University students should not be charged their full fees because of the level of disruption caused to learning by almost a year of heavy lockdown restrictions, according to a group of students who are calling for a “day of action” to highlight the matter. An online petition calling for tuition fees to be reduced has received almost 600,000 signatures. BBC News has the story.
A group of university students are calling for a day of action to demand fee refunds because of how Covid has affected their learning experience.
The Write Off, Right Now (WORN) group, led by three University of Bristol students, wants April 16th to be used to apply pressure to the Government.
It said online learning did not provide the same value for money and students should not be charged their full fees.
The Government has previously said fees must be paid in full for remote study…
WORN is encouraging students across the country to “take over” social media on April 16th to spread the message about what they say is an unfair decision to charge full fees for those studying remotely during lockdown, when in-person classes have been banned.
An online petition, calling for tuition fees to be cut from £9,250 to £3,000, has now received more than 580,000 signatures.
And while the National Union of Students has not called for tuition fee rebates, or a reduction in fees, it is pressing for the creation of hardship funds to be large enough to meet demand.
Student and WORN campaign leader Lianna Denwood said it was time for the government to “take ownership” of the situation and recognise students “haven’t been provided with the education they were sold”.
One of WORN’s leading members, Scott Weavers, has said that it would be “morally unfair” for students to be forced to pay their tuition fees in full.
We were promised when we signed up for university that we would receive sufficient access to facilities, course equipment and social contact to help us achieve our degrees.
This year we have acquired anything but that standard, and yet we’re still expected to pay full price.
The onus, they say, is on the Government to “help students” since universities “do not have the financial ability to compensate their entire student population”.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The petition to reduce university student tuition fees from £9,250 to £3,000 has received a response from the Government. No prizes for those who guessed that this reduction is not under consideration!
Tuition fee levels must represent value for money and ensure that universities are properly funded. Government is not considering a reduction in maximum fee levels to £3,000.
Read the full response here.
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.
Thanks Will for another excellent update. This is the right thing to do, estimating the effect during the last 4 weeks. According to this the R factor for infection in the vaccinated is currently higher than for the unvaccinated, something also noted in Israel. This could mean that the pandemic still has some time to go, the virus picking up vaccinated among those with continuously diminishing antibody levels.
If the two subpopulations are mixing, and infection is being spread cross subpopulation, would it be meaningful to calculate separate Rs?
Well, thank you for the down votes. I was really looking for someone to explain why what I asked is, or is not, the case.
Given that there is now evidence showing that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can carry the same levels of infectiousness, i don’t see why it matters – or have i misunderstood you completely?
“ For deaths, PHE reports 27 in the double vaccinated and 66 in the unvaccinated in the under-50s in this period. This works out (1-(27/26%)/(66/56%)) at a vaccine effectiveness against death of just 12%. Why this would be so much lower than in the over-50s is unclear”…..
I’m guessing because these are mostly just deaths within 28 days of a “positive test” and they died of something completely unrelated.
Technically, as long as you’ve had a positive test, you can recover (or not), die from something else (e.g. a car accident, or, irony of ironies, a COVID vaccine) and be classified as a COVID victim on the UK official figures (the lower one at around 130k) – as long as you were tested and died within 28 days of the test.
The higher 150k+ figure is just adding on those people where they weren’t tested and COVID was ‘mentioned’ (encouraged by PHE etc of GPs) on the death certificate as a ‘likely cause’ (you’d think that they would’ve been tested had they got THAT sick to be able to treat them) or where they tested positive and died (whatever the actual cause) after 28 days of the test.
That PHE etc downgraded COVID near the beginning so that an autopsy doesn’t need to be carried out means that there is considerable scope for ‘manipulation’ of the real cause of death. Besides, is there any group completely independent of government/NHS/PHE and Big Pharma & Co who validate all the data? Nope. We rely on people who have a history of lying and manipulation/massaging of the figures to suite their agendas.
Also a ‘nice’ way to grossly inflate the figures to scare the public into doing what the authorities want.
I ran my own numbers today out of curiosity of how things were going. One particularly interesting finding was that the ARR in the under 50’s is now negative! The same measurement was only 4.5% in the over 50’s too.
These vaccines sucks balls from where I’m standing !!!!
ARR for over 50’s
ARR = absolute risk reduction for those not DS addicts.
About those who do not get ill.
The Rosenau Experiment, 1918-1919 | GG Archives (gjenvick.com)
With or without the jab, were they ever going to get ill???
“He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”
Interesting!
We’re inferring a vaccine efficacy of 77%. It may well be that since the so-called Delta variant is pretty much the only show in town now, the increased survival rates are down to the Delta’s lower virulence
Quite – analyses of the vaccine effectiveness always seem to ignore this. It should be possible to see in the stats by comparing hospitalisation / death data between countries in the same climatic zone but with differing levels of “vaccination”.
Although it will be complicated somewhat by the unknown number of deaths caused by the vaccines, and the possibility of the vaccines causing ADE.
I agree. The vaccine seems to waning right in line with seasonality. Just as the magic masks did last summer.
How do they account for this and control it when analysing the data?
Or the general population having much more robust natural immunity because of the sun.
The stats about how many vaccinated and unvaccinated test positive and how many die with a positive test is fine.
The inference that differences are attributable to the jabs is pure speculation.
These are not experimental conditions where any other factors are accounted for. The differences could be down to anything.
We are actually seeing a similar pattern of positive tests and deaths with a positive test as last year, when there were no jabs.
How much more of this do we have to endure before we accept that the government can’t control respiratory diseases?
Yep.
Proportionally more frail and immunocompromised people that can’t be vaxxed, aka dry tinder, now in the unvaxxed than the vaxxed, in all age groups.
Much more testing among the unvaxxed than the vaxxed (less so in the UK, bar children, though than in RoW due to tests for unvaxxed only).
Different case criteria in the UK- only if severe/hospitalised counting as a case, vs. all positive tests counted of the unvaxxed (+ in USA ct28 for the vaxxed only, infinite for the unvaxxed).
Of vs With criteria and data unknown.
I am sure there’s more.
Will is analysing a correlation and/but falls into the trap of deeming it to be THE (sole) causation too.
I’m inclined toward guessing that SARS-CoV-2 has had a go at most of us, by now. So, we should have massive survivor bias.
I agree. I’m inclined to think that now, for the purpose of the data, vaccinated covers got C19/got vaxxed and got vaxxed, unvacciated covers got C19.
If the government wanted to do something sensible, it’d sponsor T cell immunity tests for everyone.
Bad for plPfizer, but terrific for individual mental and public health. And for the economy and society.
Or, more cost-effectively, issue each citizen a prophylactic package of ivermectin, as was done in Goa.
Ahh, but it can control the people! I’m afraid we have much more to endure.
I believe we are seeing the beginning of ADE. Lockdown by the end of September is my, unfortunate, prediction.
Sadly I agree. I wonder what will be the effect of the boosters on ADE?
The awful truth is that I see Public Health England and just wonder, what lies are the telling now, and why?
Get the booster is the PR message here.
I simply don’t believe that they cut deaths by 80 per cent in the over 50s.
My No1 rule in life is to subtract at least 50% from any claim/brag etc. people make.
In governments etc. case, I now have to double this, since March 20.
Perhaps the past 2 winter seasons killed off most of those who were vulnerable to the disease.
Manchester, England. Protesters take over shopping centre.
https://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell/4518
“95% of seriously ill patients are vaccinated. FULLY VACCINATED PEOPLE account for 85-90% of hospitalizations.The effectiveness of vaccines is decreasing”
ISRAEL – DR. KOBI HAVIV, ON CHANEL 13 TODAY (bitchute.com)
If it worked in the first place?
Again, it’s not really telling either way – all that could mean is that the vast majority of people were vaccinated and the illness was already on the wane (which it was) before people were first given a ‘vaccine’ in the first few months of the year.
The problem is that the ‘trials’ apparently were never ‘double blind’ ones, and thus their effectiveness could never really be established, especially as (see my long comment for more) the virus itself was never been isolated, purified, imaged and its genetic code specifically sequenced.
Similarly with the testing, which is not diagnostic. I’ve seen reports that say the testing cannot distinguish between the flu and COVID either (why the flu has been non-existent in the last 18 months).
See Dr Sam Bailey’s YouTube and odysee channels for more on that.
……..and this is in August……just imagine what it’ll be like in the winter.
The jabbed are going to be in a world of shit.
With rolls of thunder and flashes of lightening, the clouds split asunder, and God looked down upon his people, and said unto them “Truly, the unvaccinated shall inherit the earth”. And the unvaccinated looked on with schadenfreude and smug satisfaction. And God said “OK, this time I’ll let you off”.
And they will blame the unvaccinated.
No logic to this, of course, but as we know logic and Covidianism are never found together!
So… have the vaxxeeeeens still saved 80,000 likes in the UK – or is that someone’s well funded imagination running wild?
It’s just another Ferguson projection.
using my model of Fergusson wrongness they’ve saved 7 lives at a small cost of only 370 billion quid.
I am an unvaccinated 51 year old and I just had my case of covid-19 (delta variant).
It was a piece of piss really. I did get to lounge around in bed for 3 days but not as bad as a) flu or b) those nasty colds that leave you hacking for weeks and you can’t shift
I feel pretty bullet proof now – my broad-ranging natural immunity should fend off any other coronavirus and probably everything else too. No boosters to worry about and no ADE on the horizon.
In the same week that the BBC published the ‘is it better to get covid or the vaccine?’ article. I know which side of the argument I come down on for myself – let alone for children!
just want to say that of the few things that kept me going through my 3 days in the ‘shadowlands’, one was this site (and thanks for the update Will) and the rest was laughing at Australia and New Zealand – retardtastic!
I remember when Ardern and the Graun feted their victory over Covid last year and I commented there that this might be a bit premature…
Now I am banned there, of course.
I’m not so sure about ADE. It occurs naturally, with dengue fever. However, the broad immunity, from the natural infection, will, at least, create a lower risk than the spike protein experiment.
nobody is sure about ADE! hasn’t being going long enough!
I hope you are right…
I’m quite relaxed about it: we haven’t seen it with SARS1 or any other coronavirus- it’s more likely that they lend themselves to cross immunity.
The mechanism of ADE in dengue is quite distinct from that with the coronavirus vaccines developed to date that caused it in animal models.
Way more likely with these vaccines, IMO
The Girardot articles are very hepful for understanding all this.
2 year superimmunity after a cold etc..
Would someone please explain why the formula for vaccine effectiveness is
1- [(number of deaths in double vaccinated in specimen age group)/( % of double vaccinated in specimen age group) ]/ [(number of deaths in unvaccinated in speciment age group)/ (% of unvaccinated in specimen age group)]
Thanks
as far as I can see its just
effectiveness =1- (vaccinated deaths/unvaccinated deaths)/(vaccinated/unvaccinated)
ie if the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated deaths is the same as the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated then eff = 0
just to add…
effectiveness=1- [(number of deaths in double vaccinated in specimen age group)/( % of double vaccinated in specimen age group) ]/ [(number of deaths in unvaccinated in speciment age group)/ (% of unvaccinated in specimen age group)]
write out in full (% vaccinated = Nvaccinated/Ntotal*100 for example) and simplify and you get
effectiveness =1- (vaccinated deaths/unvaccinated deaths)/(vaccinated/unvaccinated)
which seems appropriate (normal caveats about data etc)
Thanks -your formula is easier to understand
Especially when the figures don’t take into account the factors I mentioned in my recent post – underlying health, age, what medicines/drugs they are taking, background, etc, etc.
The answer is only meaningful if the two groups are otherwise identical (i.e. a statistically placebo group) and thus don’t have to be weighted.
With my engineer hat on: cr@p (data) in, cr@p data out.
These figures from PHE are misleading because they don’t take into account:
a) The background of a person, whether ethnic (skin colour – dark skinned people get less vitamin D from sunligh in northern countries), whether they are a 1st gen immigrant and from where (early years diet and healthcare will have a big impact on the immune system as will the prevalence of respiratory diseases locally).
b) Because of their background and/or upbriging here in the UK, this will also play a part, e.g. less wealthy and living/working in inner city areas in poor conditions. Level of recreational drug use (including performance enhancing), smoking etc.
Compromised immune systems obviously aren’t good, but if no autopsies are done (COVID was deliberately downgraded so none have to be performed), then no-one will know if someone was taking drugs and the level.
c) Social/cultural differences – people with backgrounds from poor/corrupt nations are far less likely to trust governments/officials/doctors, born out in the far lower vaccine uptake, but also in poorer health generally and in certain groups (but not all) much higher levels of obesity.
d) General health, occupation, age, level of stress, etc. Some illnesses/chronic disesaes appear to have far more of a negative impact than others.
e) The ‘mass hysteria’ effect has not even been considered. The amount of fearmongering propaganda by the government and in the MSM has been huge, plus the effects of lockdowns, shielding on people, especially the already sick and elderly where seeing friends and family on a reagular basis – and to have physical contact, is vitally important in their mental/general well-being.
f) There STILL appears to be no demarcation on official death figures to of (primarily) COVID or just ‘with’ (not really contributing to the death) COVID. Note that according to my sources (Dr Sam Bailey on YT/odysee being one trsuted source), the ‘COVID virus’ has yet to be purified (i.e. completely separated from all other genetic material in samples from ‘infected’ people), imaged via an electron microscope and the specific genetic material from the particle removed and sequenced – appearently just a ‘soup’ has been centifuged from that initially provided by China and computers ‘build up’ a seuence by essentially guessing the structure based on previous guesses for SARS (same family).
All ‘testing is done via methods never designed for clinical diagnosis but for lab experiementation only to amplify small genetic sequences. I am now hearing that the COVID tests cannot differentiate between COVID and the flu – possibly why practically no-one has been ‘diagnosed’ and thus died of the flu since the end of 2019.
The ‘symptoms’ of COVID are very vague and diffuse, thus likely contributing the below in b) – anyone with a sniffle, cough or fever could then think they have COVID (and think the worst) rather than having a normal respiratory illness.
—-
A lack of specific information that can be independently verified means that we cannot trust government/civil service data, especially as they (IMHO) have lied several times during the pandemic. Similarly with anything provided by China or by Big Pharma (whose fines for transgressions are numerous, huge and recent) or the MSM.
The biggest (no pun intended) factor on IFR after age is BMI, especially in the under 70s. That correlates highly with social deprivation etc as well.
We don’t see nearly enough stratification of the data in this basis. Especially as – unlike age – it’s something people can actually try and do something about.
Exactly – and, despite large swathes of the population being either on furlough or working from home for at least a year, the average person has over the pandemic got less fit and fatter, despite the opportunity to get out, exercise and learn to eat and keep fit/healthy.
Even those working at home have roughly an extra hour or two a day (no commuting) and the Interweb at their fingertips to help them, and yet what have most done – sat in front of the TV, etc. As you say, no excuse whatsoever.
It’s also noticeable that the countries that have fared the worst, all other things being equal, are those with higher rates of obesity.
Obesity blah blah blah. Had it occurred to you that mental health decline caused by lockdowns fear and the depressing appearance of masked people outside might have a disincentivising effect on physical movement let alone exercise?
I hate the falseness in the word “Deprivation”, those who work were deprived of Pay funded these people to medically dangerous levels of sendataryness and obesity./
ps, Will – great work – could only be improved by a small table with the major results, <50, >50, total, effectiveness and you might include CFR too as the data is there to work off
A couple of caveats with this method that occur to me:
The only confounding variable that is taken into account is age – and that rather crudely with just the two age groups. Compare this to the Oxford study which took into account:
“geographic area and age in years, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation, working in a care-home, having a patient-facing role in health or social care, presence of long-term health conditions, household size, multigenerational household, rural-urban classification”
It is extremely sensitive to the estimate of proportion of unvaccinated in the case of >50. For example, if the proportion was actually 8% then the efficacy goes up from 15% to 32%.
That is not to dismiss it – but it is only one relatively lightweight piece of evidence to be weighed against others.
This data is BS and the findings are I am afraid unreliable:
As a golden source provider of coherent data I’d put the PHE in the massively politically biased and /or unprofessional quadrant.
Putting that aside, the fact that this data lacks any meaningful temporal modelling of the vaccinations (or previous exposure ) history means your refining within the margin of error.
I appreciate the effort.
But trying to make sense of this post-hoc observational data, given the confounding variables and duff data, is a futile exercise.
The main impact on mortality is likely to be caused by a less virulent strain, increased natural immunity and improved treatment. You can’t assume anything about the role of vaccination in this morass of uncontrolled variables.
Pretty much what I said. Without at least trying to weight the data by time from vaccination date across demographics (over a significant sample size) it’s art rather than science.
I was just going to post almost exactly the same.
Its nothing to do with vaccines, its just a mild strain building up, peaking and declining after a bit of a plateau. Its exactly the shape of any virus.
This ….
Haha.
Here are two new mind-blowing articles really worth your time:
On vaccine induced blood problems:
https://www.wnd.com/2021/08/realities-dangers-vaccine-induced-blood-clots/
On what two of the greatest virologists say to support halting all COVID vaccinations:
https://noqreport.com/2021/08/21/two-top-virologists-frightening-warnings-about-covid-injections-ignored-by-government-and-big-media/
Then get the first and only book on pandemic to strongly advocate for generics based treatment protocols to cure and prevent COVID:
Bold New Book PANDEMIC BLUNDER – FAUCI AND PUBLIC HEALTH BLOCKED EARLY HOME COVID TREATMENT by Joel S. Hirschhorn
A huge amount of data and information not covered by mainstream media are in Pandemic Blunder that tells the story of how over 500,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 unnecessarily because the government has blocked early home/outpatient treatment and prevention. With over 600,000 COVID American deaths, learning about safe and effective treatment is more important than ever.
About the Book:Pandemic Blunder contains considerable medical information and data to support a number of proven safe, cheap generic medicines and protocols that knock out the coronavirus when given early. Read about the pioneering, courageous doctors who have been using innovative approaches to prevent their COVID patients from needing hospital care and facing death. The book includes many expert opinions and Real World Evidence from doctors that show 70 to 80 percent of COVID deaths could have been prevented—and still can be. Don’t be victimized by disinformation and propaganda. Learn how corrupt forces are aiming to make billions of dollars from expensive medicines and vaccines, and how hundreds of thousands of deaths could have—and should have—been prevented! Detailed information is given to help people protect their lives by using simple prevention protocols, an alternative to vaccines.
https://www.amazon.com/Pandemic-Blunder-Public-Blocked-Treatment/dp/197723822X/ref=nav_signin?dchild=1&keywords=Pandemic+Blunder&qid=1612289098&sr=8-1&&
I think Will may have got this wrong. It looks, to me, that he’s used the ALL deaths figures rather than those just for the Over 50s. I reckon the correct figures should be
Double vaccinated: 652 (Briefing 21) – 50 (Briefing 17) = 602
Unvaccinated : 318 (Briefing 21) – 38 (Briefing 17) = 280
(1 – (602/88%)/(280/10%)) = 75.6% – still good but declining slightly.
Thanks – corrected.
I’m curious as to why ICNARC still aren’t including vaccination status in their weekly analyses of the intensive care data for people testing positive for covid. Is there something they don’t want us to see?
https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/18b52cf8-ca01-ec11-9134-00505601089b