As Infection Rates for Vaccinated Aged 40-79 Hit Double the Rates in the Unvaccinated, the U.K. Health Security Agency Suggests that Vaccines May Hobble the Immune Response on Infection
Another week, another Vaccine Surveillance report (now published by the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the successor to Public Health England), and with it more worrying news on the vaccine front.
Infection rates in the double-vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated continue to rise, meaning unadjusted vaccine effectiveness continues to decline. Infection rates are now higher in the double-vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated by 124% in those in their 40s, 103% in those in their 50s and 60s and 101% in those in their 70s, corresponding to unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates of minus-124%, minus-103% and minus-101% respectively. For those over 80 the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness is minus-34% while for those in their 30s it is minus-27%. For 18-29 year-olds it is 25%, so still positive but low, while for under-18s it is 90%, the only age group showing high efficacy. Vaccine effectiveness against emergency hospital admission and death continues to hold up, though with some indication of gradual slide, particularly in older age groups (see below). (For definitions and limitations, see here.)
The UKHSA has continued to receive criticism for publishing this data, with claims that the figures used for the unvaccinated population are unreliable and likely too high, artificially suppressing the infection rate and vaccine effectiveness. Cambridge statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter put out a scathing tweet on these lines on Friday, but he didn’t elaborate on his claim or link to an article explaining it further.
Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil have argued that in fact the PHE/UKHSA data may underestimate the number of unvaccinated rather than overestimate them, which would have the reverse effect.
Either way though, what wouldn’t change is the fact of the large and fast decline in effectiveness against infection. This is now generally acknowledged among many scientists (likely caused by waning over time or new variants or both), though has not had the logical impact on Government policy one might have expected and hoped for of eliminating the rationale for vaccine passports and mandates.
A further point revealed for the first time in this week’s surveillance report is that the vaccines may actually hobble the body’s ability to develop the strongest immunity once infected. As noted by Alex Berenson, the report mentions (in passing) that “recent observations from U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data” show that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination”.
The report does not elaborate on this, but on the face of it it is a startling admission. It is basically saying that a certain kind of antibody which is not produced by the vaccines but is usually produced by infection (and hence is used by PHE/UKHSA to identify those with antibodies-from-infection) is not produced so well by those who are infected post-vaccination. Insofar as this is true it means the vaccines may actually prevent the immune system from developing the strongest form of protection against reinfection. This phenomenon of the immune system being in some way hobbled by the way it first encounters a pathogen is well-known and is referred to as original antigenic sin.
There would be a number of implications of this. It would mean that since the vaccine rollout got going the prevalence of N antibodies in the population has ceased to be a reliable measure of how many people are previously infected (which might explain why it has been rising so slowly during the Delta surge). It would also mean the vaccines may make reinfections and serious illness upon reinfection more likely. Plus likely other things as well.
This is something that should be investigated fully and the results published so that its impact can be properly assessed and understood.
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.
I got my ‘blue envelope’ as people up here in Scotland call it in early May and at that point I did the Oxford Uni online risk calculator (I’m 45) and decided that I was in low risk category so risk outweighed the potential benefit. I was assuming the ‘95% efficiency’ was nowhere near the truth having seen the reason they came to that conclusion.
As each week goes by with more reports like this coming out I feel more and more convinced I made the right decision.
Only one blue envelope? Those of us in England were “lucky” enough to get more of them if we ignored the first one!
Never had one, what’s in it?
An “invitation” to get the clotshot, with all the predictable one-sided propaganda about it.
Propaganda? Onkle Klaus unt Oberherr Gates have a message fur sie Skeptischen.
Here’s a good breakdown of the inaccuracies that the ‘propaganda’ in my blue envelope contained
https://informscotland.uk/2021/05/important-letter-regarding-informed-consent/
Indeed DPJ – before submitting to the jib-jabs asks the medics inflicting them upon you…the following:
[1. EUA investigational COVID vaccines are ‘transfections’ not vaccines in the traditional sense.
[2. Non-sterilizing immunizations lead to escape variant mutations – guaranteed.
[3. The synthetic spike proteins created will be responsible for severe disease characteristics.
[4. The characteristics of these mRNA generated spike proteins pose a real danger of ADE.
[5. Natural immunity is memory of a genetic swarm so far superior to these injectables.
They obtained the 95% figure through fraud.. its not obtained from absolute risk comparing a vaccinated group and a control group and then dividing the results between the two.. They are lying.. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/properly-measuring-vaccine-efficacy Absolute vs. relative risk In November — just before the FDA issued its initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — Doshi cautioned the public that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s efficacy results seemed dramatic only because the companies derived them from relative risk data. Absolute risk, simply explained, is “the likelihood that an outcome will occur.” Relative risk “compares the risk of a health event … among one group with the risk among another group.” Pfizer told the FDA that eight (of approximately 22,000) volunteers in its vaccine group developed a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, versus 162 of 22,000 volunteers in the placebo group. Moderna reported a similar spread — five out of 15,000 in the vaccine group versus 90 out of 15,000 in the placebo group. When one does the math, the Pfizer clinical trial numbers showed: “The risk reduction in absolute terms [was] only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% [in the placebo group] to a minimal risk of 0.04% [in… Read more »
And many control groups were given a different vaccine. As vaccines are known to take out primary immunity in the first couple of weeks, the control group was more likely to contract Covid or anything else picked up by the useless PCR testing. Fraud.
I have a friend who actually joined the queue outside one of the centres and she said to me “something just didn’t feel right”. So she trusted her instinct and walked away.
‘she said to me “something just didn’t feel right”. So she trusted her instinct and walked away.’
I read an article many years ago about an airplane full of passengers that caught fire on the runway just shortly before it was about to take-off – many passengers on board the plane unfortunately could not escape and perished in the fire. An investigation into the disaster found that those who adhered to the airline crews orders to remain in their seats regardless that the plane almost engulfed in flames and smoke pouring inside the plane, well they all perished – however, the ones who ignored the pilots orders and decided to follow their gut instinct instead and fled the danger almost immediately … they all survived.
Sometimes your gut instinct is worth listening to.
I would say ALWAYS trust your gut instinct. Every occasion on which I haven’t and have allowed the brain to override it I have regretted not following the gut.
I’m hugely regretting being one of the sheep.
I was wary but didn’t follow my instincts
My bad 🙁
We all have things to learn, behaviour we would change if we could , things we did “ wrong” from the last 18 months.
admitting to having been wrong is really badly undervalued.
i clapped for the NHS, for example, and fretted greatly over a visit to my mums house to fix her phone at the height of the first lockdown.
Ditto Piper Alpha,
Mostly the ones who survived were those who ignored the safety drill advice to go to muster and instead went into the sea.
Sounds a lot like what happened when people in Grenfell Tower were told to stay in the building.
100%
The lack of N-protein antibodies in the vaccinated-infected is very important information that should have been identified in the clinical trials (if only we’d waited for them to offer this type of information).
A consequence of this would be increased numbers of infected with higher viral loads in future covid waves (because the vaccinated are the majority and the unvaccinated will be better protected once infected).
Thus it seems universal vaccination might well directly increase the risks to the vulnerable from covid, who will have reduced immunity from hospitalisation/death (waning protection) at the same time as covid case numbers being higher than they would have been if we’d relied on herd-immunity from natural infection for the non-vulnerable.
This has been identified in the clinical trials. It’s just that the clinical trials have been somewhat larger than normal – by several tens of millions of people – and no one was told they were part of the clinical trial. And that the trials are still ongoing.
Joking aside, keep your eye on NL in the next 2 months. Infections/positive cases are starting to rise here, as was to be expected for the time of year.
But the slow-ish roll-out started in January for a fairly small group, who were double-dosed in Feb, then it started to pick up going down the age cohorts. Double dosing for over 50s was probably completed around June/July. That means right in the middle of winter whatever protection there was will have wanted.
Boosters for the elderly have been announced for November, but no mention of anyone else – yet. I think there will be a big upswing in double vaxxers ending up in hospital with covid in the next few months.
Ooof those timings look bad for the dutch.
A bit early to jump to conclusions but it is a concern. At best, it might mean the vaccinated will require boosters in perpetuity. In this scenario we would never achieve herd immunity.
I really don’t like the sound of “boosters in perpetuity”
You may endup like this
The question I’ve had since first reading about this possible “hobbling” effect is how do they know that the n-abs are fewer in people who were only infected by Co19 *after* vaccination than in people who were infected by Co19 *before* being vaccinated?
How do they know which people already “had” covid before their vaccination and which people had not?
I was under the impression that noone was checking to see if people coming for vaccination had already had Covid, or even if they were they might not detect infection more than six months earlier, or be misled by the highly unreliable PCR test results that people might have had.
It’s possible that this is a really dumb question but I really don’t understand how/where they are getting these figures from, of lower n-abs in those vaccinated before first infection than in those infected before vaccination. 😕
Exactly what occurred to me. Lots of people have had covid but have never gone for a test. Maybe never knew that they had it. We don’t know how many. We also have no idea whether they were jabbed. The figures are meaningless.
Read page 11.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf
The original plan – to protect the old and vulnerable and let the virus circulate freely through the population was always the correct response.
But we “followed the science”, now to possible devastating consequences
They have to stop vaccinating especially the kids until the N antibody response has been fully investigated, why this isn’t hitting every news stream is criminal, but then they didn’t report that the mutations would likely be spread by the vaccinated either.
What an utter disaster
Of course it was the correct response, but it wouldn’t have fuelled the income stream for big Pharma and the relentless drive towards ‘vaccine passports’. It’s never been and still isn’t about health. That should be clear as muck by now. Boosters could potentially make things even worse.
Indeed. The vaccine wasn’t brought in for the virus. The virus was brought in for the vaccine passport. Once you realise this, everything makes sense.
“The vaccine wasn’t brought in for the virus. The virus was brought in for the vaccine ..”
Cracking two sentences there. Simple, but effective in it’s delivery. I am going to use that.
When they started the suppression of HCQ and later Ivermectin it became clear to me how rotten to the core the global medical fraternity is. From the WHO in the pockets of China and Gates, to Fauci using US taxpayers money to pay Dazack to organise gain of function work in Wuhan involving Jeremy Farrar of the Welcome Foundation and Vallance in emails, this whole plandemic has been organised to start the Build Back Better New World Order. Globalists and the WEF and UN are behind all of this and Climate Change. Big Corporation’s are working with our Governments to suck wealth out of the masses like leeches. They have deliberately made lockdowns as unpleasant as possible, attempting to destroy any pleasure or fun in life, the psychological and propaganda onslaught has been and still is truly disgusting, especially for anyone with a small business and our children. They don’t care one jot, but continue ramping up the fear to coerce us to take more and more of these experimental injections that, as each day goes past appear more and more dangerous and more useless. Australia, New Zealand, France, Lithuania, Italy, Canada, most of the US have implemented no jab… Read more »
“They have to stop vaccinating especially the kids” Absolutely. I had the 24-hour Dutch news on yesterday in the background, it runs on a loop and now and again they pop in a clip from current affairs programmes, which I avoid like the plague. It was about vaxxing children under 12 if this becomes authorised. First was a former children’s rights commissioner, who pointed out how wrong this was and why, health, rights of the child, that even if it helped curb the pandemic it wasn’t right to vaxx children to protect the elderly and so on. Good stuff. Then they were speaking to some bloke in the studio who agreed in principle that more research was needed, but that it might be necessary to vaxx kids. He then went on to say that it wouldn’t be necessary to vaxx kids if only adults would do their civic duty and get vaxxed. If I could have crawled throught the telly and throttled him I would have. So, first he is clearly stating that vaxxing kids is in no way shape or form anything to do with their health – if it’s for their health, then you recommend it, regardless of… Read more »
“We” didn’t follow anything. “They” followed Davos and the Private Finance/Pharma Industrial Complex.
When will they stop referring to this short lasting treatment as a ‘vaccine’?
Temporarily sometimes efficient prophylactic treatment that objectively most people don’t need at all, with often severe side short term effects and totally unknown long term ones.
I pass.
We have known since almost the day the first one was brought out that they do not conform to the word vaccine.
It’s not a ‘treatment’ either.
‘Doctors’, ‘scientists’ and politicians playing God has never had, isn’t having and won’t ever have a happy ending.
It would mean the vaccines may make reinfections and serious illness upon reinfection more likely
No one mentioned this in the ‘95% efficacy vaccine’ sales pitch
“Conspiracy theorists” is a pejorative term deployed to label persons who blame events on the evil intentions of other persons. In this case, it describes persons all over the world who, unconvinced by the propaganda, are able to see the truth.
That and “Anti-vaxxers” – the nuance is ignored that many people against these particular “vaccines” are (or were!) in many cases broadly in favour of properly-tested vaccines offered to appropriate demographic groups.
Even the most rabid pro vaxxer cannot pretend that there are no long term effects since there has been no long term to test, yet still they do.
I think it’s this genius thinking that lies behind it:
50 million people with 6 months of data = 300 million months
= 2 million people with 150 months of data, ergo we have over 10 years of data
Or some bullshit like that
Just a thought but aren’t the so called “vaccinated” more likely to get tested (for something that they have been vaccinated against, but thats another story). As the hysterical have bought into this farce, hook, line and sinker then to stop would be an admission of being wrong and then look stupid so they keep getting tested.
Don’t know if there are stats on that (they would be inconvenient, so the government probably doesn’t collect / release them) – but it must surely be true. Those who think this is all a massive over-reaction are likely to both refuse the vaccine and never get tested, whereas bedwetters are likely to be first in the vaccine queue and with boxes of LFTs at home.
Spot on!
Thanks for the update Will. The Norman Fenton analysis is indeed very interesting. I’d previously spotted that the ONS data in table 5 of the publication linked below has an age standardised mortality (ASM) for non-covid death of 23.7 per 100,000 in the unvaccinated and 14.6 per 100,000 in the double experimentally vaccinated for the latest week for which data is available, week 26. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland On the surface, leaving aside the limitations of using age standardisation to compare two populations (the unvaccinated and double vaccinated) with a widely differing age structure (the unvaccinated group is strongly weighted away from older ages), this is implying that an unvaccinated person has a significantly higher chance of dying of any non covid cause than a double vaccinated person of the same age. At least it’s saying this on an overall basis where you package the answers across different age groups up into a single rate, the age standardised mortality rate. If this is the case then you’d expect also that an unvaccinated person would be more likely to die with their death labelled as covid than a double vaccinated person of the same age regardless of any efficacy of the experimental vaccines. For… Read more »
The deception can also be seen in the bar charts for hospitalisation/deaths. Looking at those, it looks like hospitals are teeming with unvaccinated covid patients, when the numbers themselves make it clear that the double vaxxed are greater in absolute numbers – presumbly what really counts in terms of overburdening the hospitals is how many people end up there, not what percentage of a given group they are. Also, considering it has been acknowledged that among the most vulnerable group there will always be some who will become very ill/die, regardless of vaccination status, i.e. a particular % will always succumb to the virus, surely that should be taken into account when looking at this. As the vaxxed group is larger than the unvaxxed group (even if not as large as claimed, I suspect it is still larger than the unvaxxed group), it stands to reason that the absolute number of people in that group that will always be vulnerable is larger than that in the unvaxxed group. So as time goes by and those who cannot overcome the virus succumb to it, I would expect that at some point those being hospitalised/dying in the vaxxed group will start to… Read more »
A German hospital in Weimar has just announced that they will not report anyone vaxxed anymore, because this would help only the critics.
You couldn’t make it up.
That would appear to be “science” these days. Sort of like the CDC’s guidance as of May that the double vaxxed need only be tested if they were in hospital or had died – yep, perfect way to prove that double vaxxing stops infections – no tests, no infections. The science according to Big Pharma and its bought and paid for accolytes.
You’d think that anyone claiming to be a real doctor or scientist would be ashamed beyond words of this sham. If their drugs and measures work, there is no need to silence people, no need to move goalposts, no need to hide or manipulate data. At this point I believe I would get more honesty on side effects from a drug pusher on the streets.
Thanks for that analysis.
It is very likely that age-standardised mortality is difficult to use for vaccine/unvaccinated comparisons when there’s such a massive age effect in vaccination status — this will result in small differences being amplified massively through age effects.
ASM is an appropriate method to use for comparison between countries with differences in their age demographics. It is very dangerous to use it for comparison of two sub-populations with highly different age-demographics in the way we’re seeing.
Agree we need to be careful with age standardisation. Because 75% of all cause deaths in the European population to which it is standardised might be in the over 70s say (I haven’t checked so that’s a guess based on England and Wales) then really what the age standardised figure is telling you about is the vaccine effect in the over 70s mainly as that’s where 75% of the effect relates to. It isn’t really telling you anything obvious about younger age groups. So the question is, is the unvaccinated rate as a proportion of vaccinated and double vaccinated combined in the over 70s about 5% as per the attached? If it is really 10% then that creates a major error. The ASM for non covid mortality of 23.7 or 14.6 for the unvaccinated and double vaccinated respectively calculated by the ONS based on 5% unvaccinated say suddenly turns into 11.9 (= 23.7* 5/10) and 15.4 (=14.6 * 95/90) for the unvaccinated and vaccinated. A complete turnaround. And suddenly that explains away a higher age standardised mortality in the unvaccinated or an apparent efficacy in PHE figures of the vaccine against death. I realise… Read more »
Interesting that the ONS data (table 5) seem to show that from early June to at least until early July (where the reporting period ends), the weekly age-standardised non-covid death rates for people who had a first jab at least 21 days beforehand was 4 times higher than in the unvaccinated. If that’s true, that’s pretty shocking. Would be interesting to see the data broken down by age group to make more sense of these figures.
What is fascinating is the sudden storm of excuses that have emerged now that the figures aren’t going the ‘right’ way. It’s religion defending itself, not science.
” … mortality (ASM) for non-covid death of 23.7 per 100,000 in the unvaccinated and 14.6 per 100,000 in the double experimentally vaccinated … 23.7 is much greater than 14.6.”
Leaving aside the age standardized argument (a bit of a red herring) : no
The difference is miniscule, because it is the number per 100,000. Thus the real difference between the two figures is (23.7-14.6)/100,000 = 0.0091% i.e around 1 in 11,000
This is the absolute risk reduction. Even allowing for questions about the data, and those that would waffle on about absolute risk being dependent on the incidence of the virus (Blah!) – it’s easy to see that the figure is so small that nothing will get over the degree of ineffectiveness.
You need to listen to this bloke Will.. he’ll let you know about the so called worth of these jabs.. Mr Boris himself.. bit by bit the truth about these useless pricks is dribbling from the horses mouth..
https://twitter.com/i/status/1451665596085592070
So from the horses mouth, no case for vaccine passports, no case for discrimination against ‘unvaccinated’ international travellers in terms of testing and quarantine and no case for mandatory ‘vaccination’ of healthcare workers. Where are the human rights lawyers when you need them?
That’s just what I’d like to know ‘isobar’.. how right you are.. but heh.. the boosters will make everything right..
and a massive case for testing to be used to confirm that people who have had covid have natural immunity
…“doesn’t protect you from passing it on so now is the time to get your booster” – total non-sequitur. How is the fact that they don’t prevent infection/transmission related to the need to get a booster? There isn’t even the pretence of a coherent argument. We are now in the twilight zone, the last scintilla of reason just rode out of town.
Is The johnson starting to build an alibi? When the muck hits the turbine he can say, ‘I never said this stopped infection or transmission – I told the truth that it was just a prophylactic.’
I am genuinely concerned now for those that have been blackmailed, coerced, shamed and threatened into taking this experimental gene therapy, of which the short-term side-effects are now known, but who knows what the long-term effects are going to be?
Are you concerned for the sheep who took the jab for a free Big Mac?
‘CDC director: U.S. may change definition of “fully vaccinated” as boosters roll out’
https://www.axios.com/cdc-fully-covid-vaccinated-definition-update-5c2312d9-64f4-4bb7-a289-04c00889a573.html
Guess that, sure as eggs are eggs, the UK will follow suit!
Daily Mail already has an article on just that. I think this will flip people out.
Yes, if it’s the article about needing to be triple-jabbed before going on holiday, I have posted a link to that in the comments below.
I hope so.
No doubt everyone on here saw this coming miles off, but it’ll no doubt come as a nasty shock to the sheeple who believe everything the MSM tells them!
The smarter sheeple have just started to scratch their heads.
Let’s see what will make them do more and when, this could be a trigger.
The dumb and the most zealous ones are still in a coma/unreachable anyway.
Rochelle Walensky – Tikkun Olam
Glad to see us unvaccinated are part of the control group.
Whatever the ‘truth’ it is interesting to compare the unevidenced assertion by Mr Spiegelhalter that the unvaccinated numbers are based on biased estimates and the detailed analysis by Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil suggesting a bias in the opposite direction.
Perhaps Spiegelhalter’s title should be changed from Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk to Professor of Unevidenced Assertions that add nothing to Public Understanding
My take on his tweet was that UKHSA is now a crazy loon conspiracy theory website. So when shills, when trying to counter a cogent argument, put in their comments that someone must have got their info from FaceAche or Twatter, they can now add UKHSA to that list 🙂
It sounds like Spiegelhalter has ‘gone emeritus’ – a well-known phenomenon affecting high profile academics when they retire.
They are blocking me from posting this information.. my detailed post has been wiped.
It was about Relative risk and Absolute risk and how the fraudulent 95% figure was arrived at by the pharmaceutical companies..
Please inform yourselves because its critically important.. Absolute v Relative Risk.
https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/vaccine-makers-claim-covid-shots-are-95-effective-but-what-does-that-mean/
Properly measuring vaccine efficacy and risk reward..
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/properly-measuring-vaccine-efficacy
When one does the math, the Pfizer clinical trial numbers showed: “The risk reduction in absolute terms [was] only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% [in the placebo group] to a minimal risk of 0.04% [in the vaccine group].” (Dividing 0.7 — the difference between the two groups — by 0.74 is the mathematical calculation that produced the touted “95% effective” number).
0.74% to 0.04% is a really good reduction. If the ARR of 0.7% or RRR of 95% was maintained long term without negative side effects, that’s fantastic. Not sure why you think the numbers themselves are fraudulent?
“0.74% to 0.04% is a really good reduction”
Now that is the best laugh on the blog.
There were some technical issues with the DS site earlier, I could log in but received a ‘nonce is invalid’ error when trying to post, something to do with cookies apparently.
No it wasn’t the ‘nonce is invalid‘ error.. my post was flagged for moderation and ‘disappeared’
Then perhaps the censorship of alternative views has crept its way on here too then, disturbing but not surprising.
As much as I appreciate the platform to comment.. the majority of material published on this site is far from truly sceptical, its controlled opposition. Sad but true..
Toby and his team have to be careful what they promote above the line but it still gives us the opportunity to share what we know, much like the Daily Mail with its splendid comments section.
I don’t think it’s controlled opposition, I just think they are over cautious and also slightly too middle class to be genuinely free-thinking
More likely part of the rebooting process. George Ls comment is not contentious.
Did you have lots of links? that happens if you have more than 2 or 3
Yes that’s happened to me a couple of times – but usually when I am using my phone.
Absolute risk for a vaccine depends on timescale and prevalence, therefore absolute risk reduction also depends on the same variables. For the Pfizer trial the absolute risk at the time (when prevalence was low) over that period (not sure how long the average time was from vaccination to end of trial) was apparently only 0.74%. However, in another context over a longer timescale the absolute risk may be much higher and so the absolute risk reduction will be much higher.
For a worked example see my comment here (with correction that follows).
Stop trying to escape from the real world, MTF!
Of course any vaccine or medical treatment comes with potential benefits and potential harms.
Actual risk increase from the adverse affects of the experimental vaccine increase with every ‘dose’ of the spike protein.
You seem to want to scale up the benefits you perceive over a longer timescale but are ignoring the the scale up of harms through having to receive regular boosters.
Perhaps some have got away with playing Russian roulette once or twice. But how many times can you play Russian roulette and get away with it?
Educate me please:
UKHSA data shows that 72% of all deaths “with covid” are double jabbed.
83% in the 80+ age group.
So how are deaths per 100,000 more than twice as high in the un-jabbed?
Presumably because 95% of the population over 75 are vaxxed
But 4/5 of them are dying ‘with covid’ anyway.
That means deaths per 100,000 should be 4 times higher in the jabbed shouldn’t it?
Depends what the vaccine efficacy is
And sorry, where is the 4/5 from?
From the UKHSA covid vaccine surveillance report – weeks 34-37 in my example.
It showed 83% of deaths “with covid” in the 80+ age group are double jabbed, I rounded it down a little to 80% or 4/5.
The most recent report (table 4, p15) is even more damning, showing 86% of the deaths were double jabbed. And across all ages, 77% of “with covid” deaths were double jabbed.
Gotcha.
If around 80pct of people are jabbed and 80pct of COVID deaths are in the jabbed, then the vaccine efficacy is none whatsoever.
If it’s more like 95% are jabbed, but only 80% of deaths are in the jabbed…
5% of the people are leading to 20% of deaths, while 95% of people lead to 80% of deaths…
…so your death ratios are 20/5 (= 4) and 80/95 (= 0.84),
…which means your vaccine efficacy on reducing death is:
1- (0.84/4) x 100% = 80%
Does that help? I think my maths is right. I don’t know if 95% is right. You can try it with different age groups if you have the data
Same in Northern Ireland.
Table 2 shows the raw numbers in each publication. Thats where the 75% double vaccinated can seen to be in line with above.
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/articles/covid-19-vaccination-status
It is in a population of around 1.8m.
Normal all cause deaths here per month is around 1,200.
it’s not trivial at 185 total in the month of September (75% double vaccinated) either. And when compared to the same period last year its up by a factor of around 7 or 8 (19 Covid deaths then with no vaccine).
The full data set is [here ](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZGYxNjYzNmUtOTlmZS00ODAxLWE1YTEtMjA0NjZhMzlmN2JmIiwidCI6IjljOWEzMGRlLWQ4ZDctNGFhNC05NjAwLTRiZTc2MjVmZjZjNSIsImMiOjh9).
September past, at 185, was the 4th highest in the 16 months since the pandemic began here. The worst was Jan this year at 525 and Feb at 193.
We’ve 80% of adults now vaccinated, we are told. Around 1.1m adults they say.
If we take the quoted 91% effectiveness figure for the vaccine. If that were the case, by my calculations, we’d have had 1,500 deaths + in September without the vaccine. Three times what our highest ever month was.
To say, “but it would be so much worse without the vaccine” is stretching this to its limits. Surely that makes it clear now.
Looks like we need vaccine passports after all – to protect the unjabbed from the jabbed.
Anyone who has had more than one dose needs to be banned from large events, nightclubs, cafe’s, bars and pubs until sufficient time for their clot shot to fade. Two years should do it just to be safe. Maybe next time they will think twice before participating in a mass medical trial.
Seems like the problems with vaccinating during a pandemic using a “vaccine” targeting only one virus protein, which some scientists predicted, are coming about.
So the authorities must be desperate for there to be no “control group” to compare the vaccinated against to cover up their “errors”.
That is assuming they are errors of course.
Breaking news:
‘Holidaymakers ‘will need THREE Covid jabs if they want to travel abroad next year’ but boosters won’t be available to under-50s until ‘well after Christmas’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10123055/Holidaymakers-need-THREE-Covid-jabs-want-travel-abroad-year.html
And the boosters go on and on into infinity..
The near future .. 2 jabs + 8 boosters = sorry sir but your vaccine passport is invalid until you submit to your 9th booster.. have a nice day!
But you might get one of these…
I know that I shouldn’t but I love that. A very deserved piss take!
Why are you calling me an invalid nonce ?
LOL
I don’t think the infection data is a surprise to anyone in the real world- all the people I know who have got Covid recently are double vaxxed.
But this issue about the vaccine hindering immune response is interesting and may explain why previously infected people who are now double vaxxed get Covid again- I know someone in that exact situation. One to watch.
Got it with symptoms?
Double the likelihood of infection, half the rate of death….. let’s see where that leads, let’s suppose we have a group of 1000 vaccinated & 1000 unvaccinated & 10% of the un-vaccinated get Covid, & they have a 10% fatality rate:
Un-vaccinated 10 infections, 1 death
Vaccinated 20 infections, 1 death
There you go, 2x the infection rate, 1/2 the death rate & you end up at the same place.
That however assumes that the unvaccinated had no prior natural immunity. If even half of the 1000 unvaccinated had already had and recovered from covid – highly likely at this point down the track – then those numbers would be different and even better on the unvaccinated side.
I think I need to disagree with you on that point. The figures used have to include natural immunity, as that is what is happening at a national level to cause the vaccinated to be now more susceptible to infection.
However, if this trend was to continue long term, more and more unvaccinated are going to get immunity. Especially at the rate the vaxxed are spreading it around.
These figures can only get worse for the vaccinated.
So basically the vaccines are useless and on top of that those who took up the vaccine offer now have years of uncertainty regarding this new vaccines impact on their overall well-being – who knows what damage these vaccines are doing to their bodies and what health scares we will see in the future linked to the vaccine?
Well those who took up the offer just so they can jet off to Mallorca for a couple weeks, I hope it was worth it.
Personally I’m glad I refused the jab from the start.
Even more stupid because you don’t have to be vaxxed to go to Mallorca. I went this summer unvaxxed.
I’ve just remembered that back in 2008 I backed a horse called “Comply or Die” in the Grand National as at the time I said it’s an EU diktat. Now “Comply or Die” is a way of life.
The horse won.
Okay so jabbed infection rates are double the un-jabbed in the 40-79 age group.
That alone destroys the ‘waning immunity’ narrative because people are clearly ‘waning’ to below pre- jabbed levels i.e. normal/natural immunity levels. Meaning their immune systems have been compromised by the jabs.
Another proposed health app from the government which could be linked to a ‘vaccine passport’ and turned through 180 degrees to penalise those who make ‘bad choices’. All part of the plan for digital control of our lives!
https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/national/19665058.app-help-people-eat-better-exercise-will-launch-next-year/
Yes and then the Government guidelines on healthy food is incorrect…..
I am new to these pages and would like to make a request that someone who is in the relevant profession might like to publish some information and an analysis, on, and of, the ADR (adverse reaction) data that is available please (or provide a suitable hyperlink to reliable data; and not the ‘massaged data’ that seems to meet the ‘desired narrative’)?
I feel that the matter of vaccine ADRs is something that is not being discussed enough and find this to be a matter of concern, especially in view of the fact that the vaccine has not been rigorously ‘field tested’ as, at this juncture, it is far too soon to have gathered enough data to accurately evaluate this risk.
Thanks in anticipation.
https://twitter.com/Noconsent12/status/1451217352184549379
The hard fact is, even allowing for wide margins of error, the jabs are patently not doing what the promo claimed in 2020. Are, in fact, another dodgy investment. Even for the 70-79 age group (possibly the most indicative), the absolute risk reduction remains at <0.5% for hospitalisation and death. Even the most enthusiastic relative risk dupe can’t turn that into a conquest! I’m afraid Spiegelhalter blew his street cred a while back. He may be partly right in terms of data reliability – but that’s a two-way street, and still leads to the above conclusion. It’s a shame – I’ve previously always rated him, but he was captured by the Narrative. Norman Fenton has always been more convincing on this (OK – I may be accused of possible confirmation bias, but his critical approach is more convincing). Whatever – we are seeing a massive rate of infection in the jabbed when compared to the claims being made, and those claims come from about the most unreliable sources that you can imagine. Both the data and the theory create a picture of extreme concern. I hold no candle for any particular treatment, but what really winds me up, beyond the patent… Read more »
Hobble the immune system, as in wipe it out slowly. Yes some believe that is exactly what these vaxx are doing.