassification of vaccination status. Some evidence exists to support claims of willful negligence or even intentional obfuscation. The data used in this study is not fit for purpose.

Smalley is likely the only analyst to have successfully brought to light useful government data in this regard (in this case from England and Wales, NIMS data) containing death by date of occurrence (not by date of registration), broken down by sex and year of birth (not by age at death, the pitfalls of which Smalley explains).
https://metatron.substack.com/p/a-history-of-life-expectancy-1974
This allowed him to estimate excess mortality in a way that is arguably better than anyone else has done thus far. His results have implications for the inefficacy of vaccination, and harms of both lockdowns and vaccination.
https://metatron.substack.com/p/excess-mortality-of-50-year-olds

ONS corruption references below:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/perhaps-the-state-should-not-collect
https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/deaths-among-the-ghost-population
https://jdee.substack.com/p/ons-vaccination-deaths-analysis-part-de1
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-latest-ons-data-on-deaths-by
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-new-uk-ons-data-is-out-and-its
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/postmodern-science-delivers-immortality
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-vaccine-efficacy
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/deaths-by-vaccination-status
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-were-right-the-uk-ons-now-admit
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364310694_Implications_of_the_Office_for_National_Statistics_estimates_of_Covid-19_vaccine_take_up_in_England_on_the_representativeness_of_its_sample_population

I would like to comment on the paper and the reviews.
1) The fact that we struggle with inference on the safety and effectiveness of Covid vaccines is evidence of the nonfeasance of regulators who did not demand trials in the vulnerable population with a mortality endpoint. This point was recently made by Bhattacharya and Kulldorff on the pages of this new journal.
2) I fully agree with Kulldorff that “It is not surprising that we see excess mortality following the pandemic lockdowns. Since lockdowns disrupted regular medical care, we should expect to see worse health outcomes down the road, including excess mortality.”
3) There are some unexplained findings in UK data, which were observed early on, including Covid deaths in younger populations. I recommend exploring the following website: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/os8749/viz/Europe-CausesofdeathASMRsbyage2013-2021/Causes_of_Death
I have done some work with the (anonymous) author on another topic and trust the graphs. You will not find anything there that is consistent with vaccine deaths. Check different countries, different causes, different ages. I didn’t find there anything “universal”.
4) There were vaccine deaths, but fortunately, they were not common enough to be reflected in mortality statistics. If they did, we would have seen excess deaths in every highly vaccinated country. On this point, I agree with Ioannidis. That’s not the explanation for excess mortality in the UK (or in some other countries).
5) I think it is best to use the terms “confounding-by-indication bias” and “the healthy vaccinee bias,” (which is confounding bias in the opposite direction). The former indicates preferential vaccination of the sicker; the latter—preferential vaccination of the healthier, whatever the mechanisms of each. Most importantly, what matters is the net bias, which may be detected empirically (“effect” on non-Covid death).
6) To my knowledge, most data from different countries show evidence of strong healthy vaccinee bias even in the immediate post-vaccination period. Even if confounding-by-indication had operated, it was much weaker. As noted, those who got only a single dose are a “peculiar” group, and it’s difficult to draw inference.
7) The healthy vaccinee phenomenon carries from dose to dose. When a new dose is introduced, the healthier take it, and the group that is left behind is now less healthy. This phenomenon now creates a misleading comparison of the latter with the unvaccinated. It was mistakenly interpreted as evidence of vaccine deaths (e.g., “…age-adjusted non-COVID-19 mortality has a tendency to peak across age groups following the age dependent timing of vaccination campaigns”.)
8) In my analysis of official UK-ONS data, the healthy vaccinee bias was consistent and strong when third-dose recipients were compared to (remaining) two-dose recipients. Likewise, when fourth-dose recipients were compared to (remaining) three-dose recipients.
My views on these topics (including on UK-ONS data) are based on analytical essays that I wrote and posted during the pandemic. They were edited and compiled in an Amazon Kindle eBook. If you skim the titles of the chapters, you will see what is relevant to the discussion here and my statements above. However, you can find many of the essays on Brownstone and the Daily Sceptic. (I am not trying to sell a book…)
One relevant example:
https://brownstone.org/articles/illusions-in-vaccine-effectiveness/