Vaccinating the Under-50s is an Utter Waste of up to £1 Billion of Taxpayers’ Money
People will have various views as to the reasons, but what is clear from the Danish Health Authority is that it is no longer recommending vaccination to the under-50s.
The Danish Health Authority expects that the number of COVID-19 infections will increase during autumn and winter. Therefore, we recommend vaccination of people aged 50 years and over as well as selected risk groups.
It’s true that the “selected risk groups” include healthcare workers and those vulnerable. Also buried in the text is the recommendation that those between 40 and 50 should finish any vaccination course started. But the overall message is clear: vaccination is for the over-50s.
We can contrast this with U.K. policy, where the NHS continues to promote vaccination to all, even down to the very young.
Compare the Danish advice – “Children and adolescents rarely become severely ill from the Omicron variant of COVID-19” – with that of the NHS – “Two doses are being offered to all children aged 12 to 15, and some aged 5 to 11, to give them the best protection against COVID-19”.
The Danish advice shouldn’t surprise us. From the first days of Covid, those who looked at the numbers saw that Covid has two completely different faces: to the young it is irrelevant; only to the old and infirm can it present a significant risk.
Why does that matter nowadays? Because to ignore that basic arithmetic is to present ourselves with financial burdens which are both substantial and unnecessary. By advocating vaccination to the under-50s, by extending it even to young children of five years and over, the NHS is targeting about 32 million more people than under Denmark’s rules. Denmark is a comparatively rich country with GDP per capita more than 20% larger than the U.K. Yet, having assessed the evidence, Denmark baulks at vaccinating the under-50s. How much more should we in the U.K., with our straitened economy, be alert to this poor use of public funds?
Published figures give us only partial insight into the costs of vaccination. The National Audit Office report put a figure of £11.7 billion on the 267 million “potential COVID-19 vaccine doses secured by the U.K. Government’s signed contracts”. That works out at £44 a dose.
As for the ongoing costs, part of that will be the purchase costs of the vaccine. AstraZeneca agreed to make no profit from the initial rollout of the vaccine and take profits from ongoing sales. Initially, the U.K. Government was paying £3 per dose but, in view of the initial agreement, it is hard to imagine AstraZeneca keeping these prices to that level when the other vaccines are about £15 a dose. It would be unrealistic optimism to imagine the U.K. programme acquiring vaccine at less than £15 a dose, particularly as AstraZeneca is barely used anymore, particularly in younger people. Then there are the costs of delivering the vaccine: the latest figures I can find are of GPs being paid £12.58 per Covid vaccine jab administered. Together with NHS overheads, a reasonable estimate for the total cost per Covid vaccine dose is around £30.
The U.K. decision to continue a vaccination programme to the 32 million under 50s, at an estimated cost of £30 per dose, thus comes in at a figure of around £1 billion.
Let’s compare this with other things the NHS could spend £1 billion on. Cancer care, for instance. The annual total costs of cancer care are around £5 billion. So, by having a Covid vaccination programme which includes those 32 million under-50s who are at very low risk of suffering from Covid, the NHS is embarking on a course to spend an amount equal to up to a fifth of the cancer budget on something that Denmark isn’t even doing. True, only a portion of the 32 million will take up the jab, but in principle the NHS is committed to injecting all of them.
The answer is clear. We should stop vaccinating the healthy under-50s; it’s a huge waste of scarce public funds that would be better spent on other much more pressing health needs.
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’m 68. I did a risk analysis about two years ago based on co-morbidities, exercise, diet, general health, etc, and came up with a personal lethality considerably below the chance of a mortal lightning strike. At that point I lost interest in the WuFlu. Anyone with a higher rating needs to change their own unhealthy lifestyle, not demand that healthy people change theirs. My 96 year old mother agrees.
I am some years your senior and I find that being anti-social works wonders.
Hear hear; and don’t forget the apparent risk of injuries caused by the products on offer as well, when doing the sums. I’m a little younger, but not that much, and came to the same conclusion in March ’21.
My ex-boss actually guffawed at me when I said I had done a risk benefit analysis and decided not to take part in the experiment
He has an IT background so intellectually capable of logical thinking but obviously a sheep and a rude one at that. I have a strong suspicion he shared this information with my colleagues (not that I give a damn whether they know or not but it wasn’t his information to share)
I did my own risk assessment before they started this ridiculous jabbing nonsense even wrote to my doctor’s practice that under no circumstances was I taking an under developed rushed vaccine. That was when I was 66 I’m now 69 cycle 3 to 4 times a week, play golf twice weekly, tend an allotment with my other half and walk our dogs twice daily every day. I have absolutely no intention of ever taking this murderous experimental gene therapy treatment.
Is there any evidence (and I mean evidence, not someone’s opinion) obtained in a double-blind trial that Covid vaccinations do anything beneficial for anybody.
I understand that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of “better outcomes” and “reduced mortality” from earlier days, but have they ever been tested against an unvaccinated cohort in the past year?
Absolutely. It seems to me that this apparently enlightened policy by the Danish is simply based on the supposed higher risk of COVID for older aged groups. But that’s just the first of a set of issues to be considered.
1. Do you actually need the treatment?
2. Does the treatment actually work?
3. If it works, does it on balance do more harm than good?
4. If it works and does more good than harn, is there nothing else that works better and or does less harm?
And if the answer to all those is yes, then I guess you can recommend it.
But it seems to me that the most enlightened like the Danish are still only considering the first of those issues.
Interesting that you should bring up treatment. There are post facto treatments available that have been continuously briefed against and as far as I am aware none of these has been given a fair crack of the whip, let alone tested in legitimate blind trials.
The lack of availability of prophylactic or therapeutic treatments has in my view clearly produced far worse outcomes for most people and at much higher monetary cost from purchase and application of vaccines, the obtrusive personal tracing “services”, increased hospitalisation (and particularly forced ventilation) and the consequences of isolation.
Fauci stated clearly in 2005 that Chloroquinine was a safe and effective prophylactic against SARS
Dr Chetty, a South African rural GP has kept a detailed log of his 8,000+ & counting series of patients who he has successfully treated with his 8th Day protocol using meds for the purpose for which they were licensed, so no conflicts with off licence prescribing. A detailed case series is as valuable to a clinician as an RCT as it demonstrates real world benefits. To my knowledge, the last time I checked, there had been no need for O2 use, no hospitalisations & no deaths.
His approach was to treat just as the cytokine storm was initiated & by stopping the cytokine storm, he stopped the respiratory complications & thus the respiratory deaths.
It’s amazing what one doctor can achieve by using experience, questioning the symptoms, meticulous documentation & doing what any good doctor should do, which is to treat the symptoms.
This approach is how medicine has evolved over the centuries, especially beneficial where an RCT is impossible due to insufficient eligible recruits to a trial. He shared his knowledge freely with other medics who have gone on to successfully & cheaply treat their patients.
We know (well I know anyway) that those vitamin D trials were rigged – what they did was nothing like what the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service were recommending. One suspects it would have been a similar story with anything else that might have threatened the highest possible uptake of the MRNA medication (“horse dewormer ” for example).
It is now admitted the mRNA products do not prevent infection, significant numbers of vaccinated people are hospitalised, significant numbers die. Data now shows vaccination, particularly booster doses, significantly in creases risk of infection, severity of disease and death.
Data still shows severity of disease and death occurs almost uniquely in those at or past life expectancy and over 95% with one or more comorbidity.
That qualitative evidence returns the answer No to your first 3 questions, as for Q4, the answer is, natural immunity.
In fact vaccination is contraindicated, even in the most at risk group whom it will make more vulnerable to opportunistic infection for 14 days post-injection and for whom it will not prevent death, maybe prevent a slightly earlier death, maybe not.
In answer to your question: no. Double-blind trials are impossible under these circumstances so they rely on ‘observational’ studies comparing jabbed v unjabbed, double jabbed v triple jabbed. The problem with such studies is confounding factors – which is what double-blind comparative studies try to eliminate. But the real problem is, the virus has been in circulation for over two years and is rapidly evolving so who and the number of people exposed to it cannot be known. Plus people were vaccinated at different times, some with one dose, others two or three doses. It cannot be known if any of these people had been prior exposed to the virus, or exposed after vaccination, or both. Similarly unvaccinated people, had they prior exposure, how many times? And in both cases to which variant or multiple variants? Then we have unreliable testing, unreliable attributation as cause of death, in some Countries a financial incentive for hospitals to diagnose CoVid. in summary – we have no clean, reliable data to make any valid claims for the mRNA products. But it is worth asking, if it were possible to come up with a safe effective ‘vaccine’ for this particular coronavirus after just a… Read more »
They “vaccinated” the control group in the long term safety trials so they are now worthless
No surprise.
Bigpharma always do this
When you look into the history of the old “common cold unit” (CCU) https://thecommoncoldd.weebly.com/history.html , it appears that they came to the conclusion that there is such a wide range of Rhinoviruses that regularly tweak themselves a bit, which undermined the concept of “vaccination” to prevent infection. Of course, they also discovered (and invented the name of) coronaviruses.
Actually, the promoters of the products on offer at present did not actually claim that it could prevent infection, at least according to the paperwork issued to me in March 2021. It just claimed that it could mitigate the infection, if it happened. Nor did it claim that it could prevent transmission to a third party. The usual suspects did something else to market it though.
In a similar fashion, it is well known that using vaccination against ‘flu is pretty variable, from year to year. There seems to be a degree of guessing as to what is likely to be around each year.
And that’s just one side of the equation. Are they not actually spending public finances on products that can injure the recipients, either directly or by increasing the risk of other problems? Notwithstanding the use of censorship and dodgy advertising, it is acquiring a reputation for such problems. Some cash has been issued for damages (in a somewhat derisory fashion) via their compensation scheme (according to GBN). More to come in the future, maybe.
There is zero clear evidence that the muck has any net benefit for any age group. Zero. Zilch. It’s being sold on faith alone to those morons that still trust their Government.
Talking about morons trusting their government, I just took a peek at the Daily Telegraph (which have shadow-banned me for not accepting my government medicine) and, apparently, Biden is saying that “World faces risk of nuclear Armageddon” – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/07/ukraine-news-latest-advances-war-russia-nuclear-putin/. Idiotic journalists, reporting on an idiotic ‘President’, and commented on by the idiotic public who still seem to think it’s all a game – f*in fools. Looks like a few people though are slowly starting to twig onto the fact that the West’s uncompromising approach of trying to mock and provoke Putin might, just might, be a little dangerous. We’re being led to our fate by a mixture of malevolence and sheer, blind, stupidity.
Is there data on uptake in UK? News from Germany and USA that there a few takers for the current round of jabbing.
Still people going for their first and second sadly in their tens of thousands per week
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
25,000 third or subsequent dose in last week which is 100,000 a month or 1.2M per year so not many but then I don’t know how many people are being offered it – isn’t it only “vulnerable” and over 50s?
I received a text from my GP surgery earlier this week.
Dear xx,
You are eligible for a free COVID booster vaccine this autumn.
If you have had your flu vaccine with in the last 7 days, please do not book. You can book both flu and COVID together with this link.
To book, please follow this link within 48 hours: xxxxxx
Despite my previous endeavours, I obviously haven’t conveyed sufficient disdain to the surgery of the jabs / jabbing programme / unforgivable NHS collusion with the Big Lie.
Free jab? Do they assume that because the jab is free, I will rush to book an appointment? The answer is still No.
I do admit to being somewhat perplexed why I got the text, as I am not eligible for a booster jab as I haven’t had any of the jab series – 1+2+minimum of 1 booster. I’ve had zilch and that’s the way it will stay! I’ve never had, nor want, a flu jab either.
If it’s “free” does that mean I can have all my tax back?
What age band are you in?
I know it’s none of our business but just curious to know who they are offering it to
I’m between 55 and 65 and I’ve had nothing since a letter from my GP for first dose and a follow up call from NHS when I told them I was waiting for long term safety trials to finish
Over 65 / under 70. I supposed I’m classed as vulnerable, being a ‘mature’ person.
Previously – from late 2020 / to mid 2021, I was harassed with texts, phone calls and letters to inform me it was now ‘my turn’ to book / attend for ‘my’ jab appointment. I chose the 12th of Never!
When I made it clear – or so I thought – that I was not interested, I was then inundated with letters and texts asking if I wished to be included in various Covid Vaccine trials. I would be rewarded with a free health check and travel costs. Persistent blighters!
I’m not ready to be bumped off yet by either the ‘caring’ NHS or tyrannical government policies.
Thanks for the information
Maybe they are more persistent the older you are, or it varies by NHS trust
“…with in …”
Oh dear.
Yep, copied and pasted the text, as is.
Have any studies been undertaken on the safety and effectiveness of receiving flu vaccines and COVID-19 injections at the same time, even using mice?
US figures: From 10million jabbed, 770,000 needed medical care
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/us-figures-from-10million-jabbed-770000-needed-medical-care/
Mark Sharman
There’s a crack in everything – that’s how the light gets in
Come & join us when you can. Keep your freedom alive.
Yellow Boards By The Road
Monday 10th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Sandhurst Rd &
B3016 Finchampstead Rd
Wokingham RG40 3JS
Wednesday 12th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A327 Observer Way &
Reading Rd Arborfield
Wokingham RG2 9HT
Thursday 13th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A3095 Warfield Road &
Harvest Ride Warfield
Bracknell RG42 2QH
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The current UK position appears to be very ambiguous. The NHS has seemingly stopped jabbing the under 12s. Someone may correct me but so far isn’t it only the over 60s & ‘clinically vulnerable’ who have been offered an Autumn booster? It’s feasible that the UK have quietly adopted the Danish/Norwegian position.
£30 a dose? And I suppose they use my taxes to pay for all these unnecessary doses – and more of them to pay for the health problems they cause. What a disgrace.
Oh how I agree +++++
£1B here, £1B there; soon we’ll be talking about real money
The cost is way higher. Doctors get £15-20/shot.
The unprecedented volume of serious side effects resulting in incapacity to work and life long care will be horrendous.