King’s College London Professor of Genetics Tim Spector dismayed many of his Twitter followers yesterday by calling for the vaccination of older children. The reason? Because the Delta (Indian) variant means we now need 85% of the population vaccinated to reach herd immunity, he claims.
Professor Spector, who leads the ZOE Covid symptom study, was replying on Twitter to Israeli scientist Eran Segal, who tweeted: “Before Delta, Israel reached herd immunity or close to it. To regain herd immunity, we need to vaccinate as many of the 1.2 million over the age of 12 who have not yet been vaccinated.”
Spector wrote: “In the U.K. with delta we need to get near 85% of the population – which also means vaccinating older children.”
In calling for this, Prof Spector appears not to be concerned about the worries of many scientists including members of the JCVI about the benefit-versus-risk balance for teenagers in having the vaccine, or the ethics of suggesting children should be given a vaccine with no long-term safety data not for their own benefit but for the benefit of others.
The notion that a threshold of herd immunity will only be reached if 85% of the population is vaccinated also bears no relationship to real-world data. It’s not entirely clear what Segal and Spector mean by herd immunity in these tweets, but if they mean that without an 85% vaccination rate the Delta variant will continue indefinitely to cause mass hospitalisations and deaths, then perhaps they would like to explain why India’s test positivity rate entered a sustained plummet nearly two months ago, despite the Delta variant being dominant and the country at that point having only 2.5% of its population fully vaccinated? (The figure now stands scarcely higher at 4.3%.)
While there was some reduction in mobility in the country around that time, that has largely recovered now without triggering a reversal of the trend.
Plainly, the decline of India’s Delta variant outbreak did not require 85% of the population to be vaccinated. Just as the decline of England’s Alpha variant outbreak in December did not require such a measure. The Alpha variant, having declined, also failed to resurge in England as restrictions were lifted.
There is in fact no evidence from anywhere that any variant of the virus requires 85% of a population or anything like it to be vaccinated in order to exhaust itself within a few weeks. Outbreaks involving new variants quickly enter decline without vaccinating anyone let alone almost the entire population.
A further point is that we’re already now experiencing the Delta variant surge in the U.K, such as it is, so it’s too late to vaccinate children to prevent it, assuming that were possible. If the idea then becomes to vaccinate children pre-emptively for the next variant surge, in order to prevent it (again, assuming that were possible), we have to ask why? Given that all the vulnerable are fully vaccinated, why worry about teenagers getting runny noses? In fact, exposure to pathogens while young and healthy is an important part of developing a robust immune system.
The Delta variant really is no kind of reason to vaccinate children.
Stop Press: According to the ZOE app’s latest daily report, symptomatic infections in people vaccinated with at least one dose are increasing about as fast as in unvaccinated people, albeit from a lower level. While the data on vaccine effectiveness against serious illness and death has been consistently encouraging, data on effectiveness against infection has been more mixed, and this latest data suggests some of the more optimistic estimates may be on the high side.
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.
All Religion is mind control. And socialism grew from religion. Evil. Atheism is rhe beast course.
Lucky the world has benefited from the peaceful atheism of Mao,Stalin and Hitler.
Not to mention the current example: North Korea.
Atheism never lasts: sooner or later it transforms into two possible outcomes: nihilism (a sort of self-destructive suicidal anarchy) or totalitarianism.
Of these two outcomes anarchy does not last for very long either (it can’t as it is by its very nature dysfunctional), so eventually the only possible outcome is totalitarianism. Which is just a form of bad religion, as it replaces God with the Fűhrer or the State.
So, like it or not, the outcome is always religious, the question is who or what society worships.
Anarchy simply describes a situation where there is no leader (Greek, an archos). It does not have be bad or chaotic or violent. It depends on the people, like everything.
Anarcho-Capitalism suggests an absence of STATE, but not an absence of Law and Order.
You still have a constabulary, courts and prisons, but not centralised state control. No taxation on production, only on consumption.
Anarchy does not have to mean violence and lawlessness.
Read Murray Rothbard for explanations. Also, F.A. Hayek.
The state in principle is not bad, but the reality, as we see every single day is terrible.
Agnosticism is the best course. It’s OK to say, “I haven’t got the foggiest idea, I am going to focus on doing what I believe is right in the here and now, instead.”
Atheism is just another religion, in my opinion. “There is no God” is just as dogmatic a view as the rest.
They should stick to porridge.
good one!
At least they’d get their oats that way.
Hasn’t porridge been highlighted as a “bad” food?
Thank you, Charlotte Gill, for once again exposing the activities of the Provisional Wing of the Enemy Within. Marxists masquerading in Quaker pointed-hats, getting the usual kicks out of Telling Other People What To Do.
Chocolate Money getting up to all sorts of mischief – descendents of the filthy rich assuaging wealth-guilt through God’s Work.
Meanwhile, as ever, the real guardians of modern civilisation – farmers, food-retailers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, builders, materials scientists, software experts, etc, etc, etc – go purposefully about their daily business.
Seems as of tomorrow, steel-manufacturing notionally to continue, albeit through the usual expedient of throwing other people’s money at it.
My family knew two Quakers, they were the most genuine, serious and peaceful people. Both Master Cabinet Makers, of the Arts and Crafts movement, and both Conscientious Objectors.
Yes, it seems there will always be people ready to infect good things.
From what I have read, I don’t want these people to succeed in whatever they are doing, but phrases like “undermining democracy” make me uncomfortable. They are playing the system, perhaps sometimes with help from the system itself. But it’s up to what should be the most important participants in “democracy” to wake the hell up and act accordingly. It’s good that Charlotte Gill, DS and others shine a light – shame the information is not yet spread widely and has not sunk in.
The original Quakers were largely anti-establishment. Now that they have aligned themselves with the state and its progressive left-liberal policies and its sectarian system of governance known as diversity, they effectively have no king but Caesar.
Charities (including religious orders which enjoy similar tax and reputations advantages) must be taken in hand. They must lose status when they become political campaign groups.
Hear, hear!
I tend to think that no special privileges should be given to “charities”
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of small local charities that do excellent work and that couldn’t exist without things like tax exemptions. My dad ran one for over two decades, helping poor and working-class people in Stoke-on-Trent insulate and heat their Victorian terraced homes so they could save much-needed money. I don’t think they particularly made it into a political cause. Then there are the small local private schools that have been forced to close because of the VAT policy, leaving special-needs children without suitable education and the state school system under serious pressure.
Perhaps more rigorous vetting is required before granting an organisation charitable status, but that status shouldn’t be abolished completely.
I’m sure you are right about lots of them doing good work. My issue is that I think it’s inevitable that the vetting process will become corrupted. In any case, my thoughts and your thoughts may differ from other people’s regarding what constitutes a good cause. An alternative is to treat them all as not-for-profit concerns which also attract some tax exemptions.
As soon as they become “political” and/or “activist” they should have their charitable status revoked, so the likes of RSPB, NT and many others should be put on notice, ditch your ideology or lose your status.
Who would decide whether something was “political” or “activist”? Who would appoint the body that decides this? To whom would this body be accountable? Whose definition of “political” or “activist” would be used?
I accept this is difficult to achieve, there is a charities commission, and this needs to be populated with non-partisan members, with no political bias, no conflicts of interest, and no political alliances. Several people on here might qualify!
The National Trust exists to preserve our national heritage and protect national and historical properties and artifacts – it does not exist to flaunt its Woke credentials, virtue signal and dismantle our history and heritage by de-colonising properties and artifacts.
If these organisations stray from their purpose, or “forget” why they exist (their mission) they should be issued with an order to either get their house in order or lose their charitable status and benefits.
I think it’s impossible to achieve. I certainly do not qualify – I am very partisan. Who appoints the charities commission?
Well done to Charlotte Gill for shining a light into the strange dark world of Quakerism. Her article inspired me to find out more about what Quakers actually believe, and it turns out that they are so extremely tolerant and welcoming that there are Muslim Quakers, Jewish Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Humanist Quakers and every other possible kind, though very few these days are Christian Quakers. They don’t like music or people singing hymns or praying aloud. You’re supposed to just keep silent and meditate, unless there’s a visiting imam giving a Muslim talk. Their main belief is in SOCIAL JUSTICE.
The Quaker ideas about sin and evil have shifted “from evil within the individual, to the Revealing of Social Evils”.
“Specific evils and sins named are personal pride, the vain use of resources and economic inequality (20.29), exploitative relationships (22.38), torture and slavery (23.31/30), homelessness and unjust land owners (23.23), unemployment (23.69), war (23.92; 24.04) armaments (24.40), and nuclear weapons (24.41).”
What does ‘Quaker Faith and Practice’ say about sin and evil? – Jolly Quaker
Well that’s a relief to know that when you become a Quaker, you don’t have to worry about repenting your own sins, or not committing adultery or any other sexual sin, but just focus on “SOCIAL JUSTICE”. You also won’t have to worry about Hell, because they don’t believe in Hell or any kind of just punishment for evil, though they also don’t believe in Heaven, so I guess you’ll be stuck in the grey mist of purgatory. But you’ll be stumbling round there with the other Lost Souls, happy to know you did your bit for SOCIAL JUSTICE on earth.
I used to go to some of their meetings in York. This was thirty years ago but I have to say that there was nothing pushy or bolshy about them then quite the contrary. We used to wait in quiet contemplation until the correct spirit had entered into us before saying anything. Any talking that ensued was conducted with great humility I remember being struck by that.
Bravo Charlotte Gill, following the money. I hope mainstream journalists start to pay attention to her investigations.
It’s a shame they can’t be bothered to look into human rights abuse in the UK