Throughout the pandemic, governments have claimed to be following “the science”. But of course, many aspects of “the science” were never settled.
The WHO, as well as the UK Government, initially told us not to wear face masks. They then decided that face masks were essential. Countries like Australia and New Zealand introduced border controls in early February. Meanwhile, UK scientists were advising against port-of-entry screening. Researchers predicted there would be 96,000 deaths in Sweden by July. But as it turned out, there were fewer than 6,000.
Of course, many people have been sceptical of “the science” (by which I mean the officially endorsed science) from the very beginning. And of course, they’ve formed communities online with other like-minded persons. (Lockdown Sceptics would be one example of such a community.)
In an unpublished paper, researchers from MIT sought to understand how the users of these communities obtain, analyse, share and curate information. Surprisingly (to them), they found that users place a premium on data literacy and scientific rigour.
The researchers used a mixed methods design. First, they analysed a large sample of pandemic-related tweets sent between January and July 2020. Second, they employed ethnographic methods to study users on “anti-mask” Facebook groups. (Note that they use “anti-mask” as a “synecdoche for a broad spectrum of beliefs: that the pandemic is exaggerated, schools should be reopening, etc.”)
In their analysis of Twitter data, the researchers found that sceptics “share the second-highest number of charts across the top six communities”, and that they are “the most prolific producers of area/line charts”, while sharing “the fewest number of photos”. They also found that such individuals “often create polished counter-visualizations that would not be out of place in scientific papers”.
In their study of “anti-mask” Facebook groups, the researchers found that users “value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over “expert interpretations”, and that “their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigour, not less”.
“Most fundamentally,” the researchers write, “the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution”. They note:
While academic science is traditionally a system for producing knowledge within a laboratory, validating it through peer review, and sharing results within subsidiary communities, anti-maskers reject this hierarchical social model. They espouse a vision of science that is radically egalitarian and individualist.
According to the researchers, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries”, and data literacy is a “quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have created”.
Based on these descriptions, one might assume the paper was written by a cadre of undercover sceptics. But the researchers make clear they are “not promoting these views”. Overall, it’s a fascinating study which is 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.
Yes, but it still doesn’t answer my question of how many people died within four weeks of a “vaccination” over this period. What we do know is that deaths “with” covid-19 (according to official figures) increased more than three fold after the injections started, rather than decline. Seeing as respiratory deaths normally peak in January anyway, could it be that a subsequent decline was down to seasonality rather than “vaccines” – and possibly the most vulnerable having been finished off by these injections?
Has anyone got any estimates of how many might have died within 4 weeks of having one of these “vaccinations”?
Right. If you jab everyone with cyanide, then the survival rate from 21 days will be close to 100%. Before 21 days, not so good.
I’ve posted this before but here it is again.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/03/30/f-o-i-request-shows-2207-died-within-28-days-of-having-the-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-during-february/
Assuming this is real, and with all the usual caveats,the extrapoloted figure for the whole of the UK would be around 25,000 deaths.
Thanks baboon, at least I keep reading it. The 25,000 in 4 months or so compares with realistic estmate of true ‘of’ covid deaths of around 20,000 in 2020. Not the sort of statistics they want us to see.
Thanks, that’s great. So maybe Gibraltar isn’t a complete outlier.
This highlights one of the problems that the constant lies, half-truths and misguidance have caused. I don’t trust ANY figures put out by any group who tow the Tyrants narrative. Any real investigation into these figure brings up more questions than answers. But we can be certain all that will be reported in the MSM will be the high figures supporting vaccine efficacy. More smoke and mirrors.
Before the pendants descend, it is toe not tow, I know!
It’s a tow constantly battling these lying, evil shits!
It’ s also “pedants.”
OMG I was sure I’d written pedant! What a morning! ta….
No problem we all make miss takes.
Correct, signed a pedant. Think I’ll give myself a Pendant for my troubles.
Even the relative risk numbers are nowhere near what we were told in the approval stage. 95% relative risk reduction produces like a 0.5% absolute risk reduction. Drop the relative to 80% and this looks even more underwhelming. Of course those trials didn’t look at the elderly in any significant way, I wonder why?
https://youtu.be/EDtdtxAdwyA
Then we consider children and their risk. Anyone even considering jabbing kids is just evil.
If they were honest about it, they should have classified it as an ‘infection mitigation drug’, rather than manipulating the definition of ‘vaccine’. Wouldn’t sell well, though.
Vaccination is a medical intervention which carries risk and has a variable effectiveness. How can society permit the vaccination of children who have no risk when the long term effect of a completely novel approach of RNA manipulation is used. This human experiment is ethically and morally repugnant.
Absolutely. Well said. This is an excellent discussion on that
https://youtu.be/EDtdtxAdwyA
Germany full steam ahead for jabbing kids pushed by segregating unvaxxed from society. Sick.
https://twitter.com/DaFeid/status/1391326319712083968?s=09
AstraZeneca:
Risk of Covid of any severity reduced from 2.2% to 1%
Risk of severe Covid (WHO score ≥6) reduced from 0.02% to zero
Risk of hospitalisation reduced from 0.16% to 0.02%
99.84% on placebo were not hospitalised for Covid
Pfizer vaccine:
Risk of Covid of any severity reduced from 0.74% to 0.04%
Risk of severe Covid reduced from 0.018% to 0.004
Risk of hospitalisation reduced from 0.004 to zero
>99.99% on placebo weren’t hospitalised for Covid
They don’t like it expressed in absolute risk terms, naughty boy!
Another data mined study.
-No age stratification for the vaxxed on hospitalisation.
-That the percentage of twice gene therapied hospitalised and dead is lower is clearly in line with the still much lower number of them compared to the once jabbed or not at all jabbed by April 6th.
-On deaths, the all important number for the under 70s is missing.
If that means that noone or fewer hospitalised and unvaccinated actually went on to die if under 70 than if vaccinated and under 70, the whole case for drugging them and children not only collapses but officially becomes a crime.
-In any case, that myth/lie that all vaccines/gene therapies prevent 100% of deaths and hospitalisation (Bloomberg) can be exposed and put to bed now.
“Among 70-79 year-olds it found 4.0% (1,147/28,875) of unvaccinated cases died versus 2.7% (15/549) for Pfizer 1, 2.1% (10/484) for AZ 1 and 0% (0/7) for Pfizer 2. This corresponds to unadjusted relative risk reductions of 33% (Pfizer 1), 47% (AZ 1) and 100% (Pfizer 2).”
Restated: Between December 8th and April 6th among those aged 70 to 79 who had tested positive for COVID on a PCR test, 96 percent of the unvaccinated sample SURVIVED Covid.
Between the same dates within the same age cohort, 97.3 percent of those who had received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine survived. The difference in the “survival rate” between the vaccinated and unvaccinated (for Pfizer 1) was just 1.3 percent.
Total Study/Summary:
Unvaccinated: 28,875 (1,147 died = 3.97 percent).
Re-stated: 27,128 or 96 percent survived.
Vaccinated: 549 (Pfizer 1 = 15 died or 2.7 percent died).
484 (AZ 1 = 10 died or 2.1 percent died)
7 (Pfizer 2 = 0 died, 0 percent).
Vaccinated as percentage of entire sample: 1,040 – just 3.48 percent of hospitalized patients in the study had been vaccinated during the time period of the study.
Vaccinated who died: 25 (out of 1,040 = 2.4 percent). Re-stated: 97.6 percent survived.
= 29,915 – total size of study
Percentage of people in study who were unvaccinated: 96.52 percent … of which 95.94 percent survived.
Percentage of Vaccinated people who passed away: 2.4 percent: Re-stated: 97.6 percent of vaccinated group survived.
1.66 percent – difference between unvaccinated who later died from COVID and unvaccinated who later died of COVID during study period (December 8 through April 6).
COMMENTS/TAKE-AWAYS: During this study period – which was during the “peak” of the worst part of the pandemic – almost 100 percent of hospitalized patients (96.52 percent) had NOT been vaccinated at all.
One also assumes that “mortality rates” were higher in the time period between December 6th (the start date of the study) and the end of February – as cases, hospitalizations and deaths were spiking as much as 10-fold during this time period.
It also follows that most of those who HAD received a vaccine had been vaccinated in the period when cases were beginning to fall (probably after February for most of those included in the study). That is, it might be expected that death rates for the group hospitalized after, say, March 1st would be much lower than those hospitalized during the peak of the virus surge in December, January and much of February.
COMMENT: By today’s date (May 10th) vaccination rates for those 70 to 79 in the UK should be essentially flipped. That is, by now, probably close to 90 percent of UK residents aged 70 to 79 HAVE been vaccinated (at least one dose, with the vast majority having received two doses by now).
We know from this study that from December 8 through April 6th, 96 percent of unvaccinated hospitalized COVID patients (ages 70 to 79) actually survived COVID. What would this percentage be today? Answer: Probably the same, i.e. at least 96 percent.
We also know from the study that between December 8th and April 6th, there were 29,315 people (in surveyed hospitals) between the ages of 70 to 79 who were hospitalized with COVID.
One question: How many people between these ages are hospitalized in UK hospitals today? Likely answer: Far fewer. But do we know that vaccination rates are largely responsible for this reduction in hospitalized cases? Or is this (expected) large decline largely explained by “seasonality” and/or increasing levels of “herd immunity” (largely from natural immunity)?
Of those who are hospitalized TODAY in the 70 to 79 age group, what percentage have been vaccinated? We know that between Dec. 8th and April 6th, only 3.48 percent of those age 70 to 79 had been vaccinated. Today, this percentage must be approaching or exceeding 90 percent.
If, as expected, the vast majority of COVID patients HAVE now been vaccinated, what does this say about the “effectiveness” of the vaccine in preventing “severe cases” (those that require hospitalization)?
Re-stated: If the vaccines are 95 percent effective (or whatever the claim is) at preventing severe cases, by now shouldn’t only 5 percent of hospitalized COVID patients be in the group who has been fully vaccinated? If more than 50 percent of currently hospitalized COVID patients in the 70 to 79 age group have been vaccinated is the vaccine as effective at preventing severe cases as the vaccine manufacturers and boosters say?
Just to make clear: The analysis above focusses only on those age 70 to 79.
“If the vaccines are 95 percent effective (or whatever the claim is) at preventing severe cases, by now shouldn’t only 5 percent of hospitalized COVID patients be in the group who has been fully vaccinated?”
Nope. The proportion of vaccinated people in hospital will be a function of the proportion of people in the population that have been vaccinated, the probability of being hospitalised if you are vaccinated, and the probability of being hospitalised if you are not vaccinated. To be precise, for age group 70 to 79: let Pv = probability of being vaccinated, Phv = probability of being hospitalised if you are vaccinated, Phn probability of being hospitalised if you are not vaccinated, then the proportion of hospitalised people who are vaccinated is:
Pv*Phv/(Pv*Phv+(1-Pv)*Phn)
In the extreme case, if Pv = 1 (everyone has been vaccinated) then everyone in hospital will have been vaccinated, however good the vaccine.
But, of course, beyond that, good science asks at any point in time, whether the unvaccinated and vaccinated samples differ in other confounding variables, or are they truly random?
We don’t know.
I’ll yield to your understanding of statistics and probabilities, which I’m sure is better than mine. My larger point goes to the much-hyped claim that the vaccines are “95 percent effective at preventing severe cases.” Once upon a time, most people probably thought the vaccines would prevent people from even contracting the virus. However, this “advertising” claim was quickly disavowed, replaced by the argument (a good one if true) that the vaccines don’t stop you from contracting the virus; they simply ensure that if you do contract the virus you are not going to die from it or have to go to a hospital because of it (my definition of a “severe” case). If hypothetically, 100 percent of the population had been “fully vaccinated,” we would expect almost all “severe” cases to disappear. For example, if at some earlier date in the pandemic a network of hospitals had 1000 patients hospitalized with COVID, only 5 percent (50 people) would be fully vaccinated. We actually have some hospitals right now where close to 100 percent of patients in older age groups are probably “fully vaccinated.” But this number is a lot more than 5 percent. I don’t doubt there is a formula the vaccine makers and boosters are using that supports the “95 percent effective” claim. However, this formula doesn’t gibe with my layman’s definition of the term “effective.” Some kind of sneaky statistical semantics are being used to convince the public that if you are fully vaccinated it’s virtually impossible (incredibly unlikely) that you will develop a “severe’ case. I just don’t think this is true. At some point in the near future, it ought to be exceedingly rare to see fully vaccinated people admitted to a hospital. But I don’t think this will be that rare.
Bill
I think you may be still making the same error (I am not sure and I apologise if I have misinterpreted you). You write “At some point in the near future, it ought to be exceedingly rare to see fully vaccinated people admitted to a hospital.” It one sense this is true. If nearly everyone is vaccinated then it should be exceedingly rare for anyone (vaccinated or not) to be admitted to hospital with Covid. However, out of those few that are admitted nearly all of them will have been vaccinated (think about it).
Anyhow, the whole point of the article is that the Seychelles are getting disappointing results from their vaccine programme. It is reducing numbers in hospital but not as much as expected. This casts doubt on the efficacy of the Chinese vaccine which fits in with other reports. It is not useless, but not as effective as others in common use.
“1.66 percent – difference between unvaccinated who later died from COVID and unvaccinated who later died of COVID during study period (December 8 through April 6).”
Well done, Bill.
You’ve just answered the question about absolute risk – which comes out very much in the neighbourhood of the ~1% I’ve previously quoted, given the known higher level of mortality in this age group.
You’ve also highlighted the tremendous imbalance in the size of the two samples – which begs an awful lot of questions in comparison to rigorous RCT-derived data expeted at is stage of an experimental study.
I compliment you on your patience. I confess, I’ve got entirely bored with analysing duff data.
I agree with you on THIS study. Your case is more valid since the period of observation is long enough and there was relatively high prevalence of the virus.
It does look as though the Kaplan-Meier curve for the unvaccinated is approaching an asymptotic limit which suggests that infection and deaths among the unvaccinated cohort will not continue to increase significantly.
The ‘period of observation’ is a sampling variable that doesn’t alter the proportions – it applies across all figures.
Think not of just ‘persons’ in a sample, but persons x t. You can increase either unit, and a larger sample size will be a bigger sample, with (usually) less error in the population estimate. But both R and A risk estimates are subjected to the same.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/seychelles-the-worlds-most-vaccinated-nation-sees-renewed-covid-19-surge-11620669853?mod=itp_wsj&yptr=yahoo
“Seychelles, which has vaccinated a higher proportion of its population against coronavirus than any other country, is struggling to contain a new surge in Covid-19 infections, raising questions about the effectiveness of a Chinese shot the island nation has administered to the majority of its vaccinated residents.
“The islands’ renewed infection surge comes as a shock after the government vaccinated more than 60% of the population. Some 38,000 of the population was given the shot from Chinese state-owned firm Sinopharm and the remainder received AstraZeneca shots produced at the Serum Institute of India …”
Comment: If 38,000 of the vaccines were the “Chinese” vaccine … this still means that at least 22,000 of the vaccines (probably more) were the AstraZeneca (not the Chinese vaccine). So wouldn’t this “raise questions about the effectiveness” … of BOTH vaccines?”
Also from article: According to the health ministry, more than one third of new active cases are people who are fully vaccinated.”
Note: This is about the same percentage as people who have not been fully vaccinated.
Lets parse the math … “More than 60 percent” of the people in this country are “fully vaccinated.” Restated this means that fewer than 40 percent of people in this country have NOT been vaccinated. Let’s say that only 38 percent of people have not been vaccinated.
Now from the same story, we learn that “More than one third” of new active cases are people who are fully vaccinated. Let’s say that “More than one third” actually equals “35 percent.”
Bottom-line: Being fully vaccinated in Seychelles reduces your chances of being an “active case” (compared to the unvaccinated) by virtually no percent.
And this story specifies that more than 60 percent of this country’s population is “fully vaccinated.” If more than 60 percent of this country has received two doses of vaccine, probably close to 100 percent of its population has received at least one dose. So really one could say that just about every person who “tested positive” in this country in recent weeks has received at least one dose of the vaccine, with more than 60 percent getting at least 2 doses.
From this data and story, couldn’t one almost say that these two vaccines are almost zero percent “effective” at preventing new cases?
“Also from article: According to the health ministry, more than one third of new active cases are people who are fully vaccinated.”
Note: This is about the same percentage as people who have not been fully vaccinated.
Lets parse the math … “More than 60 percent” of the people in this country are “fully vaccinated.” Restated this means that fewer than 40 percent of people in this country have NOT been vaccinated. Let’s say that only 38 percent of people have not been vaccinated.
Now from the same story, we learn that “More than one third” of new active cases are people who are fully vaccinated. Let’s say that “More than one third” actually equals “35 percent.”
Bottom-line: Being fully vaccinated in Seychelles reduces your chances of being an “active case” (compared to the unvaccinated) by virtually no percent.”
I am struggling with the logic here. Two thirds of the population has been fully vaccinated. Therefore, if the vaccine makes no difference you would expect two thirds of new active cases to be fully vaccinated. In fact only “more than one third” of new active cases are fully vaccinated.
To put some actual numbers on it. Conveniently the Seychelles have a population of about 100,000 and according to this article (https://www.newstatesman.com/international/coronavirus/2021/05/why-highly-vaccinated-seychelles-experiencing-covid-spike) the Seychelles are clocking just over a 1000 new cases a week. Call it a 1000 for simplicity.
So about 66,000 people have been fully vaccinated and let’s say 400 (more than a third) of new cases come from this group. There are 34,000 who have not been fully vaccinated and 600 new cases come from this group. So chances of being a new case if you are not fully vaccinated are about 600/34000 = 1.8%, chances if you are fully vaccinated are about 400/66000 = 0.6%. The vaccine seems to make a big difference. Although presumably not as much difference as they were hoping.
Bill’s point is also that almost everyone has had one jab, so just using this bald numbers that doesn’t seem to make a difference. Maybe getting two might, but as Rick often points out, just using these bald numbers tells us nothing about other factors that may strongly influence the outcome.
Its not as if we can have confidence of ONS numbers, nevermind those from the Sychelles ( that is not inferring they are intrinsically worse, just that we don’t have a clue.)
Maybe, but Bill did also write: “Being fully vaccinated in Seychelles reduces your chances of being an “active case” (compared to the unvaccinated) by virtually no percent.” This appears to totally wrong.
We don’t have to guess how many have had one jab – Our World in Data tells us that just under 70% of the Seychelles population had at least one jab on 3rd May. So it looks like almost everyone who has been vaccinated has had both doses.
Of course the lower active cases in the vaccinated population may be down to other factors or the data may be rubbish. That’s true of virtually any data about anything. So maybe we should all give up looking at data and just stick to our prior views?
I stand corrected as your point about expecting more than 60 percent of “cases” to be among the fully vaccinated rings true. Still, I don’t think in this country the government could say that being “fully vaccinated” provides great protection against contracting the virus – not if “More than one third” who has been fully vaccinated also ends up “testing positive.” We don’t know what the percentage of recent positive cases is among those who have been partially vaccinated. I do stand by my statement that in this country just about everyone who has “tested positive” in recent weeks must have had at least one dose of vaccine. And we don’t know what percentage of these “cases” progressed to “severe cases” (those that required hospitalization). My guess would be that of the group who qualifies as a “severe case” most of these people have no doubt received at least one dose of vaccine.
You have to careful in these third world countries,The population pyramid is usually 30-40% is below the age for current C-19 vaccines.So when Bhutan says that they have vaccinated everybody it is 65-70% and most likely almost all adults vaccinated.
https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1392067328624447488
The new Covid cases per capita in the 2 most vaccinated countries in the world keep zooming up, being now the highest on the planet by far
“These correspond to unadjusted relative risk reductions of 43% (Pfizer 1), 30% (AZ 1) and 71% (Pfizer 2) respectively.”
And what is the (a) the structure and (b) the absolute risk reduction in these opportunity (non-RCT) samples.
And how does safe prophylactic treatment compare? Oh sorry – you’re not into that!
Why don’t people know this? Why do,they think they are “safe” if they get the jab? It really makes me laugh.