Does This Data From Public Health Scotland Show that Vaccine Effectiveness Against Death is Just 46%?
How well do the vaccines protect from death? The two most recent weekly reports from Public Health Scotland give us death data by vaccination status, and by subtracting one from the other we can work out how many Covid patients died in the week July 9th-15th. The results are shown below.
We see that 38 people died with Covid that week, 37 of whom were over 50. Twenty-eight (74%) were fully vaccinated (18 of whom were over 80 and 24 were over 70). Thirty-three (87%) had had at least one dose. Just five (13%) were unvaccinated.
To fully interpret these we need to know how many people were vaccinated in each age group. The problem with obtaining this information is that the official Scottish statistics appear to use the same method as the NHS for estimating vaccine coverage, which gives figures which exceed the likely more accurate estimates of Public Health England by around 5%.
This means the official Scottish figures show extremely high coverage in the over-60s, implausibly hitting 100% in three of the age bands. If we compare this to the latest PHE figures we can see that the corresponding figures in England, taken from the NIMS database, are more like 90-95% than 100%. In fact, the PHE figures are generally around 10 percentage points lower than the PHS figures for the under-70s. That’s a lot.
Even if the Scottish really are more keen on vaccination than the English (not unlikely, if only because of the smaller minority ethnic population), we know from the English figures that the NHS estimates appear, as mentioned, to overestimate vaccine coverage by around 5%. I’m going to use a very rough estimate then, that around 93% of the over-50s in Scotland have had at least one dose (compared to around 90% in England) and around 91% are fully vaccinated (compared to around 88% in England).
Looking at just the deaths in the over 50s now (so dropping the one in the under 50s), this means that 89% of the deaths in the week 9th-15th July were in the 93% who were vaccinated with at least one dose; 76% of the deaths were in the 91% who were fully vaccinated; and 11% of the deaths were in the 7% who were unvaccinated. This does imply that the vaccines are having some protective effect, but not as much as we might have expected from other sources such as PHE which claim the vaccines are 75-99% effective against death.
Note that these figures suggest that those who had received only one dose were particularly vulnerable to death, as they made up only around 2% of the over-50s population but accounted for 14% of the deaths. Since almost all the over-50s had been offered two doses by this point, this means those who had only one may have had particular reason to avoid the second, such as a bad reaction to the first, or simply being otherwise more vulnerable.
We can use these figures to do a crude estimate of the vaccine effectiveness against death. The four deaths in the seven percent who were unvaccinated imply that if the vaccines have no effect there would have been 57 deaths in total (4/0.07), or 52 deaths in the 91% who were fully vaccinated. There were 28 deaths in the fully vaccinated, meaning the vaccines reduced the expected deaths among the over-50s by 46%. This is 46% overall protection, not protection in addition to protection from infection and hospitalisation, and is considerably below the 75-99% PHE estimate.
This is a very crude estimate, however, as 20 of the deaths were in the over-80s. Once we have more data from the recent surge we may be able to get a better estimate.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Will, there are better ways of estimating vaccine efficacy than this. See this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536484/
See in particular p. 1057.
This tells you everything you need to know about these “vaccines”
In Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, HALF of all new “delta” infections are occurring in “fully vaccinated” people
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-08-01-israel-half-new-delta-infections-fully-vaccinated.html
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Infections are irrelevant if they don’t lead to hospitalisations and deaths
And are not infections if they don’t lead to illness.
I would question the use of the word ‘better’.
i find the only statistics that are really useful and solid in the real world are those that can be produced on the fabled ‘back of an envelope’. Anything that needs over 1000 pages to justify is useful for that round file on the floor in the corner.
As I pointed out to someone else, the paper is only 13 pages. It’s in an academic journal. It’s actually quite interesting reading for anyone who wants to play around with data on the vaccines. I’m highly skeptical of the vaccines, like many others here, but like to dig into the data to draw my own conclusions.
I guess there are most likely lots of graphs and tables, but page 1057!?
Well done for working your self through the text!
The paper is only 13 pages long.
Patrick Vallance – “Around 60% of the people being admitted to hospital with Covid have been double vaccinated”
Around 60% of adult Brits have been double jabbed yet they account for 60% of hospitalisations – 60/40 jabbed, 60/40 hospitalised. Zero efficacy.
He accidentally said double vaccinated instead of unvaccinated and has since corrected himself: https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317
He accidentally spoke the truth.
In fact here’s a transcript of exactly what he said just to make it clear:
“Around 60% of the people being admitted to hospital with Covid have been double vaccinated and that’s not surprising because the vaccines are not 100% effective, they’re very very effective but not 100%….so the answer is that we should expect to see a higher proportion of people in hospital and catching the infection who are double vaccinated, that is inevitable that we will see that, because of the, um, not, er, the the less than 100% efficacy of the vaccines overall.”
Which part did he say by accident?
And does this sound like a competent man with the title Chief Scientific Adviser to the government?
They don’t care that they get caught out. They don’t care, full stop. The real culprits, though, are the pleblic, who let them get away with it, again and again. He clearly gave the game away, then tried to cover it up, but that’s already forgotten by the sheep.
Blaming the plebs is unfair; they are the plebs and they do what plebs do, which is to believe that she shepherds would never herd them into the jabbatoir (not my word, I found it here, somewhere).
He accidentally forgot his teleprompt.
‘Competency’ is not something one can associate with this government and its advisors. I was never so disgusted with the political class and academia as I am now.
77th? BIT? (nudge, nudge).
Vallance receives his share dividend whatever happens.
“Vaccine effectiveness against death’? Really? This sort of ‘headlinitis’ is something I expect to find in the Redtops, not in ‘Daily sSceptic’. After all, we surely do not expect that there’s a vaccine ‘against death’, do we!
That’s what the sheeples believe, for sure. You get Covid, you die. You get snake oil, you live for ever. Or rather, everybody else forced to get snake oil so that you live for ever.
Did you know that ‘snake oil’ is a corruption of Seneca oil? The Seneca Indians used crude oil that oozed into the Seneca River to waterproof their canoes. Or so the story goes.
Sorry to be a pedant but the Daily Sceptic is a ‘red top’. Have a look at the masthead.
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1421169656279310336/photo/1
15 patients who received the vaccine died, 14 who received the placebo died
The conclusion is that the Pfizer vaccine offers no protection against all cause death
We need to use all cause mortality because otherwise you are basing figures on people who have died with covid not from covid. An experimental vaccine that prevents your death from another condition being labelled as covid is of no use if you still die of the same other condition without the label. And this blog (albeit before the 28 day criteria was introduced) from Summer 2020 shows how few SARS-C0V-2 positive patients were being treated for covid in Scotland at roughly the same time of year https://blogs.gov.scot/statistics/2020/09/15/counting-people-in-hospital-with-covid-19/ The audit showed that 8% of patients were either receiving treatment for COVID-19, were in rehabilitation after their treatment for COVID-19 was completed, or were in hospital for COVID-19 related complications. (5% of patients could not be classified into the above categories.) And in Summer 2021 because of increased natural immunity vs Summer 2020, you would expect the number of patients being treated for covid will be even lower, because many who test positive will have already got some immunity through an earlier encounter with the virus. So while they may test positive again they won’t have serious illness caused by the virus unless they have a very compromised immune system. And… Read more »
Much better analysis.
In the same time frame how many people died from the “vaccine”?
This is because the vast majority of people don’t die of of covid – they die with it. So they were already old/sick and were going to die anyway. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by this? Then you have the issues of any deaths within 28 days being labelled covid, covid being bunged on the death certificate for good measure and the biggie – PCR screening hugely distorting how many people are actually ill with covid.
I appreciate that the media have grossly overinflated the risks posed by covid to younger, healthier people but surely no one here fell for it?
I’m sorry but the inclusion of this sort of article would only inflame those wanting to discredit LS.
Why?
One week of data.
Ok thanks – I wasn’t being picky with my question, just wanted to understand what you were getting at.
A fair point, but I’m not sure it completely negates the article. In the absence of clear, full or even honest data from the authorities we’re all scrabbling around in the scraps trying to make sense of what is happening.
I agree but for those intent on defaming LS they will nitpick!
What these stats tell us is that a number of people who had been vaccinated, and had subsequently ‘tested positive’, died within 28 days. They were predominantly over 50, but people who die usually are. What the stats don’t tell us is how many of those people actually died ‘of Covid’, and how many were admitted to hospital because of a serious pre-existing condition, ‘tested positive’ on arrival or whilst in hospital, and died within 28 days of the pre-existing condition.
What the stats don’t tell us is how many of those people actually died ‘of Covid’, and how many were admitted to hospital because of a serious pre-existing condition, ‘tested positive’ on arrival or whilst in hospital, and died within 28 days of the pre-existing condition.
You, but Covid has never been about reality.
This tells you everything you need to know about these “vaccines”
In Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, HALF of all new “delta” infections are occurring in “fully vaccinated” people
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-08-01-israel-half-new-delta-infections-fully-vaccinated.html
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Evidence from the USA and Israel tells the samenstory.
An experimental gene therapy (NOT a vaccine) is only partially effective, caused thousands of deaths, heart damage, and whose long-term effects are unknown.
But UK Government is giving out free coffee to those foolish enough to take it.
IS a vaccine
It’s a vaccine, Jim, but not as we know it.
Keep believing that and we’ll all be safe, unless you’re a ‘shedder’.
I do believe it, because these experimental new vaccines meet the dictionary definition of vaccine that I choose to accept, but I can’t be a shedder because I haven’t had the vaccine and won’t have it unless strapped down and forced.
What’s your definition of vaccine, out of interest?
A vaccine prevents infection by providing immunity. There is no real chance of developing a disease once vaccinated against it, which is why we no longer suffer from smallpox, tuberculosis and a host of other diseases. A preparation that does not do that is not a vaccine, whatever your dictionary says.
Apropos of dictionaries, you should have been taught as a schoolboy not to regard any dictionary as definitive, especially in the age of woke.
To the downvoters – what’s your definition of “vaccine”?
And the moral of the story is these vaccines are injections that kill and maim people, do not prevent infection or death, and likely encourage virus to mutate further. So why are they being administered instead of obvious successful treatments? Control? Power? Profit?
Italian doctor Giuseppe Di Donno ridiculed and derided for his successful use of convalescent plasma. The treatment was subsequently abandoned. He committed suicide last week. Cost of each dose = 80 Euro. Next October 4/5 Covid new treatments will be announced in the EU, one of which is the industrial version of convalescent plasma Cost per dose = 2000 Euro. Italian doctor who advocated plasma therapy for Covid-19 allegedly commits suicide | protothemanews.com
Yes it is about control power and profit, but only as adjuncts to the main objective, which is depopulation.
‘ … these vaccines are injections that kill and maim people, do not prevent infection or death, and likely encourage virus to mutate further. So why are they being administered … ‘
Because they ‘kill and maim people, do not prevent infection or death, and likely encourage virus to mutate further’.
And, of course, control, power and profit.
I’ve said it before, but $$$$$$$$$$$$ remains the obvious answer. They have pulled similar stunts over cancer treatment (apricot kernels – toxic, chemotherapy – good etc.)
The numbers of deaths are too small here to make a meaningful statistical analysis.
Betteridge’s law:
“Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
Maybe the thing is that old and/or sick people have a weak immune system by default. So vaccine won’t work well for original virus or any of its countless micro-mutations. Which brings us back to the start. Covid19 is not a serious disease. Old and/or sick who are in danger of covid19 are also in danger from ILI or even common cold. If covid19 did indeed cause more excess deaths than the lockdown, then all it did was mortality displacement where some people die half a year, year or two years sooner or later. But this is nothing special since it happens every 6 months between winter and summer (more people die in winter than in summer – these are expected deaths). Then also some winters will have a nastier ILI season and will cause death displacement by a year or two. Just like cost-benefit analysis should have been done with lockdown, so it should have been done with c19 vaccines. Huge amount of money were spent on them. Even if they were effective and not dangerous, the money developing them could have been better spent. In healthcare more lives (especially years of life) could have been saved with this… Read more »
What you say only applies in a sane world. Covid was and is a scam designed to convince us to allow ourselves to be injected with intentionally life shortening gene based products.
Look behind all the western vaccines and you will find the great depopulator himself, Bill Gates. Only the very ignorant or those of unsound mind would allow a vaccine from Gates to be injected into their bodies.
People are still in denial about the endgame!
Absolutely. Depopulation ticks all the boxes and is the only thing that pulls all of the many loose ends together. If they were only “doing it for the money” then why make these “vaccines” so bloody dangerous. As for the “power and control” these are not ends in themselves, but they will be needed in spades, when they try to force the vaccine recalcitrant into line. And they will be needed even more so, when the cull begins to bite in hard and those still left express their justified anger in violence against the scam instigators and collaborators.
Indeed!
From all the NHS numbers I’ve seen for the over 50’s cohort in VoC Briefings 18 & 19 and the increasing number of double jabbed people ‘testing positive’ I think it’s pretty obvious these ‘vaccines’ do nothing to stop the spread and do very little to prevent death of the patient.
With the UK’s successful fear campaign and vax uptake it’s going to be very hard for them to hide this the longer they keep it going. Maybe that’s why they want a needle in EVERY arm? No control group makes life easier for sure.
I’m looking forward to VoC Briefing 20.
‘With the UK’s successful fear campaign and vax uptake it’s going to be very hard for them to hide this the longer they keep it going.‘
Not at all; there are the legions of the unjabbed to make scapegoats of.
‘Maybe that’s why they want a needle in EVERY arm?‘
Do they though? Having unjabbed people is handy when scapegoats are needed, and it is far easier, and much more profitable to top up the mRNA / spike protein quotients of the sheepinated at four month intervals. The push to ‘
vaccinate‘ sheepinate may depend on just two criteria, the effectiveness of the jab as Kool-Aid and the desired level of population reduction. It may, for example, be scaled back when 90% are doomed to die, increased again if only 85% have died and so on, much like interest rates are in boom and bust economies.I think there is a grand plan, and ‘
vaccines‘ jabs are part of it, however, saving lives is not.If this snake oil is such an efficacious elixer, why does is need such a hard sell, and why are the manufacturers indemnified against legal liability?. It is, IMHO a false health product- 21st century quackery.
However, the vaxx are very effective little time machines – hoovering up vast amounts of money from future tax-payers (many of whom won’t even have been born yet)!
Have to rely on the Ruskies again for free information.
Crowds at Lollapalooza following new Covid-19 restrictions are so massive, Twitter asks: ‘Where’s Waldo?’
https://www.rt.com/usa/530858-lollapalooza-crowds-waldo-covid19/
Will, in answer to your question in the title; no.
Pretty desperate stuff, so many assumptions, so little real info to work on.
Despite raising the odds of inducing harmful effects by injecting the spike protein and goodness knows what else, I suppose they must do ‘something’ but its not clear what. They raise some type of antibody count,for how long we don’t know. Do they trigger T-cell immunity? Unproven and potentially unlikely.
I just can’t see any evidence they reduce the possibility of mortality.
Without knowing the underlying health of those that have died surely we can’t draw conclusions about the vaccines’ efficacy for the whole population?
The same consideration applies to those who have allegedly died from Covid-19, yet anyone who dies of anything within twenty eight days of an almost certainly false positive test result, using a test that was never intended to test for a viral infection, is counted as a Covid death.
That notwithstanding, informed commentators are not drawing conclusions, they are urging caution in the use of an unproven new technology that has been shown to be extremely dangerous and for which there is no need.
Death with Covid-19 may be unrelated to the infection. Death from Covid-19 may depend on whether appropriate treatment was instituted at the right time (if at all). Thus to make any sense of these results we need to know exactly what people died from, what if any predisposing risk factors were present (age, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, genetic factors etc), and what treatment they had been given. Without this information the results are meaningless. It is also why the current recording of deaths as Covid deaths regardless of whether these were with or from muddies the waters.
Worth a read, in my opinion. Includes:
Possible escalations, in sequential order:
– unvaccinated people are barred from all public places.
– unvaccinated people are barred from work.
– unvaccinated people have their benefits withdrawn.
– unvaccinated people are forcibly vaccinated (likely under the mental health act).
– unvaccinated people are sent to quarantine camps.
– unvaccinated people are murdered.
https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/2021/07/collaboration-or-resistance-part-3-scapegoats/?doing_wp_cron=1627890873.6848340034484863281250
I assume this article uses the government’s definition of anyone dying within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test as a death due to the virus. If that is the case, this data is worthless. Only if the data accounts for deaths where the primary cause of death is Covid-19 would the data have any value. Most sceptics or others with common sense know that the number of Covid -19 deaths are over-stated, and a fair proportion of people admitted to hospital with life-threatening injuries or diseases are infected in hospital after admission.
The thing is – any serious analysis has been blown out of the water by the abandonment of RCT testing. Observational data is full of pitfalls. Deliberate tactics?
However, we do know from earlier studies the ARR. It isn’t the top and bottom of analysis, but it is an important indicator that is now emerging in real world data.
“the recent surge”
Here we go again with the language for suckers.
Good to see this sort of analysis being attempted. It would be really good if we had the starting data necessary to be able to add another dimension i.e. “how long ago did this person receive the vaccine?”.
it seems to me more likely and even obviously that they a re dying Because of the ‘ vaccine ‘ since the ‘ unclean’ dying are such a small percentage comapred to the ‘vaccinated’
i see ruth already wrote that explanation 5 hours ago . seems so obvious to me too! is like cant see the forest for the trees .
Twenty-eight (74%) were fully vaccinated (18 of whom were over 80 and 24 were over 70). Just a bit confused, but is this saying, 24 were over 70 of whom 18 were over 80?
Yes.
Huge black hole of available info. to help make an informed decision – thanks for trying to fill it. I have been holding out, as am a natural sceptic, but in last week’s have found myself considering getting the Vax to ease my travel (family home in EU, work in UK). I am not responding well to coercion. Think I’ll continue fence sitting into the autumn.