The latest Public Health England (PHE) weekly vaccine surveillance report appeared on Thursday (another one is due tomorrow).
I wasn’t holding out high hopes for this instalment, after digging down into the method used the previous week and finding it didn’t control adequately for background incidence (so confounded vaccine effectiveness with natural decline) and applied such brutal adjustments it could turn a 4% effectiveness into a 73% one. It lived down to expectations.
The authors appear still to be working out what exactly their reports are for as each of the three to date presents different information in a slightly different way. While the first was largely a summary of evidence published elsewhere, the second served more as a showcase for PHE’s latest study and focused on effectiveness against symptomatic disease in the over-65s (90%, supposedly). This week, the over-65s are gone and the focus is on effectiveness against the Indian variant. This makes reading the reports quite confusing, as each doesn’t feel so much like an update to the previous one as a stand-alone report on a separate topic.
In between Report 2 (for week 20) and Report 3, a separate PHE study was published on the Indian Delta variant which found the effectiveness of full vaccination against symptomatic Covid reduced from 93% to 88% with Pfizer and 66% to 60% with AstraZeneca when the Indian Delta variant was involved versus the British Alpha variant.
As I noted last week, this 66% effectiveness of AstraZeneca (against the British Alpha variant) was a long way below the 90% in the over-65s claimed in Report 2. It’s probably a sign of how low my opinion is of PHE vaccine studies that I was pleasantly surprised to see this discrepancy actually make an impact on the data presented in Report 3, and you can see below in the AstraZeneca two-doses box (top right) week 20’s “85-90%” has become “65% to 90%” in week 21. There is still no explanation from PHE, however, as to why one of their studies finds AstraZeneca 90% effective against symptomatic infection in the over-65s while another finds it is just 66% effective in all ages. Is this not the kind of discrepancy that should occasion comment from the authors?
Another moment where full transparency seems to be lacking is in the section about the Indian Delta variant, where rather than presenting the figures for each vaccine separately the authors combine the data for the two vaccines to give 81% overall effectiveness against the new variant.
This seems a strange decision given that this breaks down to 88% for Pfizer and 60% for AstraZeneca, making Pfizer almost 50% more effective than AstraZeneca against the Indian Delta variant. Was this done to spare AstraZeneca’s blushes? Certainly there’s no sign of PHE drawing attention to this disappointing AZ data. We might wonder though: is part of what is driving the recent fear-mongering from SAGE scientists a worry that the Oxford “workhorse” vaccine is not up to the job, particularly in the most vulnerable?
Another oddity is that the report states that “by May 23rd 2021, the overall vaccine uptake in England for dose 1 was 51.3% and 31.4% for dose 2”. Yet the Government dashboard shows 72% of the adult population had one dose and 42% had two doses by that date. The reason? The report is counting children in the unvaccinated population, but without noting this fact.
Overall my feeling is that these reports have been of limited usefulness (so far), and manage to confuse as often as they clarify. What we really need from PHE are studies which control properly for background incidence so we can get a proper picture of how effective the vaccines actually are, including in the frail elderly where many of the deaths are concentrated. We are also waiting for a proper analysis of the post-vaccination infection spike, rather than half-baked attempts to explain it away, and are long overdue studies that include analysis of safety and not just efficacy. Will PHE step up to the plate?
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.
“Effectiveness of AZ revised down”
Could this be why there is pressure for continued restrictions?
I should also add that there was a story yesterday on the BBC about a town in Brazil where everyone was vaccinated, and which supposedly saw a 95% drop in mortality (of “deaths with Covid”), though how reliable this is I don’t know.
Did we ever find out if the big increases in deaths after the start of vaccinations in Britain and Gibraltar had anything to do with the “vaccines”?
(I should add, the Tuesday after the end of May bank holiday last year (26th May) saw 134 deaths reported, even if over-reporting was worse at the time).
So? We’ve had millions infected since and they’ll have largely gained long lasting and robust immunity, so you’d expect a better year to year comparison. It’s how a virus becomes endemic.
Also, “BBC”, “some town in Brazil”? “Vaccines amazing”? You seem somewhat sceptical of that tale and so you should be.
Finally, as for the UK and Gibraltar, you can add Thailand, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Seychelles, Bhutan, UAE, Israel, Scotland, Uruguay, Chile…many many more where that trend has been seen. My guess is, at the very least, they’ve upped the CTs on the tests to create a wave and scare uptake of the vaccines.
Leaving aside other instances, a comparison of the April and January mortality upsurges (of what? remains an issue) in the UK raised a lot of questions when the two curves are compared. The January peak sees a sudden build following the introduction of the snake oil for the ‘most vulnerable’, and a slower rate of decline afterwards.
OK – correlation is not causation, but concern about the negative effect of ‘vaccines’ is as credible as the quickly embraced notion of their efficacy at a point in time when falling respiratory infections were entirely expected.
The other instances of this sudden upturn after the initiation of vaccination adds weight.
No. It’s just PR pressure to take the jabs.
“The reason? The report is counting children in the unvaccinated population, but without noting this fact.”
Oh, for fuck’s sake!! Just another blatant, overt, obvious statistical manipulation that will get highly publicized by the disgraceful media, but generally glossed over, as a quiet note at the end of a report (“Pssss, the 51.3% includes everyone! Shhhhhhh … “) or if in print, then maybe eluded to via WAP Dingbats font.
Jesus. Why stop at children? What about unborn fetuses? Surely they should be included in the unvaccinated metrics? Wait, why stop at fetuses, what about all those unvaccinated sperm in the donor banks.
Give me fucking strength, you media toss bags!
Do we have any useful data yet from “control groups” of non-vaccinated people?
All my friends at our very vaccine sceptic prayer group are just fine…
We won’t know till winter. But I bet a high proportion believe they’ve already had it anyway.
That’s what I believed until I took a T-cell test.
Next winter should be very interesting indeed.
And do they include any figures about the negative effects of the different products? Which is worse than the other, as it were? Not holding my breath waiting for that. A rationale approach would be to assess the value of the whole process, but then they are not an independent organisation.
This article fails to note that the last PHE vaccine report presents graphs that show that the odds of becoming a case increase for up to two weeks after vaccination, relative to the unvaccinated.
Furthermore, the report authors present the data on a log scale, possibly to compress the excursion to minimise the visual impact or even conceal it. Finally, there is no discussion of this remarkable finding, its possible causes, or significance.
visualisation here: https://twitter.com/_richardlyon/status/1399772221145600011?s=21
This seems analogous to the effectiveness of the TB vaccine. The TB vaccination was given regularly at the age of 14-15 (I had the vaccination at around that age). However, it was subsequently found to be less than 50% effective. I am not sure when the policy changed to only vaccinate those most at risk, but that is the current situation. Although my nursing occupational health vaccination record reports that I have the scar.
For some people the Hepatitis B vaccine fails to induce a large antibody response, requiring them to have multiple injections.
The flu vaccine programme is also aimed at the most vulnerable and, again, it doesn’t prevent infection but reduces the probability of needing hospitalisation.
It should be noted that the flu vaccination has always been voluntary in the health service, so I cannot understand the SARS-CoV-2 being made compulsory.
Because its no longer about a virus. It’s about something else, which we can speculate on. But, please, come closer to the fire.
Everyone on here can.
Will is so great.
So, one of the many reasons the “scientific” establishment, in the grip of pharma -related research grants, want so desperately to risk injuring children with the vaccines is clear.
The rna vaccine companies can put almost anything into these vaccines. Children are a very lucrative vaccine market. It’s not about the current Covid jabs, it’s about the future prospects of rna jabs.
Normally a new type of vaccine with clearly dodgy side effects would take years before being approved for children, if it ever was.
But in this climate of fear they’ve realised they can just go ahead and do world wide trials on the children straight away, saving years of development costs.
No risk to them, no liability. The media on their side! Amazing. Let’s go for it.
Of course it’s a bit of a gamble, some kids might die, but hey! They tell themselves, if their consciences flicker into life, that any current problems with the jabs can be ironed out in future, and in the end these rna vaccines will save millions of lives in the poorer countries, and help save the planet. Deaths of some children now, a low price to pay. Possible long term life changing more minor consequences? Small price to pay.
They’re lying to us For Our Own Good.
“Children are a very lucrative vaccine market.”
Overall, the big picture is about the massive wealth to be generated from mass vaccination of the whole population, with regular boosters for vanishing ‘variants’.
This is a bonanza beyond the wildest dreams of most profiteers.
Yes. But not just jabbing against flus and viruses. Cancers. A whole load of stuff.
But they could have stopped at the adults. Still beyond wildest dreams. The greed feeds on itself.
“how low my opinion is of PHE vaccine studies “
I do believe, Will that you are genuinely catching up on the grave rational reservations (medical and ethical) about these concoctions.
I think we constantly need to clear the debris of detail from the ground, and focus on the undeniable basis of rational rejection :
(1) There is no way that the data on ‘Covid’ itself indicates a need for a mass vaccination program based on emergency authorization. This is not an ’emergency’ situation by any normal definition.
(2) In no way can the testing that has taken place be considered adequate – even in terms of known technology, let alone a novel one.
(3) In any case, the revelation of concealed ARR data contradicts the PR spin that has been put out about supposed ‘efficacy’.
(4) The record of side effects is startling in terms of comparisons with most medication. The ‘rarity’ argument has no traction; by any comparison, this is massively concerning.
(5) The experimental testing program has been fatally compromised by observational data being substituted from the mass vaccination. The lack of properly blinded RCTs reinforces the initial doubts about the rush to implement.
Essentially – nothing can alter the crushing basic scientific judgment that has to be made until a satisfactory body of reassuring evidence is compiled. Mass vaccination should be stopped (even tho’ its a bit late), and the vaccination of children should certainly not be initiated.
All the rest is just decoration used to obscure the proven fundamentals.
The case is so blindingly obvious that anyone arguing differently needs to be regarded with suspicion regarding their competence and/or judgment and motives.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/01/covid-vaccines-a-faltering-framework/
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/_pfizer_biontech_zweimal_geimpfte_studie
Two good teardowns and explanations of the efficiency myth peddled by the Lancet article.
I can well believe the efficacy is less than is trumpeted – they were outlandish claims from the very beginning, and for that reason alone I was disinclined to swallow the sales pitch.
What I want ascertained is whether the Yellow Card reporting scheme is actually attached to anything at the other end?
I’m a new listener to UK Column and have yet to make up my mind about it – so far so good; but they keep saying that no one is monitoring the reports.
I’m beginning to believe it may be true because the NHS I used to know wouldn’t have continued with a treatment that led to so many deaths – or even SUSPECTED deaths, without further investigation.
Will Jones has written another excellent piece here (I’d love to know whether he has taken the jab) but a serious look at the accountability of those rolling out this stuff, and the outcome of the reports of adverse outcomes would be more than worthwhile. I suppose it could also be career-ending, though.
This vaccine is a deadly, career-ending folly. Where that leaves is as a nation I do not know. I do know I’ve never voted Conservative, but that I’ll now never vote Labour again either, because as a lawyer, Starmer must know what’s going on. Which means he is looking at an avalanche of deliberate tortious damage, and potentially criminal damages, too. Which means he’s too damn cowardly to actually put his neck on the block and call time on this dreadful carnage.
For a man whose day job used to be asking victims of crime to show immense bravery and be trial witnesses, Starmer has shown a stunning amount of cowardice in the face of his civil duty as an opposition leader, and a lawyer. I hope he gets sent back to wills and probate where he belongs.
But that won’t save my vote, because the supine and despicable behaviour of the teaching unions has been appalling, too. Not to mention the various representatives of other, blue collar, professions. So unless Labour divests itself from its association with the trades unions, and shows some proper intelligence and courage, I’m voting for someone else.
What a disaster of a country we are!