The ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 50’ was published by the UK Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England) on Thursday, 16th December 2021, and it shows that the vast majority of Covid-19 cases between November 15th and December 12th were among the fully vaccinated population.
The totals number of cases by vaccination status as confirmed by table 8 of the UKHSA Week 50 Vaccine Surveillance report between November 15th and December 12th 2021 were as follows –
- Not-vaccinated population = 417,606
- Partly vaccinated population = 79,378 cases
- Triple/Double-vaccinated population = 518,373 cases
This means the vaccinated population accounted for 59% of Covid-19 cases between November 15th and December 12th, whilst the not-vaccinated population accounted for 41%. However, if we remove under 18’s from the equation, many of whom aren’t eligible to be vaccinated, the figures are far worse for the vaccinated population.
The totals number of cases by vaccination status in everyone over 18 as confirmed by table 8 of the UKHSA Week 50 Vaccine Surveillance report between November 15th and December 12th 2021, were as follows –
- Not-vaccinated population = 104,612 cases
- Partly vaccinated population = 32,004 cases
- Triple/Double-vaccinated population = 517,061 cases
This means the over 18 vaccinated population accounted for 84% of Covid-19 cases between November 15th and December 12th 2021, whilst the not-vaccinated population accounted for just 16%.
Unfortunately the latest UKHSA report also shows that despite the booster campaign being well underway, the vast majority of Covid-19 hospitalisations were also among the fully vaccinated population between November 15th and December 12th 2021.
- Not-vaccinated population = 3,532
- Partly vaccinated population = 345
- Triple/Double-vaccinated population = 4,256
This means the vaccinated population accounted for 57% of Covid-19 hospitalisations between November 15th and December 12th, whilst the not-vaccinated accounted for just 43%.
But yet again the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated gets much worse when it comes to deaths allegedly related to Covid-19.
The totals number of alleged Covid-19 deaths by vaccination status between November 15th and December 12th, as confirmed by table 10 of the UKHSA report were as follows –
- Not-vaccinated population = 718 deaths
- Partly vaccinated population = 82 deaths
- Triple/Double-vaccinated population = 2,259 deaths
This means the vaccinated population accounted for 77% of Covid-19 deaths between November 15th and December 12th, whilst the not-vaccinated accounted for just 23%.
With the vaccinated population accounting for 6 in every 10 Covid-19 cases, 6 in every 10 Covid-19 hospitalisations, and 8 in every 10 Covid-19 deaths, is there really any justification for the talk that has now started in the mainstream media around mandatory vaccinations in the UK, following the lead of Austria, Greece, Germany, and soon enough France?
Is there any justification for the vaccine passports that have been imposed in Scotland and Wales, and now England?
Is there any justification for restrictions being placed on the unvaccinated population, such as forcing them to be tested and isolate at home for 10 days if a close contact of an alleged confirmed infection, whilst the vaccinated can roam free?
The Covid-19 injections do not prevent infection.
The Covid-19 injections do not prevent transmission.
According to the data it does not look like they prevent hospitalisation or death either.
The only thing that the Covid-19 injections currently prevent is the respect of the basic human rights afforded to every person prior to 2020.
@Reader
This was my statement before you changed its intended meaning:
I am disappointed in your attempt to change the meaning of the words I post. I don’t mind that you have your opinions and that you are as attached to them as you are, but I do mind when you change my words as an argument to support your own because you feel uncertain in using your own words alone. I was not suggesting you wished to downsize govt, I referred to your earlier comment about downgrading the military by 50% to pay for medicare, and I believe you know this was my reference here. If you forgot your words we can find them. If you changed your opinion, you should just say so. But please refrain from quoting my words out of context to change their intended meaning. It is beneath your ability and beyond your goal to do so.
Regarding your repeated use of ad hominy and ridicule to suggest I should refrain from countering your blessed wisdom, I would again suggest that your intellect is greater than such poor arguments. I find the stimulating conversation and arguments on this site are routinely posted by people of intellect and honest discussion which are above such bargain-basement abuse. After overlooking such poor tactics by you in the past, I have come to see this as a routine comment as of late. You can do better and I suggest you do so. In fact, I look forward to a time when you are better able to express yourself openly, without feeling the need of employing such low sport as a foundation to your arguments.
Also, feel free to read my response to Adam’s explanation as to why big govt is not reformed, and is only used as a slogan. He is not wrong that it is used as such. The reason it is used as such is very related to what I have discussed with you thus far.
If you have any comments on this topic to share that are more than derision or redirecting my own words, we can pursue them, but if you choose to continue in the same vein of low sport theatrics as you have done here, we, each, likely have little more to gain for our efforts involved.
It is true that reducing the size of govt is used as a political slogan, but it is because the politicians all want to be elected and the govt employees, who would have to be sacrificed to reduce the size of govt, carry a great deal of clout and power, both to a presidential candidate as well as to a president, and this is true on both sides of the aisle. That being realized, this is among the reasons that the Russia hoax was able to play out and why Trumps whole White House appeared to be taking him on, because they were. If you are not going to correct this issue with the Beurocratic State, you will never eliminate the Deep State. The problem with the calls for reform is that you have to actually be willing to cross swords with the established members of the state to do so. IMHO.
@peloni
No, it was YOU who wished to downsize it – I was arguing AGAINST IT.
My opinion was that it SHOULDN’T be downsized.
I DID state the problem – the government has been taken over by the big business and the super-rich and needs to be freed from the domination of these entities in order to function as it should.
PLEASE, keep to the medical issues where you understand what you are talking about.
PLEASE, do not respond to me because your responses are senseless and contradictory.
PLEASE, read Adam’s post about the term “big government” for your further enlightenment.
In my opinion, “big government” is a slogan, not a term that has any definite meaning. It is very vague. What is big government? Does it mean a government with a large number of employees? If so, just how many employees make a government “big?” If “big government” means a government that enforces many regulations or laws, then how many laws and regulations make a government too”big?”
Life is more complicated in the United States and most other countries than it was when the U.S. Constitution was drawn up in 1787. At that time, Americans only needed a Federal government for a few purposes: To have a small army with which to “repel invasions” and “suppress rebellions” and intervene to stop any possible border wars the might erupt between the states; Creating a customs union to prevent states from imposing tariff’s on goods from other states; Establishing a stable national currency that will be accepted as money throughout the country; banning the individual states from issuing their own currency; paying off the national debt; establishing a national postal system; and having the power to collect taxes and impose tariffs on imports from abroad to pay for this. The 1787 constituion has specific provisions to accomplish these tasks. They all come under the rubric of “achieving a more perfect union” and “providing for the common defense,” the purposes of the Constituion as stated in the preamble.
The problem is that as life has become more complex, people need or at least want the government to deal with some of the more complex problems created by constantly changing technology and a constantly expanding population. And in addition to more complex problems, modern scientific knowledge has created more ways in which government can help people: for example, extending people’s lifespans and reducing pain by financing medical treatment or preventive medicine.
In the late eighteenth century, poverty could be remedied to some extent by private charities and support from relatives. But now, with the number of poor people having risen dramatically due to population growth, and the extended family having largely collapsed, and even the nuclear family under tremendous strain, large sections of public opinion want the government to wage a “war on poverty” and provide aid to the poor. And because there is far more wealth in the country than 230 years ago, mant think that it is now possible to eliminate poverty by “sharing the wealth.”
Whether or not government has grown too big or not depends on whether you believe that government should be doing these things to help people. It certainly can be argued that all this “help” actually harms people. But instead of talking about “big government,” using this term as a vague slogan, conservatives should focus on specific government programs that they think are unnecessary and harmful, and work to abolish them. They should explain with specifics why they think these programs do people more harm than good. Just campaigning against “big government” as a vote-getting slogan at election time does nothing to change government policies or eliminate unnecessary programs.
This from today’s Foxnews:
All tending tosupport the author’s contention that the vaccines have ceased to be effective.
@Reader
You said:
Scroll down and read my words. I never said small, I said smaller. Small is not the same as smaller. The federal govt has 4million employees, and this does not include the military which you(not I) wish to downsize. You don’t have to contain it to the size of George Washington’s hat box but you have to address the problem or live with its consequences continuing. This leviathan that has become the root and purpose of govt is a massive problem upon which much of the current calamities are based and which made much of the current calamities possible. To solve a problem, you have to recognize the problem and remedy it. If you don’t recognize this reality, well, I don’t know what to say.
If the author’s figures are accurate, it means that vaccination has failed as a means of preventing illnesses and deaths from Covid-19, at least in England. The figures are all the more devastating when one considers that the overwhelming majority of adults in England have been vaccinated.
Of course, the British have relieved heavily on non-mNRA vaccines, chiefly aastraZenica, rather than on mNRA vaccines, as in the United States and most other countries. Studies of the “raw” data” in countries where the mNRA vaccines have been chiefly used should be made as a follow-up to this interesting study.
Better “give” than “lend” because lending opens the door to corruption again.
@peloni
You cannot have a small government in a country with a population of 330 million people.
The task is to get the government from under the big business and the super-rich.
What needs to be done:
1) lobbying must be made illegal;
2) private contributions to political campaigns must be made illigal – there will be a government fund which will lend the same amount of money to every candidate;
3) no models are necessary – the top 10% or 1% are not that numerous and will have to be dispossessed of whatever excess they stole in the last 40 years;
4) everyone will pay the same 20% (or whatever) of the federal income tax, Social Security and disability benefits will be exempt from this tax;
5) no more complex and complicated tax regulations which permit the rich to avoid taxation;
6) most other taxes will be abolished, especially the property tax on the only residence and the ability of the government to sell the property for the non-payment of the property tax;
7) businesses which relocate abroad will be taxed at twice the US rate.
Etc., etc.
@Reader
Smaller govt will be less wasteful, easier to regulate and monitor and more efficient to run. The reduced size of govt will create the ability to make it more responsive to the Political State, elected members of the govt who maintain their authority to the consent of the governed, as opposed to the Bureaucratic State, non-elected civil servants, who maintain their authority and power from one administration to the next. (An aside: Some would call this the Deep State – well, I think the Bureaucratic State is a better term for this group, whereas the Deep State really is an aggressive insurgency group within the govt, including members of both the Political and Bureaucratic wings of the govt, for what it is worth.)
The only downside to this solution/salvation is the govt workers who will need to be terminated, many of whom are paid immense salaries which they will not easily be able to replace.
I believe Bill Gates should be in prison where he can run for president of the chain gang if he likes.
This would require a great deal of parsing what from whom. It would be very interesting how you might construct such a model to determine what should be stripped from whom and upon what basis this might be achieved. It would, however, be quite untenable, judicially. The right of private property is a fundamental tenet upon which liberty is based, ie the pursuit of happiness actually means the pursuit of property. If you could unblend this, you could unblend anything. Should you gain the ability to remake the world, you would have to contend with reckoning what you desire with what you can defend as reasonable and correct, or else what you create will surely fail to thrive. Should you be empowered to strip the wealth of a man, what would stop such actions from stripping the wealth from you or I, for such wealth and belongings we own. I read daily of people who suggest such vague plots of equity as you do here, but they always fail to suggest a method or means of doing so which would not shatter the principles upon which they claim to hold dear. If you have such thoughts to share, you should share them. If you do not, you should put some thought on how you would square that circle.