Double Jabbed Just as Likely to Spread Delta Variant as the Unvaccinated, According to New Study
A new study by researchers at Oxford University rubbishes plans to introduce vaccine passports as it shows that Covid vaccines do not significantly reduce transmission of the Delta variant. For the same reason, the researchers suggest that herd immunity is “unachievable”. MailOnline has the story.
Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected, those who do get Covid have a similar peak viral load as the unvaccinated.
This means infected people ‘shed’ the same amount of virus when they cough or sneeze, regardless of whether or not they have been jabbed.
Experts said the findings strengthened the argument for a ‘booster’ Covid jab programme this autumn.
However, the study stressed that two doses remain remarkably effective at preventing death and hospitalisation.
And even though the viral load may peak at similar levels in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, scientists say it’s possible jabbed people clear the infection quicker.
The study, based on data from 700,000 Britons, is the largest yet to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant, which has been dominant in the U.K. since May.
Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.
It follows similar findings by Public Health England and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which earlier this month released figures showing unvaccinated and double-jabbed have very similar viral loads. …
The researchers compared results from December 2020 to May 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant, with those from May to August 2021, after the Indian [Delta] variant drove a summer wave.
The Delta variant has blunted the efficacy of vaccines as fully vaccinated people who do get Covid now have a similar peak ‘viral load’ as the unvaccinated.
This means they are just as likely to spread the virus onwards, and to develop mild symptoms such as a cough or temperature.
In contrast, vaccinated people who were infected with the Alpha variant had a much lower viral load and rarely got symptoms.
Worth reading in full.
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.
“And even though the viral load may peak at similar levels in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, scientists say it’s possible jabbed people clear the infection quicker.”
nice firm result from such a massive study. It’s also possible they don’t
If, but, maybe, perhaps, possibly………The world is full of Ferguson types, no doubt on vast screws of money, coming out with claptrap like this.
. . . and it’s my choice if I decide to risk getting the ‘Rona/Flu by not being vaccinated. I’ll take that and trust my immune system. So, now that they’re saying we’re all equal in spreading it – can we just move on and get along without this division and need for vaccine passports?
Or is that part of the plan as always – division? 😉
Quicker than what?
I love these all-so-scientific terms “possible”, “could”, “may”, “might”. I always read them as meaning significantly less than 50%. In other words, they have no evidence or proof, so resort to unscientific scaremongering. After all, they need to ensure their next grant cheque arrives, don’t they?
This study was summarised on BBC five live news this morning.
Disclaimer. I use it as an alarm as it generally winds me up so much there’s no way I’ll nod off.
According to demented old Aunty Beeb the Pfizer ans Astra vaccines are 93% effective against the delta variant, but don’t stop transmission of the virus.
Sounded, in my cynical head anyway, ” you’ve had the jabs, they’re working really well, but we’ll have to lock you down come autumn”
‘I’m a vaxxoid, so I can cough and sneeze over you to my heart’s content.’
The govt are going to have a very hard time explaining/justifying that one, especially as they’ve repeatedly said that the vaccine was “our way out of lockdown”. No doubt the slimeb*lls will find some new weasley words to do it though.
This study is totally unclear.
No indication of how a control group was assessed. It simply talks about comparing different groups of people over different time periods.
Yet the newspapers just report the so called conclusions as facts.
I can glean zero from this article without further assessment of what exactly they tested to reach the assertions they seem to be making. It is not even clear what they mean by “effective”.
It is a bit like the “84k lives saved by vaccinations” claim of PHE, which seems to be based on comparing outcomes with some modelled prediction of what would have happened without vaccines. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Inneed. The only fact is the same viral load if infected.
The rest is basically just made up and the drawn conclusions are preconceived and totally wrong.
The correlation break between cases and hospitalizations and deaths could just as well be due to other factors, like dry tinder, high seroprevalence through natural immunity etc., that causation cannot be proven.
Not least because other lowly vaccinated countries like Bulgaria do not see excessive numbers in the other direction in those regards.
Omitted are the facts that the vaccinated are then and thereby the more dangerous, as their suppressed symptoms can turn them into asymptomatic superspreader, in conrast to anyone unvaccinated not drugged, and the one that the obese are the other main potential superspreader category.
The viral load test is nothing more than a proxy test using RT/PCR ct count. Not an actual viral load test. They actually dont measure actual virus counts in repository aerosols. Which is how you more real world viral loads.
If it test positive with low ct count it “high load”. If it test positive with high ct count it “low load”. If it test negative it “no load”.
Can these people be held to account for scientific misconduct. As someone else said, it all bollocks. Very expensive bollocks. These “researchers” cost millions of pounds a year of tax payers money.
“They actually don’t measure actual virus counts”
The basics like this need to be constantly emphasized, so that detail doesn’t overwhelm the argument. KISS.
exactly
Yep, always chunk up, otherwise one can get lost in the details.
Well why not read the paper? The BBC article does link to it – so it is not hard.
(They used the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey which is based on a random selection of households – so that it is how they got a control group.)
And yet PCR cannot detect live infectious SARS-COV-2 virus.
So it’s all bollocks!
I’ll read it properly later but, from what I’ve seen, they appear to have not taken into account waning immunity. If they are capturing data as far back as December then clearly the VE will be boosted by the earlier high protection.
An Israeli study found that those vaccinated in Jan & Feb had more than double the risk of infection than those vaccinated in Mar & Apr.
I haven’t read the paper so I could be wrong but the bi-weekly PHE surveillance reports do seem to support the Israel findings.
“Waning immunity”? Are you for real? There has never been any immunity from these experimental drugs waning or otherwise.
they appear to have not taken into account waning immunity.
The study specifically addressed this. From the discussion on page 7:
The dynamics of protection varied over time from second vaccination, and by vaccine type, with initially larger effectiveness with BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1, which then become more similar by ~4-5 months due to more rapid waning of effectiveness with BNT162b2, particularly against infections with Ct<30 or symptoms.
With more detail in the charts on page 20.
(This was even mentioned in the BBC report.)
But what they totally ignore is the considerably enhanced risk of infection in the first 2/3 weeks after injection. If you take that into account along with the increased risk after 4-6 months, you will find that overall there is NET ZERO improvement of risk of infection after injection. The ONLY possible benefit of the injection is a reduction in symptoms, which is also very much lower than the ‘relative reductions’ advertised after the initial trials. Remember the Absolute reductions were just about 1% , which given the prevalence today is still probably what we are seeing.
There is NO health justification for these injections given the risk of severe illness and death directly attributable them.
Ah!
“The ONLY possible benefit of the injection is a reduction in symptoms…..” And that’s all it actually says ‘on the tin’ for those who are offered it; nothing more than that. There is a lot of deliberate cognitive dissonance going on, to justify excessive bureaucratic opportunism re human behaviour etc, though.
I’m glad I’m one of those who said: no thanks, not yet, with no real evidence that any benefits warrant the risk to me.
Overall rate of death dropped significantly below average for several months (now it appears to be going up again).
I’m surprised they haven’t claimed this is due to the “vaccines”
“Covid deaths” are a tiny fraction of the total. Unless I am misremembering, covid deaths dropped like a stone last summer – more than this year – without the “vaccines”
Thank you. Just had a quick scan. Those are some very big confidence intervals with no actual N value. Big numbers become small number very quickly.
The actual “positive event” is a positive RT/PCR result. Not a valid clinical test in a low prevalence environment. Numbers mean nothing. Purely stochastic.
The “viral load” test is a RT/PCR ct count proxy test. WTF? They dont actually take real physical samples and test like in actual viral load research. Invalid proxy, see above.
So basically junk science.
What is interesting is that the only strong positive effect they could actually show is that the vaccines worked best for people who already had natural immunity through prior infection. Those Confidence Intervals for the old and sick are so wide its basically goes from no effect whatsoever to maybe kinda works, sometimes.
Those are some very big confidence intervals with no actual N value. Big numbers become small number very quickly.
Which confidence intervals are you referring to? The ones on vaccine effectiveness against Delta – which are probably the ones of most interest – on p 25 seem quite tight to me. N figures are in table S2 on page 36. But there are a lot of analyses in the paper – so maybe you are referring to some different estimates?
The trouble is, if your data is shot, then confidence intervals are irrelevant – you’re only confident of your data being crap.
All observational data is useless in this context, as it leaves out the essential ‘R’, ‘C’ and ‘T’ in the necessary concept of ‘RCT’ – the only way of conducting proper research into new drugs. All else is assumption, as Farr said re. death.
As a maths guy any CI greater than 3 to 5 in these kind of papers is deeply suspect. And after years of reading medical research papers (after decades of physics / maths research papers) and then digging though the raw data (when available) anything with a CI > 5 is basically, low probability / no probability correct in these papers.
Then you add in an invalid positive event test and ludicrous positive event type proxy test and its just a lot of pretty numbers. Very few medical research people seem to understand the whole Type I / Type II Error subject and why both the positive event and even type test used have not valid mathematically. In fact this indicate no actually understanding of the mathematics they are using. They are just sticking numbers into R scripts just like they always have.
I’m afraid that my experience is that a hell of a lot of researchers are just sticking data into computer programmes.
This means that they are short-circuiting the basic thought processes that are the essence of statistical understanding. I sometimes want to scream ‘Just f.ing LOOK at the data first. Forget the inferential stuff.’
I had an argument early on about basic Covid data denier with a guy who’s claim to expertise was that he ‘used principle component analysis regularly’.
AS I said to him, he’d best start again and read the opening chapter on basic analysis, and that process of ‘just looking’ – i.e. the use of descriptive analysis and essential scientific method and logic.
I think this is exactly what Clare Craig is saying on Twitter.
I don’t understand. CI greater than 3 to 5 what?
Well if a paper says 28% improvement in outcome (CI 25 – 31) that’s a meaningful result in my books. Now a 50% improvement (CI 25 – 75) then color me skeptical.
Then there is the whole problem of the “60% effect” quoted when its a (CI 30 – 90). The assumption that mid point is the most probable. Where the probability of 30%, 60% and 90% is exactly the same. Every point has the same probability. Thats why a narrow CI range is so important.
Most of the CI ranges in the paper are between 10 and 30, and a few are much higher. Not great numbers. If all CI in a paper are < 10 then now you might be on to something.
It is rather strange to express your concern in terms of the spread of percentage points. A CI of 5 percentage points is a lot more meaningful if the estimate is 90% than if it is 10%. A more logical way of looking at it is to ask how does the CI compare to the estimate. You find a span of 6 percentage points for an estimate of 28% to be acceptable. In this case the CI is 21.5% of the estimate (6 is 21.5% of 28). The CIs I am looking at are on p25. Below is the top row (effectiveness against all infections) for various combinations of vaccine and duration. I have added the CI as a percentage of the estimate. 58% (51% – 63%) 21% 43% (31% – 52%) 49% 75% (64% – 83%) 25% 83% (76% – 88%) 14% 71% (63% – 77%) 20% 82% (79% – 85%) 7% 67% (62% – 71%) 13% 73% (59% – 82%) 32% So five of the three sets of CIs meet your own standards. One other is very close (25%). The only one I would say is disappointing is the second one at 49% (effectiveness of Astrazeneca at least… Read more »
Everything you have written is utter bollocks in terms of ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’.
But did you look at just which sub groups had the narrow spreads? Not impressive from what I would expect from vaccines where the claimed efficacy was 90%+.Plus they did not exclude those already with natural immunity due to prior infection. Very much looks like spiking the study to me. You should compare that with some of the longitudinal studies for Influenza vaccines. Where at least the numbers are plausible. But as I said the “viral load” proxy test they used is ludicrous. They obviously just used RT/PCR because it was cheap and available with out the huge cost of an actual proper clinical tests for active infections. Not because it was a valid test in the context of this study. As for CI, etc and probability. I’m not only old school but I have a very sensitive nose for hand waving. Which a lot of modern statistical analysis is once you get away from the basics. Most statistics in bio-science is used not because it is firmly grounded in the systems it is used for, based on underlying physical mechanisms, but because it produces result that are “good enough” and relatively cheap to achieve. Once you realize it is… Read more »
But did you look at just which sub groups had the narrow spreads?
No I just took the first row because I wasn’t prepared to type them all out.
Not impressive from what I would expect from vaccines where the claimed efficacy was 90%+
I don’t see the efficacy has to with the narrowness of the CI.
But as I said the “viral load” proxy test they used is ludicrous.
Well obviously that is open to dispute – it seems to have been good enough for Michael Curzon to deduce the vaccinated are just as likely to spread the virus as the unvaccinated (although he seems to ignore the lower probability of getting infected in the first place)
I can’t make head or tail of what you right about CI and probability. Is my argument right or wrong? If it is wrong, then why is it wrong? I am more than happy to be corrected.
Problem. The Oxford University study uses the ONS as its control group. Who actually does the ONS Study, Oxford University.
I call it, B.S.!
I don’t understand what are you saying. Oxford University uses the ONS survey data. The ONS data includes both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The unvaccinated are a control for the vaccinated. Where’s the problem?
Oxford University PRODUCES the ONS data and results; a lot of the so-called raw data has had to be modelled for months now because the human panels reduced in numbers, plus they apply that ‘data’ to their own models to produce ‘ONS branded’ results. They are now using that to justify their own seperate analysis. Do you see the problem now?
You obviously know a lot about the way the ONS survey processes its data. Perhaps you could give an example of the modelling?
As you can see, credibility is as virginity. You have it only once.
The ONS survey appears random, but it has a risk of bias. They invited a large number of households to take part (random), but only around 10% actually take part. Beyond that, there’s an inherent bias in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated anyway, particularly in older age groups — a 55 year old person who has decided to remain unvaccinated is very much in a different behavioural group to those that choose the vaccine. The impact of these two biases on the results is not easy to work out. But an estimate of the effect of this bias could be identified by considering those ‘about to have the vaccine’ vs those ‘who had the vaccine >21 but <60 (say) days before’. That way there would be a residual risk of bias in the differential enthusiasm for the vaccine, however, it would be far more controlled than the data as shown. But that’s not been done, so who knows…? Well, there is a hint of it in the data for disease incidence in the three weeks before scheduled vaccination, which is given in a subset of the tables in the paper. These data suggest that covid incidence before planned vaccination is fairly… Read more »
I accept your point about a risk of selection bias. Are people who respond to the survey going to have different responses to the vaccine from people who don’t respond to the survey? It is hard to see why – but it is possible – which drives home the need to consider multiple studies with different approaches.
They did allow for quite a lot of demographic variables which should limit the bias in different types of people being vaccinated from non-vaccinated. But sure it is a risk.
Your proposal around – intend to get vaccinated – is a good one although I don’t know anyone ever collected that data. But using the actual three weeks before vaccination data is not going to work because if you present yourself for vaccination they ask if you have had Covid recently and refuse to vaccinate if you have – so the number of Covid cases just prior to vaccination is going to be artificially low.
First question. Where is the actual paper / data? I cannot find any evidence online so far. So just some journo’s story. Totally worthless. The story sounds like. We have a large number of non clinical test results from a non random sample (but it sounds impressive because its a big number) that show that the SARs CoV 2 vaccines has pretty much the same effect as influenza vaccines. Wears off quickly and can reduce severity of symptoms for those with a health immune system, but thats all. Plus the study lead obviously had not read the research on viral load and infectiousness or severity of infection. They have been looking for many decades for any statistically significant correlation in viral respiratory infections but found none. So the key study metric was wrong. Because it sounds they were actually not familiar with the relevant published literature. So another Charlatan Study. So just what those of us who read the literature were saying back in March 2020 about any future SARs CoV 2 vaccine. Wont work very well and wont work for long. And wont pass any normal vaccine risk / benefit metric. Because as we all know almost 50 years… Read more »
First question. Where is the actual paper / data? I cannot find any evidence online so far.
The paper is here. There was a link to it from the BBC news story.
The story sounds like. We have a large number of non clinical test results from a non random sample (but it sounds impressive because its a big number)
If you read the paper you will see it uses data from the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey which is a random selection of households. There may possibly be some selection bias but response rates for this survey are in the 90s so it cannot be large.
Thanks again. Read it. The problem with longitudinal studies is that asking lots of people from a representational population to join the study is not the same as actually getting valid data over the study time frame from a representational population.
First thing I look for is comparing who was asked versus who actually provided the data used. The final data recovered is always skewed towards a non representational population. If the study has that vital data included then I know I am dealing with people who at least have a basic understanding of the sampling problem with longitudinal studies.
Problems is too many high profile studies dont provide this data or you have to really dig to work it out. Then the headline “study results” tend to be far less impressive. Often non existent. Which is usually the case.
“The problem with longitudinal studies is that asking lots of people from a representational population to join the study is not the same as actually getting valid data over the study time frame from a representational population.”
Precisely. But in this instance, it’s even worse, because of the vulnerability to uncontrolled variables – one of the key problems in any investigation, but particularly anything that requires strict RCT methodology, such as medicine trials.
Sure there is a risk of selection bias. You can’t force people to respond. Every study has its strengths and limitations – this is one is strong in the sheer numbers involved, limited because it is possible that those who responded to the survey for some reason reacted differently to the vaccines from those who did not – although it is not obvious why this would be so. Ideally you would compliment this with a necessarily smaller scale survey that limited the selection bias. That doesn’t mean this survey is useless.
It’s bollocks
That paper hasn’t been accepted by a journal / gone through the peer review process yet. And given the rife conflicts of interest throughout academia these days, I don’t trust the peer review process surrounding COVID data-babble very much. Peer review used to be relatively robust but that was in the good old days before every professor of note got signed up to Big Pharma grants and referees started the ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ favours. I work in medical publishing developing clinical trial papers on behalf of doctors, so I know a thing or two about what goes on.
Indeed. The peer review process has taking a massive pasting in recent times.
If you don’t trust the peer review process then it doesn’t really matter whether the paper has been through the process or not, does it?
“ it uses data from the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey which is a random selection of households.”
If you’re data is flawed, getting your sampling right makes no difference.
The ONS Infection Survey is based on PCR testing. ‘Nuff said. The key variable is irretrievably flawed – aka ‘invalid’.
Correction – response rates for ONS survey are about 13% – I misread the data.
And other coronaviruses all fled screaming.
” Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.”
How long before they backtrack on this too! The data published by Israel government clearly shows that the efficacy against getting covid is near zero or even negative. For the older age groups (above 70) it shows slightly better efficacy, which could very well be because the % vaccinated are too high in those groups and the remaining are only the frail. The Israel govt data shows a positive effect in reducing hospitalisations and deaths though, but nearly none against catching it.
Sources:
https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/9b623a64-f7df-4d0c-9f57-09bd99a88880
https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/8a51c65b-f95a-4fb8-bd97-65f47109f41f
I think the brief of that ‘study’ was to find and reverse engineer a model or correlation that would then result in exactly those 2 numbers.
Almost immediately?
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-pfizer-covid-jab-declines-faster.html
Pfizer Covid jab declines faster than AstraZeneca: study
Unfortunately the very first line of the quote could be used/twisted to justify vaccine passports, as, even though infected vaccinated individuals are as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated infected individuals, the study asserts that the former are less likely to exist in the first place, as they have greater protection against infection. However, given that such a vast proportion of the population has now been vaccinated, the marginal impact on absolute risk reduction from the imposition of vaccination passports must be incredibly slim. E.g. assume 90 vaccinated people are let into a nightclub. Of these 10 are infected and transmitting. If you let in a further 10 people, of whom 50% are infected and transmitting, then you’ve increased the number of “vectors” from 10 to 15%. Given how transmission works (the first infected person let in leads to a jump in the risk, subsequent infected people let in add increasingly less to the risk – this I assume is especially true in crowded venues with a lot of moving about, like night clubs), that extra 5% probably won’t add much to the risk of the 90 uninfected people getting infected. Also, note how the paper concedes that ‘herd… Read more »
You can change “the solution” to “the final solution”. Still applies pretty much.
The numbers are worse than that. And the extent of their lies.
Either the vaccine works as they claim then the base vaccination rate for SAR2 2 (R0 < 1.2) is around 45%. This means for epidemic infectious disease control a vaccination rate of 45% has exactly the same effect as 80%. Or 99%. So all those adverse response deaths and serious injuries of all those vaccinated over the 45% rate are very deliberate malfeasance for purely political purposes.
Or the vaccines really dont work very well (very likely) and the public health officials and government are straight lying for pure political expediency. They need to make the media headlines go away.
Meanwhile many thousands of people will die and tens of thousands suffer serious long term health consequences for totally pointless vaccinations.
“vaccinated individuals have….greater protection against infection” This is how the disingenuous or ignorant media want people to interpret such studies. It’s all in the words used. In fact the claims are that the ‘vaccines’ reduce Covid in recipients by [82%/67%…whatever]. The point to bear in mind is that ‘Covid’ refers to the clinical symptoms of infection with the SARS CoV2 virus. Vaccinated people are still at the same risk of acquiring the virus as unvaccinated. The officially claimed difference is that the vaccinated will have reduced symptoms and may even be asymptomatic [but could still carry infection even if asymptomatic]. This being so, the government may be hoisted by their own petard. The fundamental basis of lockdowns, masking, social distancing etc is that asymptomatic transmission is a reality and the asymptomatic are just as dangerous as the symptomatic. On this basis the government and their advisers cannot claim that complete removal of Covid symptoms in vaccinated people means a reduction in the risk of infection or transmission. In fact they may be more of a risk of spreading the infection as mild symptoms, or none at all, may lead to them mixing with other people, whereas someone suffering worse symptoms… Read more »
Of course – even a 90% relative risk reduction in a situation of 1% absolute risk reduction isn’t very impressive!
… and we still have the fatal flaw of attributing differences to the impact of a vaccine, when the decreasing virulence of the agent over time is staring you in the face as a confounding variable.
What happened to the hundreds of thousands of years of learned natural immunity? Herd immunity can only be obtained from vaccination? Jesus, I’ve seen more intellectual rigour on Love Island. Not that I have.
… in the vaccinated and unvaccinated… And, as usual, the implication that “unvaccinated” is synonymous with “susceptible”. I guess including people with immunity from having had Covid19 would be just too embarasing.
In a saner world, all this investigation and analysis would take place BEFORE millions of people are given the treatment.
When the results of such studies become public, the first question any decent journalist should ask is “who funded the research?” to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. I’m sure the £98 million from this chap came in handy…
Committed Grants | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected,
No, they’re merely MORE likely to transmit it as they are Asymptomatic…
If you think asymptomatic transmission is a factor.
It appears to be in the 2 weeks following the jab – those people are apparently shedding the virus.
Not in the unvaccinated who haven’t taken a pain killer.
Plenty in the vaccinated, some in the unvaccinated who were so dumb to take a pain killer and then run around.
It seems to be that spreading is not correlated with viral load as measured with CT
Mildly symptomatic. But then why we are trying to slow transmission at the moment I don’t really understand. We should be having covid parties!!!
Getting Covid is the best way to actually immunise.
Good idea!
Any numbers on those who got properly immunised by having COVID?
Even if true, I don’t think it rubbishes the idea of vaccine passports.
It goes some way towards that but not completely. The argument could be made that vaxxed people clear it more quickly and not hospitalised so are more ‘deserving’.
But it’s a start.
What idiots people are, though.
Be anti lockdown because you are ideologically opposed to them.
But don’t start getting back to normal because of this vaccine.
People organising parties on the back of vaccine effectiveness are just fools. OK even if it does reduce hospitalisations even a mild case is pretty grim but, hey, it’s all right now cause of vaccines.
It isn ‘t.
Also, because people think they’re now immune, because vaccine implies immunity in most people’s minds, they’re just going to mix again! Guaranteed lockdown soon.
I’m opposed to lockdowns but I’m not going to get back to normal because of the vaccine.
If anyone goes down the “deserving” route, they can ram it. How about the overweight? they’ve had 18 months to lessen their risk and lose the lbs. It is a slippery slope.
I hope it’s clear that I disagree with the concept of deserving as opposed to undeserving, sophie, I’m just pointing out what I think might happen.
I’m not saying that normality should not resume, I’m saying it should not resume because of the vaccines.
I hope that comes across in my post.
Ever? The only way we will get back to normal is by people picking up an infection and developing a level of natural immunity to the virus. It looks like the “vaccine” is still protecting the most vulnerable so they should get on with their lives, expose themselves to the pathogen and develop natural immunity. We should all be partying like it is 1999 to be exposed to the virus before vitamin D levels drop and those who have been “vaccinated” run the gauntlet of ADE.
Will, I am NOT saying that we should not get back to normal I am saying normality shouldn’t be resumed on the back of the vaccine.
If people are returning to normality SOLELY because of the vaccine, I think it’s foolish.
I hear you, apologies for any misunderstanding.
Thanks.
“ even a mild case is pretty grim”
No. Or it’s not ‘mild’. Or colds are ‘pretty grim’.
What I mean is that when medics say it’s mild they mean you’re not needing to be put in hospital. That doesn’t mean to say it’s a pleasant thing to have.
We can argue about the definition, but what I really mean is that it can be a nasty thing to have even if you don’t need to go to hospital and that people who think they’re not going to be ill BECAUSE of the vaccine are in for a shock.
Does this mean I am for lockdowns? No but anyone who was FOR lockdowns previously but are not now because of vaccines will be in for a nasty surprise when they are still hit with a nasty flu-type illness.
I really think people don’t realise this. So many people organising parties because they think they won’t be at all sick.
I got your point. But what I’m saying is that you will not necessarily develop ‘a nasty flu-type illness’.
‘….even a mild case is pretty grim.’
Man Flu lives!
“Although fully vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected,”
I’m willing to bet this isn’t true.
I bet they are just as likely to get infected but perhaps less likely to show symptoms and therefore become asymptomatic spreaders. The way that the delta infections are spreading in highly vaccinated countries like Israel and Iceland suggests that is the case.
I’d also be interested to know how many PCR cycles are being used to test the vaccinated and whether this is the same as the unvaccinated. We know that in the US different numbers of cycles are used for the “clean” and the “unclean”.
Same. Might conceivably be true for around 8-10 weeks post vaccination. Not so sure after that.
Yep. And it’s practically only the unvaccinated who are still mass tested and thereby many more of their positive results are caught. Multiples of asymptomatic infected and infectious untested vaccinated are running around than them.
I haven’t seen the paper, but from the charts in the Daily Mail, the patients were only followed for just over 2 months post second dose kicking in. SO before significant drop off in efficacy was seen.
We all know IgG levels are sky high post second dose. But they drop off rapidly. And then you are back to square one (with maybe added ADE, tbc)
“Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca.”
82% and 67% of what level of absolute risk (even accepting the figures)?
“ two doses remain remarkably effective at preventing death and hospitalisation”
Nothing to do with the relative mildness of the dominant variant, then?
All irrelevant anyway, since there is no good RCT data upon which to base any conclusions.
The absolute risk will depend on the prevalence at the time and also the duration of the period under consideration – that is why you typically quite vaccine effectiveness which should not vary in these ways.
“The absolute risk will depend on the prevalence at the time “
That excuse pops out of the woodwork every time the fact of ARR is stated. Of course – communal viral load may make some difference to all RR calculations. But not that much, if the base data is sound in terms of a properly sampled RCT.
I always know I’ve won the argument when that one pops its head out.
The absolute risk is going to be pretty much proportional to the prevalence. The more people there are currently infected, the greater your chances of being infected. The daily case rate has varied from 2,000 to 50,000 this year. I know that is not quite the same thing as prevalence but it gives you some idea of how much it has changed.
Sorry – but you are wanting cake and eating it. ARR can change, but RRR will remain the same outside the trial framework? That’s scientific nonsense, and defeats the whole logic of an RCT.
RRR might change – but there has to be a reason for it other than simply a change in the base line risk. This is completely standard medical statistics. See for example: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/how-to-calculate-risk/
RRR is usually constant across a range of absolute risks. But the ARR is higher and the NNT lower in people with higher absolute risks
“The daily case rate has varied from 2,000 to 50,000 this year”
By what measure is the “daily case rate” number derived?
Oh God – the testing thing again. I don’t want to fight that battle yet again right now. Consider it hypothetical if you like – my only point was that prevalence makes a very big difference to absolute risk.
It is not a battle; you might have a different point of view when you read what I have recommended – but then again, Oh God, not the blind refusal again to take on board that “the testing thing” is critical, that even the WHO don’t reckon their original “bright idea” is really that. But at the risk of repeating myself, don’t take my word for it as I am not a scientist; but I am very capable of discerning that the Cormen-Drosten RT-PCR process for mass testing…is decidedly not “The Gold Standard” and public health strategies and Government decrees which use it as the “raison d’être” are tainted and equally dubious.
they aren’t vaccines
None of these studies and data about the vaccine really matter.
We are witnessing once again the manufacture of an accepted truth. The conclusion has already been written: covid vaccines save lives and the more people take them the more lives are saved.
Studies will be produced that show the right results. Data will be twisted if it has to. And ultimately neither of these things will be that important, because what matter is the size of the megaphone and who is behind it.
The propaganda machine which is unstoppable will produce that “truth”. In much the same way that it produced the “truth” that covid is an unusual and unprecedented killer and that everyone should be terrified of it.
But it’s even worse than that. With vaccine passports, they haven’t really presented any evidence of their usefulness – not that I have seen anyway. In fact the evidence presented makes it obvious they are useless, and the governments own policy that you need to take a test when coming back from abroad makes it obvious they know the passports are useless from a practical point of view. Yet no-one in the mainstream seems to have called them out on it.
Vaccine passports are the sole point of all this, unless eugenics and genocide are the other one.
Thales has confirmed this yesterday.
https://norberthaering.de/die-regenten-der-welt/thales/
They want you to use a digital ID to do ANYthing.
The EU has already issued a tender for studying the implementation of a centralized register of every person’s assets!
And this news, aka another conspiracy theory having become true, has been totally ignored by the MSM, of course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Ooyt_6KVo
Almost everyone in the MSM is a Ministry of Truth employee – that much is quite clear.
If vaxports are brought in for big gatherings, we’ll soon see how fast the vaxxoids can pass the bug on, won’t we?
They’ll blame it on the self-exempted….
I still prefer my own healthy immune system and untainted blood – thanks.
Yes that’s where the emphasis should have been all along. And in emergency the likes of Ivermectin.
Did any of us actually need a new study to figure this out? I simply read what each company intended to achieve and nowhere did anything say “immunity”.
If the so-called vaccines work against the original strain but not the variants then they are not stimulating a proper immune response, that is the only conclusion I can draw from this.
Worse than that, they are probably responsible for creating the variants, or at least creating the environment in which the variants can prosper.
It’s notable that all of the variants seen to date originated in places where there were early trials of the vaccines.
100% agree! the 3 countries where the clotshots were tested produced variants, Brazil, Kent, South Africa, and so it continues but now theyve changed the names to the Greek Aphabet.
Interesting observation by Dr Clare Craig on this study:
Even a lot of the ONS ‘raw data’ is actually modelled now, they have run out of willing guinee pigs.
“Experts said the findings strengthened the argument for a ‘booster’ Covid jab programme this autumn.”
And there it is.
Another worthless study based on fraudulent PCR data.
Bonus: PCR test CCP style!
Here is a Florence Nightingale chart of all cause mortality (based on ONS weekly data) in the age 45-64 age group for the years 2015 to 2021. I’ve adjusted this based on ONS population estimates to weekly deaths per million in that age group. I’ve only applied the population adjustment based on the ONS mid year population for each year applied to all the weeks in that year but that’s probably more than good enough. You can see that there is now a very abnormal level of high mortality (perhaps 20% more than we might expect) going on currently in that age group which given respiratory deaths are at relatively low fairly normal levels (we will get another check on this in the ONS monthly mortality publication on 23rd August) may be due to lack of access to healthcare or to vaccine adverse affects or perhaps something else. This unusually high mortality did not happen in Summer 2020 and Summer mortality as you can see normally runs within tight bands. A similarly trend of current higher Summer mortality can be seen in other age groups (I won’t post up the charts at the moment) although it’s not quite as pronounced… Read more »
I think you may be starting to see the result of deferred health care and diagnosis from lats year. The CDC data is starting to show that effect. Especially in pulmonary disease.
The other thing to bear in mind is that mass screening testing using RT/PCR will give rise to a very large number of misdiagnosis of respiratory illness. When the RT/PCR test is done first, rather than a late stage part of the diagnosis of pneumonia, because almost all the symptoms are non specific that will mean a lot of the hospital admissions with serious respiratory symptoms would be mis-diagnosed. Less of a problem with viral or bacterial infections but with a lot of other respiratory diseases with early stage symptoms in common that would cause serious problem with early diagnosis and treatment.
Unfortunately the real uptick in lockdown related mortality has yet to happen. Next year is when it will start really kicking in.
ADE
That would require high numbers of Covid deaths currently – I don’t think we’re seeing those.
“either the vaccines are causing deaths or it might be due to a lack of access to healthcare that is really impacting now to an extent not seen in 2020.”
It’s difficult to say, isn’t it? Although the ‘bump’ is relatively small. The age-group is probably the one most affected by delayed and insufficient diagnosis and health care after eighteen months, and certainly vaccination could be a factor, with the growth of double jabbing.
Re ‘vaccination’, the comparison of the ’20 and ’21 major spikes is fascinating. It is noticeable that there is an unexpected rise in mortality after the introduction of the vaccines in December – and the decrease is much slower than it was in April 2020.
The December spike is the planned euthanasia of elderly in care homes with the vaccine. There is no other way of saying it, murder.
Excellent work, thank you.
This isn’t news
‘And that’s exactly what’s seen in viral load data’
But that is NOT what has been seen. The viral load is the same.
As far as symptoms are concerned, we actually have no evidence its better or worse in injected people. Its highly likely the Delta variant is mild compared to Alpha etc, so the reduction in hospitalisation and deaths are to be expected irrespective of injection status. What data there is, from Iceland and Israel appears to show similar percentages of injected and non-injected.
Exactly.
Isn’t this just the same press release rehashed once more? Eg, how can someone do a large-scale comparison of vaccinated vs unvaccineted starting from December last year? By that time, no one was vaccinated as the vaccination program just started. It is still absolutely impossible that vaccination prevents infection. That’s sort of like claiming that a door could stop people walking past it in the street. Lastly, why on earth is vaccination worked as advertised a justification for another round of vaccinations?
So are the jib jabbed asymptomatic ?
No. I’m surprised you don’t already know someone coughing away who has recently had the stabs.
Excellent interview, great to see someone taking this kind of action in the UK. Anna is a shining light :
Anna De Buisseret Serves Notice Of Criminal Liability On UK Covid Vaccinators Under Nuremberg Code
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RVcI7oT6YaOp/
Slightly off topic, but is anyone else worried about how the world of blood donation is going to look in a year or two? If the spike protein is as dangerous as some experts believe, and is in the bloodstream, will a market be created for the blood of those of us who have not had the poison?
The idea of selling one’s blood to the NHS will seem tasteless and objectionable to many, but if the blood of the vaxxed can’t be used the NHS will be in serious trouble and I can see a situation in which incentives will have to be offered (social credits perhaps!).
Bears, Woods, Popes, Catholics, fictional detectives and excrement… really?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” (Albert Einstein)
Useful information, resources and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/