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.
@peloni
And what do you suggest?
Making the government even smaller so that the lobbyists have fewer politicians to buy?
Or making Bill Gates President?
I think that the thieves must return what they stole and start paying taxes like everybody else – a straight percentage,very simple.
@Reader
I quite agree with this and don’t find it controversial in the least. For what it is worth.
The highlighted section can be summed into one word: Corruption – govt for the powerful as opposed to govt for the people. Thomas Jefferson once said “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.” Whereas this is true, it fails to be true when safeguards are overridden, ignored, or simply do not exist. My father of Blessed Memory, often told me that you can always trust that a man will be honest when he has no choice – “Give them one door and no window and you know by what route he will leave the room without the need of trust or guesswork”. Whereas choice is a powerful element of liberty, liberty should always be the right of the people and never an option for their govt. Restricting the rights of govt to do what is in the public’s interest is the fundamental purpose for which checks and balances were devised, namely to give govt no choice but to work towards the public’s good. The growth of govt, however, is diametrically opposed to the premise of checks and balances, and the growth of govt has been expanding at a fiercesome pace for many decades. The larger the workforce the greater the security need to the loss of efficient govt. Hence, the expanding govt is an enormous point of conflict against honest govt, and to a certain point the concept of too big to be checked has led to an easy lack of balance in govt. This was a roadmap for corruption. Just one of many, though, but, still, a very large one.
@peloni
Read this to find out what kind of “capitalism” you really live in:
https://www.thebulwark.com/fifty-trillion-reasons-why/
@Felix
YOU began tossing a baseless statement accusing myself and Ted of being totalitarians. I told you that your demand that the state be allowed to remove personal liberties without consent was a totalitarian move and requested you explain how your view is not that of a totalitarian.
1. I am still waiting for the answer to this question….
You now claim that capitalism is a totalitarian system?? Do I have that right?
2. Explain that please and please refer to the actual definition I provided or explain why you won’t. This should be interesting.
**If you fail to actually respond to these questions, I will accept your statements as ad hominy twaddle and ignore your comment on this matter further.
I repeat what I said above very simple but true. And concerning the virus it does come down to simplicity.
Reader they will never cut military because capitalism in crisis always makes war which IS profitable. This person Peloni is a servant of America and it’s capitalism.
And while you spout about others being totalitarian it is you supporting the American capitalist system which ROBS THE INDIVIDUAL OF DIGNITY AND LIFE ITSELF.
This is in fact the very definition of capitalism in action. I’ve never seen it in more blatant terms
Capitalism is about having the capital and making a profit.
If things such as a health service free at the point of need do not fall into that then it is doomed.
That’s why the system in America and Britain fell apart.
And then reflecting the system people like Peloni come on the scene.
Sure let’s do that but I misunderstood I thought you asked what I stand for and my concerns finally are Jews, Israel, Iran, virus and global warming plus overall issue of leadership, and I ain’t comfortable on any. End of.
@Felix
I am not sure how this is relavent to Ted’s proposal or my comments. If you do not support the reality that the public, including the workers(??), should be required to consent to the govt authorization to suspend their rights, you support an authoritarian or totalitarian model. If you do support such a process of consent by the public before the govt can rip our rights from us, then why are I and Ted totalitarians for suggesting it, and why do you not agree with us?? Please explain.
Also why are you talking about Victor or global warming? How do they relate to what we are speaking? Let’s settle this conversation rather than weaving towards something you feel more confident in discussing which is completely off topic.
@Ted
As to your daughter’s criticism that the author is only looking at one month, I would agree to a point. The full data has to be considered with each set of new data(every two weeks in England), as to how the new data reflects upon the whole set. The newest data is pivotal as it provides current input on the length of data collected over the past 12months. Beyond this, though, given that the 3rd jab is an experiment within an experiment, the latest data is critical as to the continued use of the 3rd jab. So, I do not accept that the Expose author was incorrect in focusing on this most recent data. It is fair to suggest that they should have related it to the full scope of both experiments being pursued, but only as to how it differed significantly. A general analysis of the full 12months of data, though not unuseful, was not the purpose of this author’s focus and expecting him to include such an analysis in a lay press article would be rather unique. To restate this more clearly, you should always consider the full set of data as new data is collected, but the focus has to lay with the new data and how it informs, supports or is distinct from the full data set. It is also helpful to routinely take a step back and only focus on the full journey of the data collected, but that was not the supposed purpose of this article. I think this is fair. Hope this is clear.
Again, this is not in anyway an endorsement of the Expose article as being more than useless to any purpose beyond discrediting themselves.
One additional point that your daughter does not find criticism with in the Expose article to which you reference is that these results of efficacy are but one part of the full analysis. Where is there any discussion of the Yellowcard data that would be similar in scope and intellect as what Dr. Rose has conducted in her analysis of VAERS? Why would the Expose article not include these matters as being relavent to this topic. Safety and efficacy are not two separate matters, but rather stem and stern of the same analysis. You can not lose sight of one without losing sight of the entire discussion, even as all we seem to focus on is the efficacy of the vaccines alone, time and again.
This would suggest we change her conclusion
to be something more along the lines of what is the death rate of the unvaccinated vs fully vaccinated 80 years old and what are the rate of vaccine injuries associated with the vaccines in this group. As it relates to the current data, the lack of any mention of the current reports of vaccine injuries are actually more relevant than the missing comparison with the 12month journey of data.
Even analyzing these matters as she, you and I have suggested here, does not remove the confounding factors beyond age alone which undermines the conclusions of any analysis to the level at which the two groups are not balanced by these confounding factors.
The different age groups between 60-69, 70-79, 80+ were exibing this phenomena at different times, as the vaccines were administered. Hence it is not a natural occurrence occurring simultaneously which would strike people regardless of their age at a single or multiple intervals, rather than as coordinated with the vaccines being applied to the respectively different age groups.
Additionally, when compared to the lifetables of expected deaths, it is clearly evident that the vaccinated have a lower than expected level of death while the vaccinated have a double the expected level of death, for each age set. To exacerbate this finding, this unbelievable protection by the vaccines seems to hold true among the non-Covid all cause mortality. As the authors note:
All of this makes sense if the vaccinated deaths are mis-categorized as unvaccinated. Perhaps there is another reason for both these and other anomalies in the data, but the data is clearly not consistent with reason unless the vaccine are providing a regenerative effect to their recipients. What we do know is that, as the authors close with, :
The analysis is much more rewarding than this very brief summary in which I have ignored a great deal of detail which they provide and explain in easy language, clearly intelligible and intended for the general public.
This is the data on which the studies your daughter shared is based. The data, for whatever reason, is “unreliable and misleading” as McNeil and associates state. So, this is the reason I have come to re-qualify the input of the English data, with which I had, til recently, been quite impressed with the level of detail they offered.
It would be truly amazing given the anomalies in the data if any study based on this data could do anything other than provide a certainty of vaccine efficacy. I strongly suggest everyone read this report who finds merit in the data. We are being lied to, for whatever reason, or perhaps there is no intent complicit in this managed stagecraft supporting the govt narrative when the govt is collecting, preparing and reporting the data. In either case, you can’t base good conclusions on bad, seriously flawed data. Otherwise, you wind up basing conclusions on things as badly flawed as this Expose report.
/2
@Ted
Regarding the Expose author’s claim, their analysis and observations are completely useless. Raw data is not useful for anything. I thought we should be well past such games. As I alluded to somewhere on this thread, you have to categorize data by age, normalized per 100K and for population growth to make a comparison relevant. Beyond their partisan statements of advocacy against the vaccine, the entire article is falsely based and useless to discuss. Such tribal advocacy is not beneficial to anyone. Indeed, such echo-chamber clatter should be expunged from this debate, altogether. These are serious matters which require a serious consideration of all sides of reality and we should always be wary of trusting our source without looking at the data they base their findings upon. As we move forward thru this maze of data and science, much of which is a new realm of knowledge to many, we have to be savvy enough and nimble of mind enough to recognize and parse reality from theatre. I highly applaud your efforts and those of your daughter to recognize and describe this article as you have and to keep this conversation an honest one.
With this in mind, let us draw our attention to the data itself. You have to trust the data for any calculations derived from it. So, should we find a flaw, a serious systematic overwhelming flaw, built within the data, it might cause us to understand why what we are seeing is not responsive to the conclusions of research based on such data.
Over the past couple of weeks, I have shared, a report(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination) on the ONS data and its revelations are quite concerning. The authors are taking a great risk to their careers by signing their names to it. Indeed, it is stated clearly that many who aided in preparing this report refused to sign their names to it for this very reason.
The authors received a copy of the ONS data newly separated into categories of 0-59, 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ with the intent of analyzing the data. The 0-59 category is too broad to be useful, though they have some details shared in the report on this group. So let us look at what they discovered.
Historically, including in 2020, mortality has been seen to peak at consistent time intervals thru the year. The vaccine rollout seems to have changed this. We know of the vaccine safety issues, and the elderly have a disproportionate number of vaccine adverse effects, so this is not surprising. Supporting this conclusion, when analyzing the data, they found that the increases in death actually occurred in a staggered pattern associated with the vaccine rollout in 2021. The peak in deaths, however, were occurring in the unvaccinated, coincident with the vaccine rollout in each age group. Restated, the unvaccinated were exhibiting alarming increases in deaths as the vaccines were administered to their coevalists. This defies reason, but it is worse than this.
/1
Actually, it is Peloni who at least helped to morph it into a political rant by arguing for financial concerns being primary in saving people’s lives and the need to “reform” Medicare, etc.
However, you are right in that the original topic was who is more likely to die from COVID – those who were vaccinated or those who were not.
I am OK with moving this discussion to Chat.
Peloni you jump to conclusions. The workers fought for the right to vote and for a day in parliament so I defend both. So the Trump camp not accepting they lost I find dicey. Also I raise global warming and the danger from virus of Pandemic. I also agree with recent piece by Victor Rosenthal on Israel. I have serious difference with you and many others here.
Felix and Reader,
This thread began as a scholarly discussion of a medical matter, and you two have morphed it into a political rant. Neither of you is serving any useful purpose in doing so.
@peloni
Who promoted China’s growth for decades, and all of a sudden said “OOPS! We can’t let them grow further, or they’ll take over!”
Who started provoking and sanctioning China and Russia?
Whose military expenses constitute 40% of all the military expenses in the world, so that the generals can have their toys and the wars will never stop?
Reader
This is why I would fix the problems that can be fixed so that the system worked with a leveled efficiency and assets were not squandered on wasteful management problems or further fattened Pharma’s pockets. Beyond this, there is a limit to any system. Which is why I would pursue an efficient model so that that the limit which will be set with be met less regularly, or at least, less quickly.
@Reader
Brilliant idea! China is ascending to overtake the US, amassing a navy to include in the China Sea any water that is wet, while she and Russia out distance the US with supersonic missile systems and employ spies to steal the few secrets of which the US has not already been pilfered. Yet, this is the perfect time to cut the military budget by 50% :D. We could also instruct the school houses to start teaching Mandarin to the children as it will take a short time before the Han language will become mandatory under your clever proposal…It is a choice of course. Not well thought out, in my opinion, but it is a choice.
Forgive the ridicule, but your proposal is a ponzi scheme run by Pharma and halving the military budget to further enrich them is a reckless and unprofitable undertaking from the perspective of healthcare costs and patient care, both. Start with healthcare reform to cut costs, improve care and reduce the state managed management of something they have only served to complicate with inefficient policies which have skyrocketed costs and reduced patient care.
Or you can do the other thing first, let it collapse under its own weight while China dominates the world and then you can do what I suggested we begin with. Like I said, it is a choice.
@peloni
What if it was one of your nearest and dearest who would be named unworthy to get medical care because it would be too expensive and his/her life would be deemed “unworthy of living”, and this person would have to rummage through trash cans for sustenance because he/she was not the fittest and it is considered moral by your society that only the fittest survive?
Would you repeat the same rant about “free” market, etc.?
You know, there was a society once which had this kind of morality.
It was called Sodom.
@Felix
Definition of totalitarian
I do believe this is exactly what would satisfy you, life at the direction of the powerful state, or perhaps you can spend your time better informing us more of your outlook on life, as you seem miserably unskilled at describing my own.
In a democracy, the state has only the authority for which the people are willing to consensually grant to it. Yet, you would bargain away the freedom of the basic principle of bodily autonomy to the state, limit free access to the economy and commerce, destroy the entire principle of the free market among other things, including basic democratic liberties? Yep, that can’t make sense even to you when you analyze it.
The control of liberty is not something you can grant away. It is inherent to your being. It exists because you exist. When someone takes it from you without your permission, it is a crime against you. When you grant someone control of it, this is what we describe as govt, but you have to grant it. This is what the fight for election integrity is all about, the vote, that silly piece of paper that all this fuss about 2020 is being fought over – the vote. This fulfillment of the basic premise of govt is pivotal in squaring the principle of consent of the governed against the authority applied by the govt upon the governed.
Hence, the govt does not have the authority to do anything that the people do not grant to it in the form of an election, as Ted clearly stated. As totalitarians go, that is a pretty crappy totalitarian proposal, don’t you think. You want these solutions provided for you to make you feel safe. I understand your reasoning, but I shudder at the implications of your intentions. Intentions that you do not fully appreciate, or you would not so easily suggest that opponents of them are those who hold the banner of a totalitarian agenda.
As I say these fake gestures of protection would give you comfort, but your comfort does not supersede my own. This is what elections are used to decide matters of state authority. You believe your morality holds a higher bar than my own? Based on the fact that you would setup a Ponzi scheme to provide endless medical aid in an environment of limited health care supplies and staff? Tell you what, start your own political party, maybe you’ll win. But you object to the idea that govt should have to ask the people for the authority you find so attractive and which govt does not hold the right to exercise. Question: Is this your form of democracy? Hint: this is not a democratic principle.
You want what you want, you don’t care that you don’t have the right to get it, and so you wish for the state to impose your will on others. You would subvert public discourse to avoid public dissension and see things done as you think best. Correct me where I am misdirecting your agenda, but that all sounds pretty similar to the definition I posted above. It’s called totalitarianism. I don’t mind that you support an agenda that is totally self destructive and self centered, but I do mind that you suggest that I would support the same. In point of fact, I do not.
@peloni
You completely bought the idea that Medicaid/Medicare “useless eater” recipients are bankrupting the country which is not true.
The United States has no real economy since it let the big corporations move the real economy to China, India, etc. in the early 1990s after the US “won the Cold War” and no longer needed to pretend to have “capitalism with a human face”.
Now the country keeps printing the “world currency” like there’s no tomorrow and keeps living on other peoples’ money, i.e, the almost 30 trillion $$ that it borrowed from other countries and has no intention of paying back – and this is only the government debt – not what the people owe for cars, mortgages, store credit cards, etc.
In comparison, this is the estimated federal tax revenue for 2021 (add it up):
How about cutting the military spending, say, 50%, and directing this money toward health care, and unplugging the Big Pharma from the government agencies tasked with protecting the health of the population – for starters.
To Peloni and Ted
So who is Totalitarian now? I am in agreement with Reader as Peloni and Ted dash into a Totalitarian swamp.
In a Pandemic the only MORAL consideration is to save lives and not to save profit.
And you are Jews supposed to be the light onto the world.
How disappointing!?
@Reader
You wrote
You are quite correct, and I have shared a fair bit of evidence to this very point. You will likely appreciate what I am working on next, I think.
Your previous statement is moral, but not financially possible to pursue as the insurmountable costs have to be paid by someone. Given that no one is to be trusted to reform healthcare/Medicare/Medicaid, well, the buck has to stop somewhere and it is too expensive to be sustained with endless no cap treatments with Pharma runnig healthcare. It likely would be too expensive even with the reforms, but certainly it is without them.
@peloni
My statement:
Your opinion of my statement:
What you consider naive is actually the only moral stance when saving a human life is concerned.
The right question that needs to be asked in this “pandemic” is not how much saving lives would cost the society and whether the cost can be justified (“cost-benefit analysis”) but WHETHER LIVES ARE BEING SAVED AT ALL.
So far, there is a lot of evidence that not only lives are not being saved but many lives are lost or destroyed by the program ostensibly designed to save them.
The tragedy is that this evidence is ignored and the program is continued.
@Reader
Actually you didn’t cite @Ted in your statement at all. If you had I would have been more careful in my definition of costs and benefits. Sorry for the confusion, but I read @Ted’s statement several hours earlier and didn’t associate his comment with your statement, but I should have.
This is a terribly naive perspective.
@peloni
I am tired of your dishonest analysis of my posts.
Here is the original quote from Ted Belman to which I responded that “Cost/benefit analysis cannot and must not be used when the issue is saving or protecting human lives.” [emphasis mine]:
The term used in the original quote was COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS and NOT RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (defined by you as “The cost in such an analysis is the cost in human lives. The benefit is the benefit to human lives.”).
In fact, your sneaky definition of the benefit as “the benefit TO human lives [not necessarily the same lives that have to be saved]” is the same as cost-benefit analysis.
If a life has to be saved it is WRONG to try and figure out that maybe it is not worth saving because it might be too expensive etc., or that the public might vote against it – this what COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS REALLY IS.
My response had nothing to do with whether it can be ever justified to create a fake pandemic under the guise of saving lives – the answer to this is obvious, I hope.
Please, stick to the medical issues and keep out of the things you have no knowledge of.
@Ted
From a public health perspective, you are quite correct and thank you for raising this point. It would include the financial costs of the drug, as well as any accessory cost to society. Included among these accessory costs would be those you speak of as well as the the loss of quality of life of members of society, ie disabling disease, reduced reproductive health and so forth, as it reduces the functioning portion of society and increases the burden upon society by having these damaged lives to support in one way or another.
If a disease required limiting human rights, it would also have to be included in this cost as well, but we should be quite clear that the use of such restrictive measures are contrary to the purpose they are being suggested. The loss of personal rights is an absurd construct to utilize towards public health strategy. This is an airborne disease, and this is not in question. Masks don’t help because they can’t help, and the mask can actually make people sick by helping establish other diseases and, if the mask is made of the wrong material, it can cause severe inflammatory lung disease or worse. Also social distancing is not effective in reducing a person inhaling a virus particle floating in the air, even if they stand 1000ft from the nearest person. These particles can stay elevated drifting in the air in contained spaces for days or weeks and indoor ventilation(fans and a/c) prolongs this issue.
The isolation of healthy people is pointless, especially the unvaccinated people because they become ill as they become infectious. So isolating the vaccinated from the unvaccinated is just dumb. It is the ill who should be isolated from the healthy to prevent spread.
Remember, though many policy makers seem to have forgotten it, the focus of all health policy should be to end the spread of disease, not by forcing a failing vaccine on the public in quarterly rotating injections. Isolating healthy people does not accomplish this task, not among the unvaccinated. The vaccinated do carry the virus in their nose/mouth for extended periods with mild symptoms that could be legitimately mistaken for a bit of nasal congestion, and this would make the situation with the vaccinated public more complicated.
The routine use of testing to establish health conditions also does not overcome this issue. In an outbreak condition, where the virus is more prevalent in society, eg >30%, there will be a higher level of false positives due to available dead virus in recovering patients as well as in the environment to contaminate healthy people. This will then cause these healthy people, contaminated with dead viruses, to test positive with false positive results. When the prevalence of disease goes down in society, eg 1%, the level of false positives increases due to the very nature of the tests itself, in excess of 90% false positives. So screening healthy people does not help elucidate the healthy from the ill. This is why screening is contrary to the policies as suggested by the CDC and WHO, both, as it is most unhelpful.
So the limitations placed on personal liberty are not responsive to the goals of public health. Should any change to personal liberty be required for the success in treating a disease, in any free society, it must be acquiesced to by the consent of the governed, as you noted in a vote, complete with a limit of duration and required need for repeated renewal of the state to gain the public’s consent.
All of this ignores, of course, the simple reality that the virus is extremely amenable to treatment. Should the authorities allow treatment to take place, so no such vote would be necessary, they only need to let doctors could go back to being doctors rather than extensions of the state vaccine sale marketing division.
Hi, Peloni.
It does 🙂
@ Peloni
Please focus on my point that the title and the first paragraph are not supported by the article or the data presented and these paragraphs give a false impression.
Thus the title and the first paragraph are incendiary.
Plus comment on my other arguments.
I disagree with this sentnce of yours. “The cost in such an analysis is the cost in human lives. ” No I think lost jobs and lost business and harm toi economy are all part of the cost.
Here is an innovative analysis of how to look at population wide data. Its not perfect, it’s not pretty, and it requires a good bit of thought about what is being analyzed, what is being assumed and what is being ignored, but the effort being applied can be rewarding, to a point. There is, of course, no good way to translate non-random data into a randomized formula to eliminate all the outlier factors, but carefully playing with what we know and what we should expect can be useful to yield a rough image of how well things are responding or failing to respond as compared to an expected outcome, while acknowledging the limitations of the unaddressed outlying factors.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/theres-something-antigenic-in-denmark?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozODI1NDcxNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDU3MTg0MzAsIl8iOiJqUERMTCIsImlhdCI6MTYzOTkzNDQ4MiwiZXhwIjoxNjM5OTM4MDgyLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzIzOTE0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.T4xVnuixWJwik3bCLBWFmhZbfVh0OiwDOaOsbvCeSe4
One additional note about the use of modeling to ‘interpret’ these population wide data. The models require assumptions as a basis of the models. These assumptions require a judgement of reality. There is no exact estimate to plug into these models. For some outlying factors, there are estimated ranges, 45-75% for a given factor, for example. Choosing either end over the average could have a significant impact on the outcome of the model and all three choices, either end of the spectrum or the averaged center, may be inaccurate. For many factors there will be no known value to use in the models, so for those factors, you either approximate a guess(which, if incorrect, undermines the strength of the model to the limit of the incorrect value chosen) or you leave it unresolved(which undermines the strength of the model). Garbage in => Garbage out, as Linda noted below. This is the problem with using models. It may also be why all the modeling data has failed to be demonstrably useful when predicting outcomes. You need good research, which may be provided when the research is actually completed, or every case is just another experiment based on guesswork providing certainties based on shifting foundations, which is, unfortunately where we are.
@Ted
Very well stated!
To your daughter’s concerns about this report:
There is a deep misunderstanding about the epidemiological(population-wide) investigations such as the results gathered and reported in this current article. The ability to fix the confounding factors is too great to tease apart with ease or certainty. There are many factors, such as economic standing, for instance, which are directly associated with health status. The poor are routinely more susceptible to poor health. This is true in any society. What fraction of the poor have been vaccinated can be estimated more definitively in certain societies over others, but these are simply guesstimates and provide only a measure of information. This is, however, but one factor which pollutes this form of data comparison. To make a study such as this useful, requires the use of modeling and analysis which can really only provide partial answers and look for inconsistencies as being strikingly useful. The problem with the use of modeling is that it gives the modeler a great deal of statistics upon which to base their finding, and upon which end of the statistical range which are used in their model, ie the modeler’s choices can greatly sway the model’s outcome. Intentional and accidental errors can also have a significantly complicating impact on the model.
This is why Randomized Control Trials are required by law, at least in the US, to demonstrate both the benefit and the safety of a biological compound. The research that was skipped and continues to be skipped by these drug producers and oversight committees was quite pivotal. The train is off the tracks and they keep looking behind the caboose to see if they can detect any problems before us. Had they not prematurely ended the safety portion of the EUA study, we would now have nearly 18 months worth of data to compare between the vaccine and placebo groups rather than only 4-5months worth of data(recall the vaccines fail at 4-6months coincidentally enough)
The easiest factor to tease out from all the factors conflating the data in this article above is age, but many, including Israel have done a poor job stratifying(categorizing in separate groups) the ages in small enough age subsets to make any analysis meaningfully useful. England has the data to provide a closer analysis of this information based on age. The earliest work towards this point was completed by Mathew Crawford here:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality
A more encompassing analysis was completed by Martin Neil and company and a cliff notes explanation of their work and their research paper documenting their findings can be found here:
https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814347762671628.
The problem here is that as Neil demonstrates, the data is not useful for a comparison because the bizarre anomalies do not make sense. It may be due to other complicating factors or data mismanagement, ie recorded data is not accurately displayed.
In any case, this type of analysis only looks at the benefits of the vaccines. This is why I stated in a comment below that the best way to analyze the data is to look at the all cause mortality between 2020 and 2021. It can be adjusted for age and population growth/decline and normalized to deaths/100K to demonstrate a benefit, or lack thereof, which might exists between the two populations. The results of this analysis are quite shocking:
https://www.israpundit.org/triple-double-vaccinated-accounted-for-4-in-every-5-covid-19-deaths-in-england-over-the-past-month-despite-most-vulnerable-getting-booster-in-october/comment-page-1/#comment-63356000244321
Here is the data upon which this research is based on:
https://t.co/LqA9lPMwtK
Michael
You seem interested and have a background that will help you, so let me expand a bit further, hopefully this will not be more confusing, but quite illuminating. To understand a viral infection best, you should think of the virus as a swarm, massively intent on viral production and not concerned with the fidelity of their daughters code. Everything is about maximizing production – think of a fast food shop where the speed of the sandwhich makers are multiplied a thousand fold. Mistakes happen, a lot of mistakes happen, but who cares. The sandwhich maker places their mistakes in a wrapper, throws it in a bag and hands it out the drive-thru window, never to be noticed til the purchaser is well down the road. The same principle applies with viral reproduction. Hence, the virus creates a vast number of mutations, something of a viral daughter swarm rich with genetic mutations, and which are as widely variable as you note. Some of these members of this viral daughter swarm will be viable, ie able to invade a cell reproduce and pass on their genetic “ooopps” include in their genetic code. The vast majority of these mutants will, however, not be viable and will either not be able to invade the cell or not be able to reproduce. These non-viable members will die off without producing their own viral daughter swarm.
When this viral swarm comes to interact inside a vaccinated person, the immune system will analyze every member of the daughter swarm, but will only eliminate those members of the daughter swarm that are susceptible to the effects of the anti-spike immunity, so a variant with six heads might escape detection when the immune system is looking for a virus with but one head. This is how variants are chosen to escape the vaccine immunity.
In a person with natural immunity, the broad aspect of its targets will apply to each virus whether it has one head or six, because the naturally immune also have a target for the arms, and the legs, and the backside and the frontside. Hope this helps, it is a better understanding of how the mutations are created and chosen and why natural immunity is better addapted than the vaccine induced anti-spike immunity.
@Reader
Wrong. I understand that this is likely not obvious to someone who is not aware of what a cost-benefit(better described as a risk-benefit) ratio implies. The cost in such an analysis is the cost in human lives. The benefit is the benefit to human lives. The use of a cost benefit analysis is the ONLY basis by which such decisions can be made when saving or protecting human lives is the desired outcome. Described differently, it analyzes the benefits and repercussions for a treatment.
@FelixQuigley
Would you get upset like this if instead of COVID-19 the virus that they trained their lights on was a seasonal flu virus?
The annual flu season starts in the middle of September.
Every year there are many hospitalizations and deaths (especially among the elderly) from the annual flu viruses which also constantly mutate but hardly anyone pays attention.
So the PTB decided to freak everybody out with a “novel” virus and at the same time let the corporations which finance their political campaigns make tons of money, to say nothing of doing The Great Reset and creating The New Normal, the worst of which we haven’t seen yet.
Cost/benefit analysis cannot and must not be used when the issue is saving or protecting human lives.
Peloni, actually, I just thought about what you said a bit. It is true, that single-stranded RNA does not have a complementary strand as a “check” for errors, it does effectively have something similar in that it forms “double stranded” loops. DNA is serviced by proteins that check and repair it at phenomenal speed, but I don’t think RNA has such a helper. I’m surprised, in fact, that RNA mutations can survive at all. It would be like a human mutating to have hands without forearms, or legs that don’t grow. It might be able to function, but would be greatly impaired. Such people might be able to avoid target recognition devices; but their “skill” at evasion comes at a price. Thinking along these lines, it’s easy to fathom how an “escapee” variant like Omicron is less deadly than its predecessor.
Your magnum opus, Peloni! To a chemist like me, your remarks couldn’t come across more clearly.
If Fauci can’t understand this, he is either ignorant or genocidally malevolent. I have little doubt, that he is the latter.
@Felix
With respect, this is the only statement in your thesis that is actually true, and it is very true. The remedy you suggest, overturning the free market society, may lead to a path you desire, namely the subjugation of the people in an authoritarian, if not totalitarian, lifestyle, but it will not prevent the virus from spreading, as authoritarians and totalitarians are as susceptible to a virus as their free market opponents because an airborne virus has no politics, no faith and no allegiance. It will infect anyone who is not immune and Trotsky, Lenin, Marx or Stalin themselves could not be assumed to be immune if they were not previously infected by the virus.
The virus mutates because it grows. With every infection there are a swarm of mis-copied viruses. The use of a focused vaccine actually provides the ability for the virus to easily overcome the focused immunity and escape. This is true of even 3rd jabs, as two of the first four Israelis were among the 3rd jabbed. If the virus can evade the immune system on its initial exposure and create a positive infection, it can only do so by actually replicating, and this means it is actively creating unfaithful copies known as mutations. It is a single stranded RNA virus, so the virus has no second strand to “check” the copy as the copies are generated. Hence mutations form. They will do so in anyone in whom the virus can grow, and the preponderance of people being infected by this virus is the vaccinated public, because they are still susceptible, ie they are not rendered immune by their 3rd jab.
Hi, Linda
That answers Peloni’s
“what the hell is going on?”
I think your comments here are right on target — except that I’m not at all certain that the emotionally invested “childish thinkers” you speak of, would or could get past their prejudices enough to read RFK’s book.
My wife ordered the book weeks ago, as a back-order; but the book dealer canceled it. Unfortunately, this “cancel culture” business is alive and well. We will try to re-order it through a different channel.
Linda Goidsmit…I defend all of science in general and I also defend Anthony Fauci against anti science conspiracy theorists. I don’t think he is perfect but compared to you riff raff conspiracy theorists who are also haters of science he is the ultimate in perfection.
VP Kamala Harris: “We didn’t see Delta coming. I think most scientists did not — upon whose advice and direction we have relied — didn’t see Delta coming. “We didn’t see Omicron coming”
Anyone who got past science 101 saw both Delta and Omicron. So Harris and Biden simply liars!
When a virus is given open field that is precisely what a virus does – it mutates. Like a strong and well drilled football team the ground has to be taken from the virus so that it does not have the freedom to (launch attack) mutate. It is very clear now this very morning that capitalism is the greatest friend IN EVERY WAY of virus INEVITABLY causing Pandemic.
All measures including immediate shutting of totally not necessary production, all safety measures, especially shutting of all schools, mass production of BEST masks and wearing, need to be taken and (this we urgently have to focus on) – capitalism as a system can never do this. It is a system and philosophy of life that MUST place profit before saving life. But if capitalism is demonstrating how callous to human life it is over this Pandemic then a huge warning: Capitalism will destroy our earth and earth systems by Global Warming. Do not dismiss this reality. Count on it!
Ted, your daughter’s condescending, disrespectful, factually absurd reply is characteristic of the indoctrinated and completely propagandized. Not only does she ignore the “redefinition” of vaccines, now she ignores the redefinition of “unvaccinated.” Moving the goal post and Orwellian jibber-jabber are all the lethally corrupt medical community is offering in defense of the indefensible.
Families around the world and countries around the world are bifurcated and rupturing over the monstrous crimes against humanity being perpetrated “for our own good” by the premier psychopaths Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates. Send her a copy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Maybe she will learn something.
I no longer argue objective reality with anyone living in subjective reality. Fear has regressed your daughter, like so many others around the world, to emotional childlike thinking. You cannot reason with a frightened child. Instead, I send them a copy of the book and let RFK Jr.’s legal brief do the talking. If the more rational adult part of their minds cannot understand or accept the objective reality/facts presented in the book, they are hopelessly indoctrinated and will remain as children doing what they are told by Fauci and Gates.
The entire orchestrated COVID-19 fear campaign has been a psyop designed to regress the world population to childish compliance in an effort to reorder the world and achieve totalitarian planetary governance. It has been horrifyingly successful, and will continue unless the rational adults in this world stand up in opposition. Men and women like your daughter have no idea they are participating in their own destruction. They are useful idiots for the globalist megalomaniacs running the op. Like lemmings, they mindlessly repeat the ridiculous talking points, explanations, and totally manipulated statistics of their masters. Garbage in – garbage out.
Hospitals are filling up rapidly. The Omicron variant is very contagious. Schools are forced to open. The Biden policy of relying on the vaccine alone is dangerous. All measures to save lives and eliminate the virus not employed because capitalism and profit come before saving lives. The answer is straightforward.
There is only one humane answer and it can only come in a socialist or communist anti Stalinist system and way of living in which production towards only profit is historically discarded. This also means a leadership which is based closely on science and the historical achievement of science. Capitalism has actually provided humanity with a bleak warning, it cannot save humanity from Pandemic. Even more serious though than Covid is Global Warming, horrible though COVID is, and with capitalism “leading” earth our planet races over the precipice. Ted Belman has always been a slave to this horrible system. It has led him to broadcast this fascist group which has also got antisemitic connection.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/07/blog-posting/article-misleads-dangers-omicron-variant-using-uk-/
Hospitals are filling up rapidly. The Omicron variant is very contagious. Schools are forced to open. The Biden policy of relying on the vaccine alone is dangerous. All measures to save lives and eliminate the virus not employed because capitalism and profit come before saving lives. The answer is straightforward.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/07/blog-posting/article-misleads-dangers-omicron-variant-using-uk-/
My daughter is right. The title is not supported by the article.
“Triple & Double Vaccinated accounted for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 Deaths in England over the past month despite most vulnerable getting Booster in October” Not even close.
In the first paragraph of the Exposee he writes
“The latest figures published by the new UK Health Security Agency on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths show that the vaccinated population still accounted for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths over the past four weeks even though those who are deemed to be the most vulnerable to Covid-19 received their “booster” jab in September and October.”
This statement is also misleading.
Its is wrong to compare the deaths among the vaccinated compared to the deaths among the non vaccinated. The only question is did the vaccinations reduce the number of deaths among the group vaccinated. He begs this issue. He omits to say that the vaccinated people are the most vulnerable to begin with.
In effect we learn nothing about their value.
Focusing on the non vaccinated group, if their death rates is so low without vaccination, why bother.
She poses the correct question.
But that is not the only question that should underline policy. Assuming the vaccinations and other policies reduces the number of deaths, is the reduction worth all the policies implemented to achieve it. There must be a cost/ benefit analysis. The benefit would be the saved lives. The cost would be the diminution of rights, the adverse effects of the vaccines long term and the cost to the country in dollars to achieve it. That’s for the people to decide by a vote. It is not for the elite to decide.
My daughter writes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olRgaoi-N90 This is an important video that discusses the occurrence of transverse myelitis, a serious neurological disease of the spinal cord, in a test subject who had been injected with the AstraZenica vaccine in 2020, while Astrazeneca was conducting trials for it vaccine.The video was made in September 2020,before the report could have been ‘contaminated” (influenced) by the doubts about the vaccine that have gradually developed in 2021.
This report quotes Dr. Fauci as saying that, since this case of transverse myelitis could not be proven to be the result of the vaccine, the tests should continue and the AstraZenica vaccine should be considered safe.
@Michael
Actually, the best evidence of the effects of the vaccines, given the fact that they are employing fudged data sampling and collection techniques, and the additional fact that the confounding factors advantaging the vaccinated and unvaccinated, alike, can not be unscrambled, is to consider the divergence from all cause deaths(averaged over the 5 years prior to 2020) and then compare how the death rate from before the shots, in 2020, compares to the death rate after the shots, in 2021.
Here is just such a comparison(weeks 1-48 comparing 2020 and 2021):
https://twitter.com/USMortality/status/1472399292551897088/photo/1
As you can see, in the year prior to the vaccines, there was an increase in excess death rates of +11.0%. In the year following the vaccines release, the increase in excess death rates was at 14.2%. This means that in 2021, there has been a significant increase in death, so lets look at it more closely:
https://twitter.com/USMortality/status/1471671562935971844/photo/1
There is an increase of 40% year-over-year between the excess death rates between 2020 and 2021. Yet it is more concerning than this. It should be noted that in 2021, there was a significant portion of the population that became immune to Covid due to exposure to the virus during 2020, and also a great number of deaths took place in 2020, significantly reducing the most vulnerable population to the disease, and, therefore, those most likely to die from it. These facts and the present use of a vaccine with an efficacy of 95%, should have significantly reduced the deaths in 2021. Even if we ignore the falsehoods claimed initially about the vaccines, ie that it was 95% effective, and only apply the current claim that it merely reduces hospitalizations and deaths, we have to ask, “what the hell is going on with these excess death?” Yet, no investigations into the VAERS data, and no autopsies are being performed to distinguish the cause. So, we are left to ask, once again, “what the hell is going on?”
This is pretty solid evidence, that the so-called “vaccines” are, at best, useless.