NHS data shows that only a very small proportion of people who have received a Covid vaccine have been admitted to hospital with the virus and died. Around 70% of these people caught Covid before the vaccine would be expected to work, according to a new study, and many were also elderly and frail. The Guardian has the story.
A small number of people vaccinated against Covid have been admitted to hospital with the disease and died, researchers have found, but most were frail and elderly and caught the virus before the jab could have taken effect.
Scientists say their findings are reassuring. They bear out the conclusions of trials of the vaccines in use in the U.K., which show the jabs are highly effective but do not protect everyone.
The ISARIC/Co-CIN study was designed to give the Government’s scientific advisory body, SAGE, an early signal of whether or not the vaccines were working.
“We’re saying that the vaccine does work. In fact, this is good real-world evidence of it working, but there are some few failures. And when these failures do occur, sadly, people die, but that’s because they’re elderly and frail,” said Professor Calum Semple, a Co-Lead of ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium).
More than 52,000 people were admitted to hospital with Covid in England, Scotland and Wales between December 8th and March 10th. Of those, 3,842 had been vaccinated. The researchers had information on the date of the first dose of vaccine for 3,598 of them and information on the date of a second dose for 140.
The vaccines would not be expected to work fully until three weeks after they were given, said Dr Annemarie Docherty, an Honorary Consultant in Critical Care at the University of Edinburgh. Most of those admitted post-vaccination were infected just before or in the couple of weeks after receiving their jab. The median time from vaccination to symptoms in the study was 15 days.
“Around 71% of the vaccinated patients that we have in hospital in Isaric developed their symptoms before the vaccine would be expected to work,” she said. “So we’re really only talking about 29% of these patients where we would have hoped the vaccine to prevent hospital admission.”
A total of 526 patients out of 52,000 (1%) had been vaccinated more than three weeks before they developed Covid symptoms and were hospitalised. Of those, 113 died. Most of them (97) were in the two highest risk categories, so frail, elderly or otherwise highly vulnerable.
Worth reading in full.
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.
“Most had been infected around the time of their vaccination. They said it was possible that elderly and vulnerable people who had been shielding were infected when they went to get their shot or soon afterwards because they changed their behaviour, wrongly thinking they were immune.”
Or they attended a single point in the community where lots of people were going at the same time all of a sudden for some reason
I wonder where that could have been?
Similarly it’s amazing how many people end up with Covid after they’ve been treated in hospital.
I love cognitive dissonance. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so serious.
Its quite evil how they twist things around to suit their evil agenda.
Its quite how you twist things around to suit your evil agenda.
Says you ya bore
I do wonder what you think you are achieving on this forum by all of your negative statements.
Let’s start upvoting him. Might scare him off
I know they say ”don’t feed the troll” – but really, are you actually a poorly educated, narrow-minded, vindictive oik? Or just a sad person with no friends?
The unluckiest people on the planet
thats very nice but unfortunately lockdown is making a lot of people rich in the big tech world and they are gonna ride this train for as long as they can
Yep; follow the money!
“a very small proportion of people who have received a Covid vaccine have been admitted to hospital with the virus and died”
obviously
and also a very small proportion of people who haven’t received a Covid vaccine have been admitted to hospital with the virus and died
I’m not sure what this is telling us
Old, frail people die?
not in the new normal. if they don’t die of covid they will be defined as not having died. as only covid matters
Not dead.Just in a post-life situation.
And some people have been admitted to hospital without the ‘vaccine’ OR the virus, and died.
“…. caught the virus before the jab could have taken effect.” So that could be the jab knocking out the immune system in the week before it has re-programmed it.
I really don’t get the above work. What we want to know is…
on any day
1) how many people are hospitalised
2) how many were vaccinated and how many unvaccinated
3) what was the prevalence of vaccination in the population
from the above
“More than 52,000 people were admitted to hospital with Covid in England, Scotland and Wales between December 8th and March 10th. Of those, 3,842 had been vaccinated.”
ie 7% of admissions over that time were vaccinated. But the average level of vaccinated of the population over that timescale is only 12% and the peak of the covid happened before there was really a mass roll out. I think the vaccines aren’t working and they are bolloxing around the numbers to obfuscate it. I mean the roll-out never even started til beginning of Jan so why would you include hospitalisations from Dec 8th til then – just seems to be to get the unvaccinated numbers up
I really don’t get the above work. What we want to know is…
on any day
1) how many people are hospitalised
2) how many were vaccinated and how many unvaccinated
3) what was the prevalence of vaccination in the population
from the above
“More than 52,000 people were admitted to hospital with Covid in England, Scotland and Wales between December 8th and March 10th. Of those, 3,842 had been vaccinated.”
ie 7% of admissions over that time were vaccinated. But the average level of vaccinated of the population over that timescale is only 12% and the peak of the covid happened before there was really a mass roll out. I think the vaccines aren’t working and they are bolloxing around the numbers to obfuscate it. I mean the roll-out never even started til beginning of Jan so why would you include hospitalisations from Dec 8th til then – just seems to be to get the unvaccinated and hospitalised numbers up
The vaccinations did start in early December.
you are right – I just looked it up. the government dashboard for vaccines only goes back to 10th Jan and number must have been very low before that
Yes – I think it matters, because that sudden exponential rise, which I found peculiar at the time, does coincide with the roll-out.
I did a quick prediction of deaths when Vallance came out with the absurd prediction in early autumn, and was much, much closer than the wild modelling stuff.
Similarly, I did a guesstimate for the forseen January peak, based on trends. In that case, I was some 2000 pw out, and was puzzled by the sudden uptick, which looked like a cliff. Something was obviously happening that literally ‘bucked the trend’.
“We observed an abundance of patients admitted to hospital within 7 days of vaccination (Figure 3). ”
this may be a clue about the 2nd week of the second ‘wave’ – sounds like Gibraltar
but even from the paper the above article references, I cant tell if this is people who’ve gone to hospital with a broken leg and subsequently caught covid (or just tested positive). stats are easy (for me) but need the raw data – which in the covid farce has always been junk
The ‘junk problem’ is constant.
I have given up on ‘Covid’ deaths – it was never going to get any better after John Lee diagnosed the problems around death registration a year ago. The term is meaningless, and we have to look at all-cause mortality – which, in the end has been OK, since it provides context.
You’d literally need to look at individual case notes to make some kind of real evaluation.
The data has been so poorly collected to almost be meaningless, and I don’t believe that’s an accident.
PCR PCR PCR
Can we say its anything other than total fraud at this point!
No. It is indeed a total fraud. Everything about this is. It’s time to stop dicking around, pretending it’s a difference of scientific viewpoint. It’s not. Officials & politicians are LYING. Consistently.
They’ve made a dangerous assumption, that we Brits are too polite, too reserved to say it as we see it.
So I’m going to do the Emperors new clothes routine.
I’ll accuse them flatly of lying with intent to deceive.
I’ll show that the motivation is at minimum to establish totalitarian control.
What happens after that is almost irrelevant since we’ll have given up free will.
That was picked up and discussed in a video by Joel Smalley, who didn’t speculate too far about the correlation of the rise in deaths with the rise in vaccinations…
Joel Smalley’s excellent analysis at the time stands up strongly. There was a certain power acting on those numbers that didn’t correlate with the waves we’d seen before.
Anyway, PCR is always in the mix and that alone always makes our analyses somewhat foggy
1.4 million by 3 January, but 9.3 million by end of January.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=false&Align+outbreaks=false&country=~GBR
Only health & social care workers from Dec 8th. I believe care home residents started late Dec. That’s why there was a huge peak of deaths of care home residents starting almost immediately. In Scotland, the start of care home resident vaccination was later, as was the huge peak of care home deaths.
I’m not certain, but didn’t vaccination of the general population start only in January, beginning with the oldest cohorts? Oddly enough, there was another pulse of deaths in the elderly starting a little after that, ditto later in the community in Scotland. Analytically you can isolate the populations (institutions vs not) by interrogating by place of death.
This is a good point. If the vaccines really are as effective as they say, then the numbers of vaccinated admitted to hospital during this period, should be be in the low hundreds. 3,842 is roughly 10x what we are being told.
So reading again. Allowing for only 30% of those to be effectively vaxxed, then still there are 3-4x as many people being hospitalised, than the studies have predicted.
They may be admitted for non-CV19 related medical conditions.
Good points. Simply report the number of people who are hospitalized TODAY. Of this number, what percentage has been “fully vaccinated.”
To me, logic says that it will only be 5 percent – since the vaccines prevent “severe” cases. And a “severe case” would be one that put you into a hospital.
… And I’d not that probably 90 percent of people 65 and older have, by now, been fully vaccinated. What percentage of hospitalized COVID patients (today) is older than the age of 65?
of course its complicated by the ages and ages of the vaccine roll out
we need to compare the number hospitalised today in an age band, % vacc an unvacc and the vaccination percentage for that age cohort
if the vaccines ‘reduce risk of hospitalisation by 95%’ and the vaccinated and unvaccinated make up similar sizes in the population then we would expect only 5% of hospitalisations for the the vacced group
for most of the time of the study, the vacced grpup were far smaller than unvacced so we would expect far lower than 5%
if you look at figure 1A here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973183/S1143_Hospitalised_vaccinated_patients_during_the_second_wave__2_.pdf
its higher than 5%
I agree. By now shouldn’t just about everyone who is hospitalized with COVID and is over the age of 65 have been vaccinated?
That is, I think if we read something like “60 percent of COVID patients are over the age of 70” – we can, by logic, infer that close to 100 percent of these 60 percent have been fully vaccinated.
Of the old people hospitalized with COVID, only about 5 percent should be “fully vaccinated.” The other 95 percent are obviously in the hospital battling some health condition … but it shouldn’t be COVID. The vaccine is supposed to essentially rule out this possibility, right?
I’m sure the vaccines are working. I’m also sure the adverse effects are not being recorded in anything like accurate numbers.
And we still don’t know the longer term side effects if any.
There’s a reason for taking a long time to conduct clinical trials rather than rushing a new drug or vaccine out to the public, no matter how urgent. You could easily wind up doing more harm than good, or just an unacceptable level of harm.
“When the researchers saw how fast hospitalisations dropped in the weeks after people were vaccinated, he said, it was “a moment of joy”.”
it dropped for everyone – this article is gibberish but I can’t find the original paper its based on
You make an important point – cases, hospitalizations and deaths were already beginning to fall dramatically BEFORE even 2 percent of the population had been fully vaccinated.
found the original paper
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973183/S1143_Hospitalised_vaccinated_patients_during_the_second_wave__2_.pdf
“We observed an abundance of patients admitted to hospital within 7 days of vaccination (Figure 3). ”
good to know
“An additional hypothesis, that we cannot exclude in this analysis, is that some people had recent asymptomatic COVID-19 and vaccination precipitated admission.”
that’s what I reckon. covid is everywhere but dormant or being fought off and we don’t notice it. then the vaccine hammers your immune system for a week and the latent covid manifests itself. plus the vaccine side effects will kill the very frail anyway – or make them so ill they go to the NHS which infects them with covid
Were these people tested for Covid? Or did they die with Covid like symptoms after vaccination and it was put down to Covid? Or did they die with neither test nor symptoms but it was put down to Covid?
I am sick and tired of seeing “and most of them were elderly and frail” – so much like those dying with Covid then? Except when this was mentioned last year we were cruel and uncaring.
“so old people’s lives don’t matter?!” – said by Betsy with the blue hair who also tweeted a few years ago that soon all the brexiteers would be dead and she couldn’t wait…
You’ve nailed the hypocrisy beautifully.
Another study designed to distract. Whilst only a “small proportion” may have died of Covid following vaccination, Yellow Card reports show that a significantly larger proportion have died from a range of other ghastly conditions.
“More than 52,000 people were admitted to hospital with Covid in England, Scotland and Wales between December 8th and March 10th.”
I doubt it. It was called ‘Covid’.
… and I can smell confirmation bias all over this.
Shame they couldn’t bring themselves to report that vaccination deaths broke through the 1,000 barrier instead isn’t it? I’m sure it’s much higher but they’re not applying the 28 days later BS to vaccination deaths oddly enough. New category of Died with a vaccination required lol?
Interesting how they’re busting a gut to show that vaccines work, but don’t give a shit about telling the public that Covid really isn’t that bad, and they can just get back to normal now – which is the honest and recommended public health strategy – proportionate reassurance.
Couldn’t this story also used to make the case that the vaccines are NOT as “effective” as advertised?
From the last paragraph we learn:
“A total of 526 patients out of 52,000 (1%) had been vaccinated more than three weeks before they developed Covid symptoms and were hospitalised. Of those, 113 died …”
So 526 patients had been fully vaccinated and of this number, 113 died. That’s 21.5 percent.
But I thought that vaccinations were “95 percent effective” at preventing severe cases and/or “death” (the most severe case). At least with this “study” and with this sample, the vaccines were only 78.5 percent effective at preventing death.
We learn that 21.5 percent of the fully-vaccinated hospitalized group died. But what was the percentage of COVID hospitalized patients who had NOT received the vaccine who died?
If this figure is a lot higher than 21.5 percent, we’d have more compelling evidence that the vaccines do indeed prevent death … but this data was not included in the story, so we don’t know.
I’d still like to see CURRENT data that gives the ratio of hospitalized patients who have been vaccinated compared to hospitalized patients who have not been vaccinated. (Presumably, by now, just about every older person – including those now in a hospital – have been vaccinated).
If the vaccines are truly “95 percent effective” at preventing “severe” cases (those that require hospitalization), one would expect to learn that only 5 percent of hospitalized COVID patients had been fully vaccinated.
Is this the case today? I doubt it is.
…. Expressed differently, if the vaccines are 95 percent effective at preventing “severe cases” (those that result in hospitalization and/or death), wouldn’t we only expect 5 percent of fully vaccinated patients to die from COVID?
In this study, we have a “known knowable” – 526 patients who WERE fully vaccinated. If only 5 percent of these fully-vaccinated patients died, this would be 26 patients who died from the disease. Instead we had 113 who died – more than 4 times as many as one might have expected based on claims made by vaccine proponents.
it depends on how you define ‘effective’ – as Rick points out. far less than 5% of unvaccinated people die (more like 0.15%). but what % of hospitalised patients?
nobody properly defines their terms – not least the media because they don’t understand them
I think this might be an example of a lie by omission. It’s not the data/statistics they do report, it’s all the statistics they could and should report, but don’t or won’t.
“wouldn’t we only expect 5 percent of fully vaccinated patients to die from COVID?”
No.
The 95% relative risk reduction (if 95% is the quoted figure), was for day 0 uninfected people ending up in hospital because of CoViD-19 (or, maybe it was for any symptoms coincident with a positive RT-PCR test result, or maybe it was for a CoViD-19 death, though I think the quoted relative risk reduction, there, was 100%). So, the proportion of the vaccinated people needing (within the study period) hospitalisation was 5% of the proportion of the unvaccinated people needing hospitalisation (i.e. it was 95% lower). (Even in the unvaccinated group, the actual proportion was pretty small, since the study ran for only a few weeks, and SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t significantly prevalent, at that time – plus natural immunity, etc..)
The statistic you are calculating is the proportion of hospitalised patients who die. This is something you’d examine for treatments (such as Ivermectin), but it’s not relevant for a “vaccine”, which is given to healthy people.
I know with the vaccine claims it’s all in the semantics – what does “effective” mean, etc. Still, I believe I am right in saying that vaccine boosters are, in fact, claiming the vaccine is “95 percent effective” at PREVENTING severe cases (which would be people that have to be hospitalized and/or die).
I understand that when one starts to count “severe” cases is important, as well as and when one starts to count “fully vaccinated” people. But by now (or if not at this precise moment, then very soon) we should be able to simply count the percentage of COVID patients who have been hospitalized who are fully vaccinated and those who are NOT fully vaccinated. And compare the two groups (vaccinated vs. “placebo” if you will).
If and when these comparisons are performed, it seems to me that only 5 percent (approximately) of those who have been fully vaccinated should qualify as “severe” cases. That is, in the very near future (if not now) just about every person who IS hospitalized with COVID should fall into the unvaccinated group – that is, if the claims of vaccine boosters are accurate.
I mean, what’s the point of the vaccine if it doesn’t prevent “severe” cases?
And, FWIW, I hope these claims are accurate. I’d just like to see some COVID hospitalization data that clearly supports this. What I’ve seen so far does not. Maybe this data proves the vaccines do some good – but I don’t think the data we’ve seen to date is telling us the vaccine has eliminated 95 percent of severe cases. At the moment, I’m pretty sure a lot more than 5 percent of “severe” cases are among people who have been vaccinated.
Suppose that, of a particular cohort, say 70 to 79 year olds, 96% are v, and 4% uv (with the “vaccine” providing a 95% relative risk reduction). Then, the number of vs who require hospital treatment will slightly exceed the number of uvs who require hospital treatment.
(The tipping point is when one in 1.05 people have been “vaccinated”.)
The lower the claimed (relative) efficacy of the “vaccine”, the lower the % of people who need to be “vaccinated” before the vs outnumber the uvs, in hospital.
N.B. I’m just demonstrating arithmetic and mean to provide no endorsement of any of the claims made for the “vaccines”.
The ‘95%’ is, as I’ve often said, a misleading relative figure. Absolute figures should always be quoted alongside. If they are absent, then jiggery pokery is in play.
Or the claim about “95 percent effective” at preventing severe cases or deaths should be modified to perhaps read “95 percent effective at preventing severe cases or deaths for people who are NOT “frail” or really old.”
… Of course, a placebo might be just as “effective” at preventing “severe” cases for younger people and/or those who are not frail or already sickly.
It’s really not clear what they’re claiming. They mention expecting to see good results from 29% of the vaccinated, but that equals 1114, not 526??
Interesting factoid from the Dail Fails coverage..
Kensington and Chelsea in London has the lowest uptake rate in the country by some distance, with just 6,678 of 15,384 people in the borough getting a first dose — an uptake rate of just 43.4 per cent.
“… sadly, people die, but that’s because they’re elderly and frail,” said Professor Calum Semple…”
Yep, thats what happens with covid but it stopped you all from sheltering the elderly and frail and letting the rest get on with living. Funny how it’s only acceptable when it’s to do with vaccines.
“Small Proportion of
VaccinatedPeople Have Died Of Covid”FIFY.
Well said!
In the very near future, we should reach the point where 50 percent of the adult population has been vaccinated and 50 percent has not been vaccinated (I think Israel might be at this point today).
KEY QUESTION: In any country that has reached this vaccination ratio, what percentage of patients hospitalized with COVID have been vaccinated and what percentage have not?
This would be great information, but I don’t think I’ve seen any article or study that gives us these statistics.
For example, If 70 percent of hospitalized COVID patients had NOT been vaccinated and 30 percent had been, this would constitute great “proof” that the vaccines offer obvious protection against “severe” cases. Still, I don’t think such statistics would meet the claim that the vaccines prevent severe cases in 95 percent of those who have received the vaccines.
If only five percent of those who have been vaccinated can develop a case severe enough to require hospitalization, hospital COVID wards should be comprised almost entirely of “unvaccinated” people in the very near future.
Is this the case right now? Will it be the case in, say, 30 days (when the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated will probably be 50-50 in most countries)?
Not sure it would prove anything unless we’re vaccinating 50% of each age/risk group as younger people are far less likely to be hospitalised anyway.
We know right now that probably 90 percent of people older than 65 have been fully vaccinated. Take a census of hospitalized COVID patients who are in this age cohort. Have 95 percent of these older patients not been vaccinated?
Must we read drivel from The Pravda of UK newspapers? It’s the equivalent of the free rag that I line the litter tray with. Just because one or two of us get overly critical of your output doesn’t mean you need to torture us with gold-plated tripe from The Guardian.
“… but most were frail and elderly…”
Covid; lets lockdown society because our old and frail are dying.
Vaccines: nah its OK, they’re just killing the old and frail.
I cannot believe lockdown sceptics has printed such nonsense. Cdc VAERS now shows over 3,000 people have died post vaccine. Not all frail and elderly, some died within 24 to 48 hours post vaccine. Nuns in a cloister in Kentucky all came down with COVID post vaccine and a few died. They were “cloistered”. Many many elderly in care homes here in the uk have died post vaccine. Many deaths caused by heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, and thrombocytopenia in otherwise healthy people post vaccine. If these healthy people had been infected with COVID, no doubt they would have suffered flu like symptoms at most.
Young men under 30 suffering myocarditis post vaccine. Women experiencing menses prolonged bleeding. Miscarriages in vaccinated women.
Who knows what else will show up. At least three people I know have had prolonged shortness of breath, petechia, chest pain, severe inflamed joints, blisters on there tongue that will not go away. But it is all just a “coincidence”.
Why are the non at risk being coerced into getting these vaccines? Why is the nhs continuing to spend a small fortune on advertising these experimental biologicals, offering everyone lateral flow tests whenever they want one? Surely, taxpayer money should be spend on real medical problems rather than one with no risk to people under 60 who are in good health.
At most healthy people would have experienced flu like symptoms. Now thanks to experimental biologicals with NO long term safety and efficacy data, they are dying post vaccine or ending up permanently disabled.
I, too, am downcast at this piece of propaganda.
Thanks for your Good work to try and stop this insanity!
So we now have the next swathe of propaganda from the pseudo scientists. It seems the great depopulation programme has begun and until folk wake up, there won’t be anyone over 60yrs alive within ten years.
“NHS data shows that only a very small proportion of people who have received a Covid vaccine have been admitted to hospital with the virus and died ”
Below is the less than 1% of adverse reactions and deaths that is actually reported:
From The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on, April 29, 2021:
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/8430-dead-354177-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/
From the European database of suspected drug reaction reports at EudraVigilance:
Their report through April 24, 2021 lists 8,430 deaths and 354,177 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/8430-dead-354177-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/
From the CDC deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):
U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, following experimental COVID injections, have now reached 3,486 deaths since December of 2020, when the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID shots were given emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/mass-murder-3486-deaths-in-the-u-s-following-covid-injections-in-4-months-more-vaccine-deaths-recorded-than-the-past-15-years-combined/
The CDC has been relying on VAERS CDC, a thirty year old monitoring system notorious for its low capture of post vaccination adverse events, with one Harvard study estimating that only 1% are ever reported to the system:
https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
A recent study by Mass General Bingham indicates low reporting numbers are occurring with Covid-19 vaccination,
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417
The study determined post Moderna & Pfizer Covid-19 anaphylactic reactions occurring at up to 120 times rate reported to CDC VAERS data. The study estimates anaphylactic reactions occurring at rates of 2.47 per 10,000 . This data demonstrates mandated reporters are not submitting reactions as required flagging concerns other vaccine adverse events are falling under the radar.
Sorry, for the typo posted the European Medicines Agency link twice. Here’s the link for the UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released, April 29, 2021.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/1047-dead-725079-reported-injuries-following-covid19-experimental-vaccines-reported-in-the-u-k/
“Most of those admitted post-vaccination were infected just before or in the couple of weeks after receiving their jab.”
Don’t these numbers link perfectly in with the next of today’s articles? Were these already weak people pushed into mortality by having the jab?
The virus kills the elderly and unhealthy
The vaccine kills the young and the (otherwise) healthy.
I needn’t have bothered coming here. I could have just stuck to the Telegraph.