The data from the two most recent technical briefings (No. 18, published July 9th, and No. 19, published July 23rd) from Public Health England shows that vaccine effectiveness against infection in the over-50s has plummeted to just 17% in the month between June 21st and July 19th, which corresponds to the main Delta surge.
The data is derived by subtracting the figures in table 5 in briefing 18 (up to June 21st) from those in briefing 19 (up to July 19th) to give just the data for the intervening period.
Briefing 18 gives 9,885 ‘cases’ of the Delta variant in those over 50 who have received at least one vaccine dose and 1,267 ‘cases’ in the unvaccinated over 50 up to June 21st. Briefing 19 gives 18,873 ‘cases’ in the vaccinated and 2,337 in the unvaccinated for the period up to July 19th. Subtracting the earlier from the later gives 8,988 ‘cases’ in the vaccinated and 1,070 in the unvaccinated for the month from June 21st to July 19th.
To calculate the vaccine effectiveness we need to know the infection rate in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. According to the PHE week 29 surveillance report, as of July 18th, 20,331,977 people over 50 in England were vaccinated and 2,016,818 were unvaccinated. This gives an infection rate in the vaccinated of 0.044% and an infection rate in the unvaccinated of 0.053%.
Vaccine effectiveness can be calculated by dividing the infection rate in the vaccinated by the infection rate in the unvaccinated and taking away from 100%. Thus 0.044/0.053 gives a vaccine effectiveness of 16.7%, which rounds to 17%.
PHE has recently published a study in the NEJM claiming vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant of 67% for AstraZeneca and 88% for Pfizer. However, that was using data from April and May when prevalence was very low. This data is from the recent surge in the Delta variant, which is when vaccine effectiveness is really tested. Like recent data from the surge in Israel, it shows that vaccine effectiveness against infection is not holding up.
As noted yesterday, vaccine effectiveness against serious disease and death appears to be holding up much better. This means that those who see vaccines as the necessary pre-condition to removing restrictions don’t need to change course. However, it does indicate that vaccines do little to prevent infection or transmission and so there is no justification for vaccinating young people and children to protect others, or for any coercive measures like vaccine passports. Each person can be free to weigh up the risks and benefits of being vaccinated for themselves.
This article has been updated.
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.
Oh not more ‘It’s all the Delta variant’ crap – the last refuge of the religious vaccine believer.
Get those blinkers off.
P.S. It’s not a ‘Delta surge’ – it’s the natural substitution of the ‘fittest’ minor variation.
It hasn’t dropped to zero, it started at zero.
The phase 2 trials were a joke.
The phase 1 trials… oh they skipped those. That’s the phase where they establish it’s not too dangerous.
Great work Will and more incontrovertible evidence to send to our respective MPs. Time is running out.
No. It’s not ‘great work’ until the illusions are expunged from the analysis.
MPs are part of the problem, not the solution.
They’ve had nearly 18 months to wake up but still to no avail.
They voted through the Iraq War, played a big part in the financial crash, and supported the Corona measures. Three disastrous events within a generation.
Throw in the expenses scandal and it is clear they’re just a disgraceful talking shop and not fit for purpose.
We have to work within the system we’ve got. Time is running out and the only way we can stop the bill being passed is by drawing our MP’s attention to the government’s own statistics which show that the “vaccine” does not confer immunity or stop you from dying from the Delta variant. What else can we do?
They don’t give a shit for us, they are animals that are more equal than us. THEY need culling everyone of them.
And after 9/11, governments put in place the onerous, obnoxious and probably ineffective airport security system. Everyone got used to and accepted the ridiculous inconvenience and intrusive checks because they were imposed for the sake of Safety.
Only 3? Maastricht, the Exchange Rate Mechanism debacle, invasion of Afghanistan…
This link about a study in Luxembourg about the magnetism of the jabbed.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccinated-persons-luxembourg/5749516
This should be headline news and a true bombshell.
As they therefore amine probably will try to ignore and/or spin it, it’s at least a perfect response to the NHS cold callers.
I just don’t understand why it can be said these vaccines prevent serious disease and death in anyone other than very old, sick people or people with vulnerabilities to this virus – which is actually very few people. How can you say vaccinating ANYBODY who is healthy under 80 years old is meaningful. 1. the virus has evolved to be weaker (as it naturally would) 2. most of those old, sick people died last year, 3. natural immunity is much higher due to post viral antobodies 4. we’re in the middle of a very humid summer and this is a seasonal respiratory virus. 5. there is no statistically signficant asymptomatic spreading. Before you say, oh but winter is coming, realise this is a fast weakening virus… So what evidence is there apart from very weak pharma stats (see ARR) that these vaccines are of any use at all for the healthy? On the converse side, the building evidence for dangerous side effects to younger, healthy people make it a risk benefit not worth taking. Are we just fodder for profit? Ummmm. Yes.
I suspect anybody who is in mortal danger from the virus is already in mortal danger from their ill health and/or age – it will take magic to fix that, not a vaccine
Precisely – I will avoid exacerbating problems by frequenting environments that might significantly increase chances of getting any infection.
But even I’m not going to advocate imposing the semi-suicide that is government policy.
But the snake oils are magic. At least, there’s no other way they could work.
“this is a fast weakening virus”
… and one that was never exceptional in its overall impact.
The more crap that comes out from government (even to the extent that they are now slagging off their own for speaking a word of truth about the idiocy of ‘cowering’), the more anyone who hasn’t been hypnotized may realise that their story is all bollocks.
Regarding your point 2), I would suppose that a number of people who weren’t previously known to be vulnerable and who haven’t died, may do so because the lockdowns and other actions have deprived them of the”normal” medical attention and treatment needed to make them less susceptible.
Post viral antibodies last only a few weeks. The most important part of the immune system is not B cells but T cells. B cells cannot produce antibodies without being primed by messenger T cells.
This is why mRNA vaccines should never be given to children as it circumvents the innate immune system which children depend upon as they have a less well developed adaptive immune system.
When a child receives their childhood vaccinations the vaccines used are either dead or attenuated viruses, these trigger a complete immune response from T cells, which is why a child can develop a temperature or a rash following the vaccination.
you seem to have no idea how many old people there are in fact.
but a fraction of those old sick people died last year, there are plenty left.
look up a chart of the age-composition of the population and be amazed.
The agenda/goal is vaccine CCP style IDs for all – so…
”indicate that vaccines do little to prevent infection or transmission and so there is no justification for vaccinating young people and children to protect others, or for any coercive measures like vaccine passports”
is unlikely to be taken into account
Agreed but we if we succeed in persuading our respective MPs to vote against the introduction of vaccine passports, then they can’t reach their ultimate goal. We have to try.
a whistle blower linking the Government to the vax ID agenda of others would be nice
Having some hero hack the entire system and cause chaos would be nice too. Register everyone as vaxxed… or none.
Having some hero hack the entire system and cause chaos would be nice too.
@Will Jones:
“Subtracting the earlier from the later gives 8,988 ‘cases’ in the vaccinated and 2,337 in the unvaccinated for the month June 21st to July 19th.”
Two issues with this sentence:
1) Subtracting unvaccinated between briefings 18 and 19 gives: 2,337 – 1,267 = 1070 unvaccinated cases in the period.
2) As the technical briefings are published every two weeks, the period of data between briefings 18 and 19 is likely to be the two weeks from 5th July to 19th July.
Well spotted
1) I think you are right on point 1 although it’s just a typo and the subsequent percentage seems correct
2) It looks like TB18 had the wrong dates in it so I think you are right
TB17 says
Table 4. Attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among Delta confirmed cases (sequencing and genotyping) including all confirmed Delta cases in England, 1 February 2021 to 21 June 2021
TB18 says
Table 5: Attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among Delta confirmed cases (sequencing and genotyping) including all confirmed Delta cases in England, 1 February 2021 to 21 June 2021
And TB19 says
Table 5. Attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among all sequenced and genotyped Delta cases in England from 1 February 2021 to 19 July 2021
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/gamma-variant-could-have-high-attack-rate-even-in-fully-vaccinated-people-new-study/ar-AAMvrcl?li=AAnZ9Ug
More lockdowns on the way folks.
”could have high attack rate…” – well that wont scare the irrationally petrified
…
they know the vaccines are not fit for purpose – so they can blame the need for a booster on a new scariant
Or is this just constructing the narrative of the need for boosters?
Both
Loas of vaxxed mates are telling me “if they insist on vaccine pasports they can forget me taking any boosters”. if there’s a medical need for boosters then vax pasports will only serve to destroy the vaccination programme.
It’s great that these articles are published although many people are so brainwashed they will find any excuse to dispute them.
I think it’s time, however, to focus more attention on the people and the motive behind this dreadful situation.
Well done, you are today’s nominee for the misleading headline award! You should have headlined it “Vaccines still stopping deaths and serious illness despite inability to stop transmission”, as you did headline it you just risk giving ammunition to the “vaccine’s aren’t enough, please tyraanize us forever” zero-covid brigade who won’t read as far as your last paragraph where the crucial trurth is revealed.
The figures don’t imply anything directly about transmission. They are about chances of testing positive for the delta strain in the over 50s which is about the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
popOver50 = 20m, vaxxed=18.2m, unvaxxed=1.8m
prob. for the vaxxed. 8988/18.2m * 100 = 0.0494%
prob. for the unvaxxed. 1070/ 1.8m*100=0.0594 %
Since 494/594 = 83% that is a 17% relative risk reduction.
Fair point. But it’s not far off zero given all the assumptions needed hence the ‘about the same’ comment.
It is difficult to come to conclusions based on comparing two groups who may be completely different in make up, the vaccinated over 50s and unvaccinated over 50s.
It’s a bit better than looking at all ages but still huge heterogeneity.
So if you were going to try and make an argument that experimental vaccination was partly effective in preventing a positive PCR test result for SARS-C0V-2, or hospitalisation or death with a positive test then I think arguing that the 2 groups aren’t comparable for example in relation to age and co-morbidities would be a stronger argument.
But then it might be the other way round and an adjusted analysis might make the efficacy negative.
In terms of hospitalisations and deaths there is again no way to split out the died from covid from the died with covid. Given at the moment most must be died with covid then perhaps all the data is saying is that the unvaccinated over 50s are a higher risk group than the vaccinated over 50s. But there simply isn’t the data to back that up or refute that.
..
Bloody brilliant.
Should be put up in every jabbing place
So the snake oil is useless.
I a,ways thought it was.
I ran those numbers myself on Friday afternoon. What a joke our Govt and medical establishment are or maybe the snake oil was just to get the VAX passport’s over the line?
I think the latter personally. If word manages to get out to the bed wetters it’s going to be groundhog day all over.
Not sure these crooks can get away with much more of this nonsense though. The jabbed must be scratching their heads LOL
re: Vaccine effectiveness can be calculated by dividing the proportion of cases in the vaccinated by the proportion of vaccinated in the population and taking away from 100%. Thus 89.4/91 gives a vaccine effectiveness of just 1.8%, or basically zero.
that looks fishy.
It’s more usual to compare the rate of infection in the vaccinated population with the rate of infection in the unvaccinated population. I’ll use your figures and assume there are 20m people over 50.
popOver50 = 20m, vaxxed=18.2m, unvaxxed=1.8m
for the vaxxed. 8988/18.2m * 100 = 0.0494%
for the unvaxxed. 1070/ 1.8m*100=0.0594 %
Since 494/594 = 83% of those who would have otherwise got covid19 did not do so.. the risk in relative terms is lower by 17%, not 1.8%, and certainly not zero.
Download the datasheet and look at the numbers. Percentage of unvax’d people in the population >50 matches the percentage of cases in the people who are unvax’d, ie 10%.
Almost 60% have had 2 jabs, 20% 21 days after 1st jab.
10% unknown for some reason
How is an infection defined as a case is not an infection? The tests being used cannot accurately diagnose infection and are a fraud. The risk reduction you mention is still pathetic when you take into account the risk of an adverse reaction and a catastrophe may well be on it’s way with regards to these.
You are right. Toby Young’s formula for effectiveness is wrong.
17% is still disappointing. If you redo the calculation for 2 doses which is what is generally reckoned to be needed for the Delta variant it goes up to 22%.
The efficacy for the under 50s is nearly 60%. So maybe there is something in the recent Israeli figures suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine loses its effectiveness against infection by the Delta variant after a certain amount of time.
My error – Will Jones’ formula not Toby Young’s.
Thanks. I agree – I used the wrong formula, which doesn’t take into account that the vaccines may be reducing the total number of infections so underestimates vaccine effectiveness. I have updated the post using the correct formula.
”As noted yesterday, vaccine effectiveness against serious disease and death appears to be holding up much better. This means that those who see vaccines as the necessary pre-condition to removing restrictions don’t need to change course.”
Will, a vaccine by definition stops infection and transmission. These ‘gene therapies’ were given emergency use clearance ONLY because there was no viable alternative. THERE ARE MANY VIABLE ALTERNATIVES to reducing symptoms.
Please stop the B.S. !
Given the number of double dosed in hospital, why not question whether the vaccines are Causing sickness, instead of analyzing their effectiveness in preventing some variant.
presumably because the PCR test is reporting massive number of false positives because of the level of amplification with is 40 ! At that level we would all have covid.
Does this mean that the human body is in fact rejecting the spike protein? Good news for anyone jabbed who has not succumbed to the excipients… and for the future of humanity, if so. Can a science boff answer please.
However, it does indicate that vaccines do little to prevent infection or transmission and so there is no justification for vaccinating young people and children to protect others, or for any coercive measures like vaccine passports.
This is not true of the under 50s where the efficacy is 60%.
The major vaccine producers didn’t say that you would be immune from Covid, the point of the vaccines was that you wouldn’t die from Covid. It was politicians and bureaucrats that made false claims that vaccines made you impervious.
True, they did not, and neither did the organisation publishing the NHS leaflets advertising them to us all. All they promise is that it may mitigate the infection if you catch it, not to prevent it in either direction. It’s the politicians that are pretending what it might do, while ignoring any risks associated with it.
Surely that is true, and therefore I don’t understand the downvotes. Upvoted by me.
Looking at the Israeli data from here :
New Data Casts Doubt on the Effectiveness of Covid Vaccines Against Infection – The Daily Sceptic
we can do a similar calculation of effectiveness against infection (vaccinated relative to un-vaccinated). Assuming I’ve got the formula right (and that’s usually a big assumption) we need to use
100*(1 – X) where X = c(v)p(u)/c(u)p(v)
and c(v) is number of vaccinated cases and p(v) is percentage of vaccinated (with the “u” standing for un-vaccinated). We then find for the age ranges :
20 – 29 : – 7%
30 – 39 : 17%
40 – 49 : 14%
50 – 59 : 13%
60 – 69 : 17%
70 – 79 : 32%
80 – 89 : 27%
and all figures are rounded to the nearest integer. Assuming (a) I have the formula right and (b) I’ve done the calculations right, then I would suggest these numbers are broadly in line with the 17% figure in the article (it’s a snapshot and the confidence intervals aren’t going to be very tight here).
I had a stab at the 95% confidence intervals (it is quite a complicated calculation so I may be wrong). As you predicted they are extremely wide.
20-29: -7% (31%, -67%)
30-39: 17% (44%, -21%)
40-49: 14% (40%, -25%)
50-59: 13% (47%, -43%)
60-69: 17% (51%, -39%)
70-79: 32% (69%, -46%)
80-89: 27% (83%, -211%)
whatever the effectiveness of the jab it’s way way below what the jabbed were led to believe. After nearly 2 years of the incredibly fast spreading virus being out and about there must, by now, be a massive wall of natural immunity in the population – the jabs must not take credit for the effectiveness of this natural immunity.
If the actual effectiveness of the jab were really known, my bet is that the virus would be less of a threat to health than the jab, in all age groups
I also believe that the vast majority of the over 100,000 claimed covid deaths (died within 28 days of a 40 cycle PCR test) would have died anyway from their various comorbidities (ie they were already on their way out)
The mass jabbing of incredibly elderly frail people most likely caused the wave of deaths when the jabbing of the too vulnerable began (see the Gibraltar petri dish)
hence the dip in all cause deaths over the last weeks, they all died early
We already ARE “free to weigh up the risks and benefits of being vaccinated for themselves” in principle – but, in effect, it’s hard work to do the sums. Very little independent advice available, unfortunately.
Anyone remember Valneva? https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-trials#valneva It was a trad. vaccine due out in April. 100M doses ordered. Where is it today? Has it been quashed because it isn’t a gene-therapy drug? And the goal of this irrational vaccine push is to enable gene therapy? Makes a lot more sense than the reality of govt policy.
This shows three things:
1)under 10% of over 50s have not taken the vaxx in England. Far exceeding herd immunity for that agree bracket.
2) Information like this will be used to justify ‘boosters’ and the like. Or even further lockdowns.
3)it also proves many decades of knowledge that you can’t vaxx against a coronavirus. Far too many strains to protect t against. Natural herd immunity for the young would have seen to that. Such as great Barrington declaration.
Indeed. Over half a century since they were discovered. A bit of modern history here: https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/blog/revealing-the-first-coronavirus/ They closed down the old ‘common cold unit’ after a while, along those lines.
Thanks Will. The problem we now have with any data is that we start from a very dodgy baseline of PCR testing & the assumption of asymptomatic spread as discussed in Iain Davis’ article: Why we must question vaccine efficacy and safety claims.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/why-we-must-question-vaccine-efficacy-and-safety-claims
To compound this problem, hospital admission data is very misleading in the way it is presented, making it difficult to differentiate between actual Covid cases and simply PCR positives on patients admitted, or already in hospital for other conditions.
I tend to look at the death %s in both Vacc & Unvacc categories in the technical briefings and I agree with the Daily Expose that you are indeed much more likely to die if in the vaccinated groups.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/07/23/fully-vaccinated-people-are-65-more-likely-to-be-hospitalised-1540-more-likely-to-die-due-to-covid-19-than-people-who-are-unvaccinated-according-to-latest-public-health-england-data/
I think that when we start looking at reinfection levels, this too is going to be just about nigh-on-impossible to ascertain as the true figure as previous false positives is unknown. At a CT value of >40, who knows!
I have come to the depressing conclusion that no matter what data is presented to those who create the narrative and those who follow it, they will continue their chosen totalitarian path based on the lie of promoting good public health.
I will finish with a quote from Vera Sharav on last week’s Reiner Fuellmich’s latest video start 4.21 – 4.54.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4BmDEE8zw&t=17513s
“Then as now, without the medical establishment, they couldn’t have done it.”