Vaccine Effectiveness Drops Again, Now as Low as Minus-86% in Over-40s, Latest PHE Data Shows
The latest Public Health England (PHE) Vaccine Surveillance report was released on Thursday, meaning we can update our estimates of unadjusted vaccine effectiveness from real-world data.
As before, the report itself states this is “not the most appropriate method” to assess vaccine effectiveness as it is not adjusted for various confounders (and they do not provide the data that would allow such adjustments to be made). ‘Fact-checking’ website Full Fact (funded by Big Tech) are currently trying to censor the Daily Sceptic because, they claim, this means it is ‘incorrect’ to use the data in the report to calculate vaccine effectiveness. This is not true, however: regardless of what PHE deems to be the “most appropriate method”, vaccine effectiveness is defined as the reduction in the proportion of infections in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group, and it is perfectly acceptable to estimate it from population data, as long as any limitations in the data are acknowledged.
It is certainly not ‘incorrect’ to use the latest population-based data to get an up-to-date estimate of unadjusted vaccine effectiveness as part of tracking how the vaccines are performing on the ground.
Perhaps the most important limitations in this data are that the high-risk were originally prioritised for vaccination and that those who have been previously infected may be more likely to decline vaccination. Both of these would artificially lower the estimate of vaccine effectiveness. However, a recent population study in the Lancet adjusted its vaccine effectiveness estimates to take account of no fewer than 22 different confounding factors, including these, and in almost all cases this resulted in very little change. For instance, here are the adjusted and unadjusted estimates against infection by age. (Note that the high values here are for the whole study period; what the study showed overall is that in more recent months vaccine effectiveness has been dropping fast.)
Two stay the same, two change by one point, one changes by two points and one changes by three points. This is typical of the vaccine effectiveness estimates in the study, with very few exceptions. This suggests that the unadjusted estimates from large population studies like this are already very close to the mark in most cases, with any adjustments being small. This gives us reason for confidence that the unadjusted estimates from the PHE data, even if, according to them, not “the most appropriate method”, will be sufficiently close to be useful.
So here, without further ado, is the table with the latest unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates, for the period September 6th to October 3rd. (For the previous three tables see my previous post.)
Note that unvaccinated here means actually unvaccinated, not partially vaccinated or post-jab. Hospitalisation means “cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive specimen) resulting in an overnight inpatient admission”.
Strikingly, the (unadjusted) vaccine effectiveness (VE) in over-18s continues to drop. For those in their 40s it hits nearly minus-86% this week, down from minus-66% in last week’s report. This means the double-vaccinated in their 40s are now getting on for being almost twice as likely to be infected as the unvaccinated of the same age. Those in their 50s, 60s and 70s have similarly super-low VE estimates, while the unadjusted VE for those in their 30s goes negative for the first time, having been dropping for some weeks. For the under-18s, on the other hand – which is the group currently being vaccinated – it actually went up, from 84% to 88%.
Public health officials should be making a priority of investigating the reasons for this alarming inversion of vaccine effect in the over-30s. The fact that instead we have an effort from Government-approved ‘fact-checkers’ to suppress the reporting of it is disturbing, to say the least.
Vaccine effectiveness against serious disease and death continues to hold up well, save in the over-80s, where VE against hospitalisation has dropped from 59% to 51% since last week’s report, which is worrying as most of the deaths are in the over-80s. Effectiveness against death in the over-80s has been sliding more gradually from 70% in weeks 32-35 down to 64% in weeks 36-39, a month later.
Oddly, the text of the report contains an error. It states: “The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 39.” This is the same statement (word-for-word) the surveillance reports have made since they started reporting this data in week 36. However, it clearly is no longer true for those in their 30s, where the infection rate in the vaccinated is now slightly higher than in the unvaccinated, and needs updating.
A new PHE Technical Briefing has also been published recently, but we cannot update our VE estimates from that data as we usually do as they have decided to discontinue including it. A note explains:
Cases, hospitalisation, attendance and deaths by vaccination status are now presented in the COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report and therefore this data will not be produced in future editions of the variant technical briefing. These tables will be reinstated in the technical briefing if new variants of concern arise.
This is a pity as the Technical Briefing data, while limited to sequenced Delta positive tests, was useful because it went back to February and was published with a fortnight added at a time, allowing data for each two-week period to be analysed. The Vaccine Surveillance report data, on the other hand, only appears in four-week chunks a week at a time, preventing finer analysis, and only goes back to August.
What is really needed, of course, is for the full anonymised data to be released so that it can be analysed independently of Government and its favoured scientists. This is what those in Government and Parliament who care about transparency and truth should be pushing hard for, as without such full transparency the scope for real accountability is limited.
In the meantime, this real-world data from PHE, with infection rates in the double-vaccinated hugely outpacing those in the unvaccinated across many age groups, continues to make a mockery of the vaccine passports and mandates that have become oddly popular even as the data mounts-up that they are pointless.
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.
In my own age group (I’m 69) the vaccine does nothing at all to help me avoid catching it, and does the opposite – you’d expect a vaccine to stop you getting the disease.
On the other hand it seems to reduce significantly the risk of hospitalisation, and death (the one that really counts).
So not a vaccine then as such but a useful tool, so long as you don’t end up as another adverse effect statistic in the meantime.
Clearly vaccine passports are pointless – an anti-vaccine passport would make more sense.
Such a tired argument for injecting a toxic spike protein into your blood system for a respiratory illness – without any data on medium to long term affects and proper control groups – is everyone insane? Older people etc. should have been dosed with mega levels of D3, V C, zinc and quercetin / bromelain – if they got the virus then tailored care using these plus ivermectin or similar drugs have been shown to work 100% – the drug dealers have won most people here there and everywhere who continue to peddle this snake oil – (yeah some snake oils work but many even doctors wouldn’t touch)
100% correct
“is everyone insane?”
19 months into this toxic episode of human existance, including among much other shite, bare faced lies, terror and fearmongering of the worlds populations, by those who are put in place by us to serve us. Multiple and repeated lies and lunatic wild propaganda, all played out to the extent that you really would believe we are living a perpetual Groundhog Day.
And still the sleepy sheepy masses slavishly zombie-walk into a totalitarion despotic hell, unashamedly aided and abetted by the mass media mantra.
So in answer to your question Ruth…
I’d say yes… en masse.
” repetitive compulsion is an inherent, primordial tendency in the unconscious that impels individuals to repeat certain actions, in particular, the most painful or destructive ones.”
Repetitive Compulsions Cause Destruction and Pain.
Need I say more?
But it is more complex than that. The vaccines might well reduce the risk of hospitalisation/death, but if they end up increasing cases then the net result at population level might be zero. What’s more, the relative increase in infection risk identified in this analysis doesn’t have a simple 1:1 impact on cases. Because disease growth is exponential, not linear, you would expect to see disproportionately more cases. For example, for a disease with R0=3, if you increase risk across the population by 50% you get R0=4.5 — with this increase in R0 you’d expect to see case numbers rise about 3-4fold. Thus it could be that all of the residual vaccine benefits against hospitalisation/death have been overcome by the massive increase in cases you’d expect to see with this magnitude of increase in relative probability of infection. Right from the start it was said that the correct approach was to vaccinate the vulnerable. If they’d had only done this then we’d probably have seen a massive decrease in hospitalisations/deaths, but we wouldn’t have put the non-vulnerable on the population at risk and we’d not be at the position we are in now, once again putting the vulnerable at risk.… Read more »
“Right from the start it was said that the correct approach was to vaccinate the vulnerable.”
… which was also a load of bollocks, given the lack of testing particularly in that group, and the visible rise in immediate mortality when the programme was focused mainly on that group.
Testing for what?
Most of the participants in the original experimental vaccine trials were young and healthy. There were some older and more vulnerable participants but they were few in number.
Given that covid affects the old and vulnerable to a massively disproportionate degree, it meant that the trials were assessing the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines in only very small numbers of people who might potentially be helped by a vaccine.
I mean test programs for the snake oil – which were abandoned in favour of wishing on a star.
As Gert Vanden Bossche, a vaccine expert says, mass vaccinating,with leaky vaccines, during a pandemic, is a huge mistake. I think we are now seeing the results of that. Why do we ignore world experts in favour of local, inexperienced medics?
The so-called covid positive hospitalisation and death figures are meaningless and potentially misleading without also providing all-cause hospitalisation and death figures for comparison.
I find the idea, that the claim that mass vaccinations have reduced the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths, very puzzling. I keep going back to last year when there were no vaccines but both hospitalisations and deaths had flat-lined, until the point that is, that mass testing started. We even had eat out to help out.
I’m obviously missing something!
Same here Margaret, more deaths this year with a vaccine that last year without a vaccine. Increases in cancer, heart attacks etc, I’m finding it difficult to understand what deaths the stab has stopped?
Has the “vaccine” programme actually reduced the rate of hospitalisation or death for any reason, as that’s surely the most important measure of the effectiveness of a public health campaign? Given the yellow card data, it’s reasonable to ask if more vaccinated presenting to hospital with and dying from other health issues than the unvaccinated. And how do we know if the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are presenting at hospital are being treated equitably, by a workforce subjected to a massive brainwashing campaign (like the population at large) that the unvaccinated are irresponsible, stupid and selfish? Are the so-called covid positive unvaccinated more likely to be put on a ventilator, that has a good chance of killing them? So many questions, so few answers as we don’t get to see the most relevant data.
Are the so-called covid positive unvaccinated more likely to be put on a ventilator, that has a good chance of killing them? Yes.. and dosed with Remdesivir to trash their kidneys so as to drown them in their own body fluid..
I’ll help you ‘gum’.. ZERO
Thanks…lately every time Will does one of these updates showing, what seems to me, the ineffectiveness of the vaccine… he always manages to put “the vaccines seem to holding up well in relation to hospitalisation and death” and I keep thinking he’s then going to add LOL!
I’ve been saying since the start of the vaccine roll out that the true test of its effectiveness will be this winter. To compare 20/21 winter deaths with this summer and proclaim that the jab is what stopped them as opposed to good old-fashioned seasonality is absurd.
“it seems to reduce significantly the risk of hospitalisation”
Don’t be conned – this is where the confounding variable issue comes into play big time.
“On the other hand it seems to reduce significantly the risk of hospitalisation, and death”
Actually, it’s effective early treatment (the protocols deliberately suppressed in order to sell vaccines) that is the key, not ‘vaccines’,
All you need is a healthy diet and lifestyle, extra d3, c, zinc and a few other things. These will prevent you from being seriously ill and will protect against ALL variants and all other illnesses such as cancer which has now increased hugely in the jabbed according to Dr Ryan Cole. And this is irrespective of age. Why anyone would take a vial containing spike proteins, graphene oxide and dangerous metals such as stainless steel etc is truly beyond me. What do people think this toxic rubbish does to the body? Well they don’t think that’s the problem. When you look at PHE tecnical briefings far more double jabbed are going to A & E with this virus in your age group and there are twice as many deaths- compared to no jab at all. Yes vaccine passports are pointless and illogical as these injections do not prevent infection nor transmission. And it seems they are not effective at much else either. The agenda is nefarious and sadly a lot of people have failed to do their due diligence and used their common sense and sadly some will soon go over a cliff edge never to return. It’s already… Read more »
Correct, and no doubt you have read the leaflet that you received some months ago. It would have said, more or less, what you report. It is a ‘mitigation drug’, supposedly to reduce the severity of the illness, and it did not promise to reduce any risk to a third party at all. I still have one on file, issued in March 2021.
Full Fact aren’t going to like this Will, they’re not going to like it at all! 🙂
What is interesting with this update is that vaccine effectiveness against death in the elderly appears to be sliding. If that is a trend that continues, it won’t just undermine the whole argument in favour of vaccines – it’ll blow it clean out of the water. And that really would throw the cat among the pigeons!
The great majority of the elderly who were vulnerable died over the last two winters. As time progresses a new batch of vulnerable will emerge for the winter seasons, but there will be fewer of them.
And there would be even fewer if they had decent advice on diet, starting with the multi decade criminal advice to diabetics to eat carbs and jab themselves with insulin to control the hyperglycaemia that is the result of stuffing carbs down.
Good advice on sunshine and exercise wouldn’t go amiss either.
My thoughts entirely.. and I’m an oldie..
You could almost think the whole medical establishment has been so badly corrupted, that it exists mainly for the profits of big business, rather than the health of its citizens.
Treating a sickness is much more profitable than curing a sickness…
More likely it will mean more lockdowns to ‘keep us safe’ and ‘to protect the vulnerable’. I can see the Uighurs in their concentration camps making Nike trainers and the fake Louis Vuitton handbags saying: “One day the Chinese are really going to regret this!”
Even if the ‘vaccines’ fail, all the Government has to do is say “Not our fault, we tried to help you, but this is a devilishly tricky virus!” – it’s still a ‘mystery virus’, isn’t it? Bioweapon gift from China, or transmitted to humans from eating bats?
I think the horrible truth is that by this time, October 2022, the situation will be pretty much the same as it is now. Face masks, hand sanitisers, already on our fourth or fifth ‘vaccine’, Vaxx Passes already in daily use (perhaps in the form of a plastic card with chip). I think ‘Covid’ is like the ‘war’ in Orwell’s 1984 – it will always be used as a threat in the background to control the masses.
Let’s see if I’m wrong.
I increasingly feel the same way.
A never ending campaign to join the never ending wars on “hate” and on alleged man made climate change.
All of these are wars with no end point. They will just go on for ever. Humans cannot win a war against death, which is ultimately what the war on Covid is about.
A continuous ‘war’ is exactly what the establishment want in order to justify and maintain their control.
We had the Cold War after 1945. When that went, we rapidly invented a war on Terror. Now we have a war on Death? All we need to complete this never-ending trio is a war on Taxes…..
You forget the War on Drugs too!
This what the majority have become though indoctrination – terrified of dying but now also too afraid to actually live!
The Spanish flu was in decline by the winter of 1919/20. emergency over after that.(first noted late winter/spring 1918. Familiar?
Interesting video, politics, science and dogma.
Ghada Chehade: Cosmology Beyond Science | Thunderbolts – YouTube
last 5 minutes if you haven’t got time.
Sadly I too fear that this could well be the future for us all! There are some people in my orbit that get what’s really going on & others that seem to have no clue & just believe the covid hype. I’m just glad that my two teenage children have seen through this covid none sense right from the beginning & that gives me hope that all is not lost for the future?
Well done Will. Another great update to your article on vaccine efficacy. You can tell you are getting near the ‘truth’ by the pushbacks. If the fact checkers were genuinely interested in the facts then they should be calling for the release of the anonymised full data, rather than trying to censor this analysis. The unblinding of the original vaccine trials was a shocking attempt to hide the real efficacy of the experimental vaccines. Whatever you think of the experimental vaccines, you must surely accept that before the trials started the volunteers were taking significant risks as there was no data at all on what damage these gene based vaccines could cause. And when the unblinding happened there were about the same all cause deaths in the control group as the vaccine group, if my memory recalls correctly there were marginally more deaths in the vaccine group overall. And so to justify unblinding the original trials was not justified from any morale perspective, because any risk from the vaccine preventing death would be trivial in relation to the original risk taken. Of course it appears unblinding the trial added in risk to the volunteers given that the harms of the… Read more »
“The unblinding of the original vaccine trials was a shocking attempt to hide the real efficacy of the experimental vaccines.”
Indeed. And that was just one aspect.
It’s an insight into the poor quality of ‘science’ journalists that they weren’t down on the failure like a ton of bricks.
The usual reason for unblinding is that the benefits of the drug are so large that it would be unethical to deprive the control arm of those benefits.
With vaccines it is probably never so clear cut as there is a critical interaction with an uncontrolled component that is the participant’s immune system.
But…
Knowing the way that the drug and vaccine manufacturers game the system at every turn how can anyone assess risks and benefits when there isn’t a fag paper between them.
Bluntly : You can’t. Which is why the litmus is shouting ‘FRAUD!’
And so the logic is, I presume, to take vaccine that will double the chance of you getting the infection, so that you are 65% more protected from dying of that infection??
Is this where THE SCIENCE ™ is at now?
Problem with analyses of jabs and tests is that they presuppose numbers re virus itself are correct
-86%? That’s not a ‘reduction in effectiveness’; that’s making you a target!
Delta! Delta! Delta!
So if I look at the vaccine effectiveness against death for my age group, 50-59, is the risk shown my risk assuming I test positive ? And if , as the stats consistently show, my risk of becoming infected if unvaccinated is much lower than if vaccinated, doesn’t that make my overall risk of death much lower than the figure per 100k suggests ?
anyway, these are very important numbers, we should all share the wherever we can , in the ongoing fight.
Yes.
But also note the non-linear nature of infection risk -> case numbers.
If you increase infection risk across the population by 50% (eg, R0 goes from 3 to 4.5) you’d expect to see case numbers rise about 3-4 fold.
Thus the policy of universal vaccination has probably substantially increased your risk of catching covid, and potentially getting ill.
We’re living through a complete and utter disaster, but the authorities, for some reason, refuse to even look at the detail of what’s going on, and instead keep on promoting their original logic (even if it has now been superseded by facts).
Good point about the 2nd order effect of the vaxed being more likely to catch & spread the disease: This will have a knock-on effect on the unvaxed – increasing their cases, hospitalisations & deaths.
For some reason. Yes, it’s baffling, isn’t it.
Unfortunately not. Each figure is given as a proportion of the entire population of vaxed / unvaxed. So they are not cumulative. So, based on these figures the vaxes do appear to produce a genuine reduction in hospitalisations & deaths. However there are confounding factors eg. the unvaxed population may be much higher than gov estimates, and the unvaxed may be disproportionately from ethnic groups with large families and large extended communities making them more prone to catching the virus etc. But equally these are confounders in the other direction eg. the unvaxed may contain more people who have recovered from infection. So my guess is overall the vaxes do have some effectiveness against death from covid. But of course short, medium and longterm side effects are downplayed or unknown.
And we don’t know whether vaccination status is a factor at triage or, indeed, if a decision is made to intubate.
A purely anecdotal point, but I don’t think there are more naturally immune amongst the unvaxxed. Amongst those I know are many who are pretty sure they had Covid early on, all the symptoms, likely contact for the disease – but because there was no testing they don’t feel completely sure, so they got vaxxed. (And they have never had Covid since their first infections.) I know two people who knew for sure they’d had it, but got vaxxed anyway as well. I only know one person – me – who had Covid and refused the vax on natural immunity grounds.
Me too, & 3 others in immediate family.
And probably many more, like me, who don’t know for sure if what they had just before the panic was announced, was actually C19 or something similar. There is little real knowledge of the degree of existing immunity at all, you’d have thought – after all, in the recent past, it was not the norm to report any such illness, unless one took time off work being sick or whatever. GP surgeries didn’t want to know, and certainly didn’t want one to turn up and pass it on etc.
Full Fact will probably be onto you for using % rather than pp (percentage point)
This is not true, however: regardless of what PHE deems to be the “most appropriate method”, vaccine effectiveness is defined as the reduction in the proportion of infections in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group, and it is perfectly acceptable to estimate it from population data, as long as any limitations in the data are acknowledged.
You can define it this way if you choose – but it doesn’t change the fact that this measure does not cast any light on whether it is a good idea to be vaccinated.
Well it would help if there was any kind of honest attempt from the govt to put out figure for serious adverse reactions, or. Indeed to collect data on them.
Keep clutching at those straws.
It’s the other way around. Casting light on the idea of being vaccinated is exactly what the data does. The argument Leo made about confounders is premised on this point: the PHE data shows technically not the effectiveness of the vaccine as a chemical but rather the effectiveness of choosing to be vaccinated. The confounders argument is based on pointing out that those aren’t exactly the same thing. The difference is very subtle so it’s not surprising that it’s confusing. An example might help. You might choose not to be vaccinated because of a prior infection and subsequent immunity. If the question you’re asking is how effective is the substance at creating immunity then this is a confounder and gets in the way. But practically, that’s not the question most people actually care about. Pfizer/Moderna scientists should care a lot about that, but at this point ordinary people are more interested in the question “I’ve already decided [not] to be vaccinated, what might happen to me?”. Then the hypothesized confounders become irrelevant because they’re already baked in to the data. At any rate, the claim there might be confounders with a massive effect size – which was a hypothetical objection… Read more »
And, whisper it, but, by not going to hospital, maybe people are much LESS likely to die…
Indeed. It’s a massive proportion of infections that are nosocomial.
Mike Thanks for responding. As usual you are intelligent, challenging and polite. However, you won’t be surprised to know that I disagree with much of what you wrote. First let’s get the Lancet study out of the way. It is interesting, and provides some evidence that confounders don’t matter that much, but it applies to a different population at a different time. In particular a potentially large confounder is prior infection. The Lancet study did allow for this, but the chances of being infected if unvaccinated, and behaviour in response to prior infection, may be very different in such a different community at a different time. You raise an interesting point about what questions you can answer without allowing for confounders. As you say, you cannot answer the question that scientists and public health officials probably care about: what effect does the vaccine have on someone’s immunity? But I don’t think you can answer personal questions either such as: will getting vaccinated improve my chances of not getting Covid? And the question you pose : “I’ve already decided [not] to be vaccinated, what might happen to me?”. The answer to both of these is conditional on your specific circumstances such as sex, occupation, and comorbidities… Read more »
All good points, well made. Re: PHE/HSA. I suspect they just don’t have the data. I should state up front that I have strong reservations by this point about whether public health should exist as a profession at all, but PHE seem to be doing not merely a good job here but actually the best job. If you look at American commentators like Berenson, El Gato Malo etc they’re all now using PHE data to try and understand what’s happening in their own countries because, it appears, England has not only the most detailed statistical reports on vaccination/COVID incidence, but PHE is the only public health agency in the world (or at least English speaking world?) publishing the right kind of data to even do an analysis at all. Yeah if we compare them to a theoretically ideal public health agency then they come up short. If we compare them to their peers, then they should be feeling pretty proud about their performance right now. Of course they may actually be upset that the public are using their statistics – we have no idea what they think – but, well, that’s what public statistics are there for! Re: Lancet study.… Read more »
“I suspect they just don’t have the data.”
Let’s be clear. They can’t have the data – because, even in partial terms, the abandoned testing program means that there is little – and, literally, none in the medium and long term.
Mike I suggest this is the end of this dialogue as it rapidly gets past the point of diminishing returns but here are my final comments (feel free to have the last word). Re: PHE – I think we see one of the advantages of a centralised health care system. Re: Lancet study.. …… this sort of answer hardly qualifies as an argument. Such a vague retort could be used to ignore literally any piece of evidence about anything at all, in any context. I was always taught to be extremely wary of applying conclusions drawn from a sample from one population to a different one. It wasn’t considered necessary to identify the differences. However, I can point to some: Different racial mix (30% of Californians are Latino – more in the South). Different health care system. Greater mobility. More stringent restrictions in the period under consideration. Different combination of vaccines. None of these are killers but they do weaken the case for transferring conclusions from one context to another. Re: what specific questions the data can answer. Yes, you are technically correct (the best kind of correct!). But the question you provide is hardly any different to the question I provide, it’s… Read more »
A half way house between personalised forecast and forecast based on random selection could be a “healthiness score” where people are rated based on a few key factors known to influence covid outcomes significantly.
If the vaccines have delayed infections by a few months, all they have served to do is cause an infection spike in the autumn, rather than enough people being exposed to the virus in the summer and endemic equilibrium being established before the days shorten and immune systems weaken. Endemic equilibrium seems to have been established in the unvaccinated months ago, which Spector reported before he was silenced.
Of course it cast lights on the position.
Correlation isn’t causation, but when the correlation goes the wrong way to support your biases it becomes difficult to support a hypothesis that the vaccine is effective.
What an analysis of this data can’t do is absolutely account for any confounders to produce a completely definitive proof that the vaccines don’t work.
But from also looking at the unexplained increase in all cause (non covid) mortality since vaccination started, the significant adverse affects that are occurring albeit the surveillance systems are completely lacking, the mechanistic studies that show for example the bio-distribution of the spike protein into multiple organs and its cyto-toxic affects, and the overall position being worse than this time last year when there was no vaccine, it all looks pretty bad for the vaccinistas.
An important point, Freecumbria. It is the jabberwocks who have to establish efficacy and safety beyond doubt, not the other way round – at least in an honest system of scientific testing.
This they have failed to do by any criteria.
Indeed.
Never understood why a respiratory disease vaccination goes in your arm muscle, tetanus ok, but not a virus that enters via lungs eyes etc.
If I go to a GP complaining of tonsillitis I don’t expect to be given a suppository.
The need was for a good IgA response, not IgM/IgG, and this is why the infection is not prevented, but serious organ damage is.
Which is why view is that the jabbers can stick it up their collective arsehole for all the good it does. They can come back when they have cracked the enhancement of the relevant IgA response.
For me there are 3 arguments against me getting vaccinated:
1. Libertarian. I don’t think government should mandate a treatment. My body, my choice
2. Need. As a fit healthy 61 year-old my risk of a fatal infection is about 1 in 5,000. Probably far lower. Odds that don’t worry me. If others want to get vaxxed it’s up to them. The younger, the healthier the weaker the vaxx argument.
3. Risk. The younger the person the higher the vaccine risk yet the lower the benefit.
Just heard from a friend who says he has tested positive for covid and is now in bed feeling ill, don’t see the correlation there. But he is the most jabbed person I know, gets them all, has had 2 covid, flu and pneumonia in recent months and will willingly accept anything offered. And now tells myself who has had no illness and no jabs, that he is ill.
Ah yes, but they’re feebies. Never mind the quality, feel the width
Exactly… but let’s be crystal clear about the true shafting…
Already lost it.
Therefore, as there’s nothing else left with which to save our lives I was trying to hang onto my sense of humour and help others hang onto theirs
Of course vaccine passports are just morally wrong in a free society. But if we ignore that and assume that these moral reasons could be ignored, and vaccine passports could be justified if there is a narrowly considered minor public health benefit in relation to a single illness then think of what these figures show. They show that in a room of 100 randomly chosen vaccinated people or 100 randomly chosen unvaccinated people (chosen from the entire population of vaccinated/unvaccinated in these PHE age groups), the vaccinated room are more likely to test positive for the virus than those in the unvaccinated room. Even if this is due to confounders that means that you are creating a room of people who are more likely to test positive. Doesn’t sound like a good idea even when just looking narrowly at public health benefits in relation to a single illness. To clarify I don’t think it is materially affected by confounders, but even if you argue it is confounders, and have no respect for others freedoms, and ignore the public health affects themselves of introducing apartheid into society, what is their argument? It can only be about control and punishment of people… Read more »
How does someone who doesn’t need a vaccination not having that vaccination reduce its effectiveness?
Vaccinations are supposed to protect those who haven’t already had the disease from getting the disease.
If anything people who have been previously infected but who are getting the vaccination are artificially raising its effectiveness.
Consider the theoretical scenario that everyone who had chosen a theoretically fairly safe and fairly effective vaccine for a theoretically deadly virus, had not previously encountered the virus, and everyone who chose to not be vaccinated had encountered that virus. And let’s assume that taking that vaccine adds nothing to the immunity of someone who has encountered the virus already. And that natural immunity was better than vaccine mediated immunity. Then the PHE figures on that basis for that virus would make it appear that the vaccine was not effective because the percentage testing positive in the vaccinated group would be higher than for the unvaccinated group. But both those who chose to take the vaccine and not take the vaccine would probably have made the right decision. The theoretical vaccine would have protected the vaccinated against serious illness in return for a minor risk of adverse affects. The unvaccinated would have had no benefit from the vaccine but might have otherwise encountered the rare adverse affects of that vaccine. I think that’s the point Will is making in this balanced article. Although the theoretical scenario is obviously at complete odds to the position with SARS-C0V-2 and these ineffective and… Read more »
To be clear, from my personal experience I agree that it is more likely that the previously infected who have had the vaccine are the ones most affecting the figures. It’s just we can’t rule out a bigger small reverse affect from those previously infected not choosing the vaccine. The data isn’t there to check this.
if the vaccine were actually a vaccine then nobody would be testing positive.
Indeed.
If the unvaccinated were more likely to have natural immunity than the vaccinated and that was the confounder that explained the PHE figures, and the vaccines were actually vaccines, then that would leave only a very small number who could test positive because most of the unvaccinated would have natural immunity and all of the vaccinated would have vaccine mediated immunity. So that can’t be right as large numbers are still testing positive.
But if the unvaccinated are less likely to have natural immunity than the vaccinated then that further worsens the raw negative vaccine efficacy figures in the article.
This appears to be yet another vindication of The Great Barrington Declaration policy: protect the vulnerable (very elderly/frail and those with co-morbidities) and let the rest get on with their lives, with many/most getting the virus …. and getting over it thanks to their own highly effective immune systems.
Pfizer and Moderna boosters: Three serious side effects – ‘seek medical advice urgently’ (msn.com)
From the Express.
Oooh, breaking ranks. The editor of The Express should expect to be summoned to a meeting of Spectre shortly to answer questions.
” Number 9, you have not followed orders and have chosen to put out unauthorised information. We do not tolerate mistakes …”
” Number 9, you have not followed orders and have chosen to put out unauthorised information. We do not tolerate mistakes …” Here.. take this jab, no more saline placebo’s for you..
How convenient that ‘vaccine effectiveness’ is dropping… what this means is more lockdowns, and face masks to be put back on, until someone can ‘invent’ a new ‘vaccine’.
Three weeks of jabbing children aged 12 years and up in schools already gone by. Fourth week starts tomorrow.
What would you like for Christmas? A face mask with flowers printed on it, or one with a bar code? How about a Chris Whitty mug? Don’t forget the rancid turkey from Latvia!
Any method of tracking effectiveness is “correct” as long as it compares like with like and is honest about its parameters.
Crystal clear that jab passports have nothing to do with health. I would like to see a sub-split in the rates/numbers for each age group by underlying conditions/no underlying conditions too. Is that published anywhere? Also, for ether 80+ group, the deaths are > hospitalisation- does this suggest deaths at home/nursing homes or is it a lag and the rates are falling?
I presume that a competent health agency would be able to link the data to testing records and actually find out to what extent increasing natural immunity in the unvaccinated is driving this effect. I don’t think it was ever reasonable to expect VE in people over 80 to be close to the overall results (90-95%) from clinical trials. So a 50-60% reduction in hospitalization/death compared to an unvaccinated group with an ever increasing rate of natural immunity doesn’t seem to require us to believe anything is changing about the effect of the vaccine over time. It’s also important to understand that if the background rate of infections is higher and people move around and get exposed more then that can create a false impression that the vaccine doesn’t work as well. However effective a vaccine is, unless it is 100%, you will get infected in the end if you get exposed enough. The more exposures the less the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The VE for a just a positive test (or infection if you want to call it that) has never been presented by the manufacturers. But even if you assume that half of the unvaccinated have natural… Read more »
The ‘Covid’ narrative, appears to be fading fast and the usual cold, flu and COPD’s are returning. It’s almost as if covid never really existed and it was something to bring in Health Segregation passports.
Surely Dan.. they wouldn’t have been so cynical would they.. ???
Daily Sceptic needs to update its information about FullFact – it’s St James’s location at the same address as the Privy Council and the Institute of Government, it’s main funding from Luminate alias the Omidyar Foundation affiliated to the World Economic Forum.
I noted a conversation on this topic begin in some comments in the Independent – it took around two hours before the paper could censor and remove all the offending posts….
Try ever finding one now in the G******n. At first I was briefly amazed at the vitriol caused by my, admittedly anti-vax comments. I actually thought I could make a few think. Lol.
I was banned, sorry “moderated” long ago.
But seriously do comment where appropriate – if only for amusement purposes, but beware of “Dave” he’s a scientist you see..
The side of the ‘vaccine effectiveness’ coin is the fact that deaths are running above average for the time of year pretty much everywhere across Europe, and have been all summer. And those deaths are not in the elderly, their death rates are normal. No the death rate is elevated among the under 65s, even down to the 20s and 30s. Now I wonder why that could be? What on earth could possibly have caused the death rate to spike suddenly among the normally healthy? /sarc To be serious its is to my mind becoming increasingly apparent that the critics of the vaccines are being vindicated. The vaccines are not effective against infection, as we always said they wouldn’t be, indeed it appears from this data they are actively causing infection among the vaccinated (this could be some sort of ADE type reaction, again as predicted by the vaccine critics). And they are pretty obviously causing a spike in deaths from circulatory diseases (heart attacks, strokes etc) as those are up significantly, as are deaths in the young (as mentioned above). The big question is – how bad must these figures become before even the medical authorities start to get… Read more »
The other side of the vaccine coin I meant to say!
I would bet it’s got a lot to do with mask wearing. Prolonged shallow breathing will have a devastating effect on general health. So important for rehabilitating from illness.
So whats the point of vaccine passports then ?
With this knowledge there is absolutely no logical or scientific reason for the introduction of vaccine passports at all now.
Thats not just in Britain but also in France, Italy, Canada, Australia … in fact in every single country where covid passports have been introduced and under whatever fancy name they have given (in Lithuania they’re called ‘Opportunity Passes’) – there is no justifiable reason for them to be introduced … unless that is, there is an ulterior motive at play here – in which case its not the virus we should be concerned about.
Your post seems to imply a counter-scenario which I think I disagree with.
If vaccines were 100% effective and 100% safe, there would be no logical or scientific justification for vaccine passports in my view.
Where have you been for the past 19 months? Many believe that the ‘Vaxx Pass’ will be used to control people, and is a ‘platform’ onto which your information can be loaded.
For now it is an app in your smartphone, or a printout, to be shown at airports, harbours, or ‘venues’. I think it will soon take the form of a plastic card with a chip, to be shown to contactless readers. Now, here’s an idea – what if it’s used like a bonus card, so that in food shops food costs less to the Vaccinated?
I would have accused you a month or two ago of lunacy. I suspect that we will see it any time the next fortnight
If I were working for SAGE I’d suggest it be called the ‘Freedom Pass’. Catchy name. “Do your bit to beat Covid19” will be printed on the back.
Discounts at supermarkets, swimming pools, train tickets, petrol stations and National Trust properties.
And “Help keep everyone safe” – plus, of course, “Protect the NHS”.
And the National Trust will allow you to go round the outdoor one-way system the wrong way, spitting upon the unvaxxed as you go.
Ah.. your ‘opportunity’ to be enslaved.. mmmn.. I’ll pass thanks.. I never was an opportunist..
How long before these inconvenient PHE reports get nuked like the ZOE figures?The excuse will be “there are no longer enough unvaccinated people for us to include an accurate estimate of the unvaccinated cases, hospitalisations and deaths – so from now on we will only report on cases, hospitalisations & deaths regardless of vaccination status”.
I fear that elimination of the control group has been the policy for many months now. Advising people with existing natural immunity to get jabs, and trying to force children into getting jabs, were two major red flags for me.
You seem to have used the MSM method of dramatising facts with a deceptive headline. Just like when the beeb headlined 1 million deaths from Covid (worldwide, and no contextual meaning for that number). True of course but intended to alarm.
I am firmly against being vaccinated and have lost friends as a consequence, but looking at your figures, for me at 73 years and unvaccinated, although there is much less chance of being infected, if I am unfortunate enough to catch it – which is quite likely eventually – there is a much bigger chance of being hospitalised and/or dying (which could be embasrrasing given my stance). So, actually I would deduce from the figures that the “vaccine” is effective in that it claims to reduce hospitalisation and death. Howevever, no one knows what long term effects it will have. It was several years before Thalidomide was withdrawn and so far these concoctions have only been “approved” for less than 10 months. I remain anti-vaccine for the time being but will keep an open mind and continual risk assessment. I will always be anti-passport. It’s a disgusting idea!
“there is a much bigger chance of being hospitalised and/or dying”
Not if you consider absolute risk reduction. The difference is a small difference in an unlikely scenario.
There are approximately 15 million people in the UK over 60 years old. I don’t have NHS UK statistics, but I know that 36,059 people aged 60-79 have died of or with covid-19 across the entire pandemic in England. This is 0.24% of people aged 60-79 in two years. A slight adjustment is needed to account for the UK/England population difference, but it’s not massive.
“ I know that 36,059 people aged 60-79 have died of or with covid-19″
Wow!!! You know that???
You’ve done that number of autopsies?
Amazing! (even if your comment is actually irrelevant)
Thank you Will and all those commenting below the line. Some brilliant, insightful and interesting points. Lockdown Sceptics continues to massively help my sanity in a world gone completely nuts.
Keep fighting the good fight everyone. The truth can’t be hidden forever.
Yes, it’s an extraordinary level of informed and intelligent debate by you guys here.
Must watch
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD: ‘We’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe’ (odysee.com)
“Dr. Peter McCullough, MD: ‘We’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe’”
Thanks for this. Couldn’t get links to work for me for some reason. Here’s one that did –
https://tinyurl.com/yfkc7u2s
This is excellent. Just watched to whole thing. Very highly recommend. McCullough is such a hero.
Vaccine effectiveness is rapidly approaching parity with the chances of me taking one.
Come DS, dare to say it. The data makes a mockery not of vaccine passports and mandates but of the vaccines themselves.
That is what minus 86% effectiveness means, surely…
delete