The latest UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report was released Thursday, and its authors are now bending over backwards to keep their critics happy. Following a telling-off this week from the U.K. Statistics Authority, the UKHSA’s Head of Immunisation, Mary Ramsay (pictured above), published a blog post explaining what they’ve done to appease their detractors, while the report now states no fewer than four times, twice in bold typeface, that “these raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness”. Ramsay grovels:
To make our data less susceptible to misinterpretation, the U.K. Health Security Agency has worked with the UK Statistics Authority to update some of the data tables and descriptions in the report, specifically around rates of infection in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In our commitment to transparent and clear data, we regularly review our publications to ensure they reflect the current situation within the pandemic, and we will continue to work with our partners at the statistics bodies, to ensure our reporting is as scientifically robust as possible.
As I noted last week, the UKHSA does not accept the criticism of its population estimates levelled by, among others, David Spiegelhalter, who declared that using them was “deeply untrustworthy and completely unacceptable”.
The agency instead takes the view that the problem is systemic biases in the data which mean it “should not be used” to estimate vaccine effectiveness. But as I have noted repeatedly, those biases just mean that the estimate will be of unadjusted vaccine effectiveness, which is a perfectly legitimate quantity to estimate and has its uses, particularly when looking at trends or when there is reason to think the biases may be relatively small. (For instance, a recent vaccine effectiveness study in California adjusted its raw data for 22 different factors but in almost all cases the adjustments were tiny.)
The UKHSA report itself correctly gives the definition of vaccine effectiveness: “Vaccine effectiveness is estimated by comparing rates of disease in vaccinated individuals to rates in unvaccinated individuals.” The U.S. CDC, likewise, states the definition as “the proportionate reduction in disease among the vaccinated group”. The CDC distinguishes “vaccine efficacy”, estimated from controlled studies, from “vaccine effectiveness”, which is used “when a study is carried out under typical field (that is, less than perfectly controlled) conditions”. It is therefore not appropriate for the UKHSA, a Government agency, to insist that its data “should not be used” to estimate vaccine effectiveness, which is a false statement and amounts to attempted Government censorship of scientific enquiry.
The report explains that “vaccine effectiveness is measured in other ways as detailed in the ‘Vaccine Effectiveness’ Section.” However, that section is clear that each estimate “typically applies for at least the first three to four months after vaccination”, and “there may be waning of effectiveness beyond this point”. The report discusses this waning, but only for the Alpha variant: “Data (based primarily on the Alpha variant) suggest that in most clinical risk groups, immune response to vaccination is maintained and high levels of VE are seen with both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines.” What use is data based primarily on the Alpha variant, which went almost extinct around six months ago? There is no attempt to present adjusted estimates of vaccine effectiveness based on the most up-to-date data. Instead, we are just given repeated insistences that the data is not showing what it appears to be showing because it is subject to unquantified biases.
What are those biases? Last week the report claimed that vaccinated people “may engage in more social interactions because of their vaccination status”, which didn’t fit with the more usual idea of unvaccinated people as a less cautious sort. Neither did it fit with the other reason they gave, that the vaccinated “may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19”. This week they kept the latter but changed the former to the entirely ambiguous: “People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions.”
The other two biases they suggest are that “many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19” and “people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19” previously. (The latter they say gives a person “some natural immunity to the virus for a few months”, which seems a very pessimistic view of natural immunity, particularly seeing how optimistic they are about the effectiveness of the vaccines.)
The report asserts categorically that the unvaccinated have higher previous infection rates, but cites no evidence to support this. Why not? Why, almost a year into the vaccination campaign, are researchers still so often waving their hands when talking about the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups? Where is the published data? Precisely how much more likely are the unvaccinated to have had a previous infection? This is a simple data comparison. Why hasn’t it been done? The study in California mentioned earlier found that 2% of the vaccinated had recovered from Covid against 2.3% of the unvaccinated, so not a large difference. Is England similar? Why don’t we know? Likewise, how much more likely are vaccinated people to be tested? This is just a comparison of the testing rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Why hasn’t it been done? This is not good enough. We want more data from UKHSA, not lectures on how not to use the meagre amounts of data they release.
In her blog post, Mary Ramsay points to studies PHE (UKHSA’s predecessor) has published in the past:
These factors are all accounted for in our published analyses of vaccine effectiveness which uses the test-negative case control approach. This is a recommended method of assessing vaccine effectiveness that compares the vaccination status of people who test positive for COVID-19, with those who test negative.
This method helps to control for different propensity to have a test and we are able to exclude those known to have been previously infected with COVID-19. We also control for important factors including geography, time period, ethnicity, clinical risk group, living in a care home and being a health or social care worker.
While PHE did publish such studies earlier in the year (I analyse them here and here), they have not published anything based on data more recent than May, over five months ago. This was just as Delta arrived, and before infections surged over the summer and the raw data started showing infections in the vaccinated eclipsing those in the unvaccinated.
So where is the update? It’s all very well writing pages at the behest of the U.K. Statistics Authority policing how people use your data, but where are the studies setting the picture straight? We’ve had studies from California, Sweden and Israel using data from over the summer, all showing sharp decline in vaccine effectiveness. Where is the U.K.’s contribution to this emerging understanding of the vaccines?
Yes, we had that dubious study in August from Oxford University based on the ONS Infection Survey. But there’s been no update from UKHSA to its studies based on Government testing data.
Here’s a suggestion. Why don’t Daily Sceptic readers write a (polite!) email to the UKHSA’s Mary Ramsay (address here, Twitter here) asking for an update on their very useful test-negative case control study with data from the summer and autumn. You might say you have been concerned about the data in their Vaccine Surveillance reports showing high infection rates in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, but note they say vaccine effectiveness can only be properly estimated in a study, so would be grateful for an update on this.
Here’s this week’s table of unadjusted vaccine effectiveness and the updated graphs showing how it is changing over time. It shows infection rates currently twice as high in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated for those aged 40-79, corresponding to an unadjusted vaccine effectiveness of minus-100% or more. Vaccine effectiveness is negative for all over-30s, and almost zero for those aged 18-29 (and still declining). It remains high for under-18s, and effectiveness against hospital admission and death is holding up. This week the decline appears to have stopped, or at least paused, in most age groups.
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.
“Something must be closed. The schools are something. Therefore they must be closed.”
They are all guilty as hell.
Talking of the covid “inquiry”:
Allison Pearson on X: “Sunak did well so far in his evidence. Quite right to spell out the harm lockdown posed to hospitality and other industries employing some of our poorest. Hugo Keith KC grandly says, “We’re not interested in QALYS”. Well, the taxpayer is interested in vast sums the NHS would…” / X (twitter.com)
Hugo Keith KC grandly says, “We’re not interested in QALYS”.
Huge Keith KC doesn’t appear to be interested in very much at all…..apart from “gotcha moments,” rude WattsApp messages ….. and exonerating The Blob from any culpability in the destruction of our economy and millions of lives.
I’m sure he’s executing the script with aplomb. Whoever chose him, chose well, or briefed him well, or both.
Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg absolutely nails the events of the last three years for Germany. We should have a UK version for our phoney covid enquiry. It would swing hordes away from the narrative!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uM0dIv4nX1cM/
It says it’s a speech to the German parliament but not clear who exactly. Given the applause, if it was MPs it would only be AfD MPs, surely?
The truth remains the truth whoever is listening.
Oh I’ve nothing against those MPs (if that’s what they were) – quite the opposite. Just surprised that such a man making such a speech would be allowed anywhere near a German parliament building – though to be fair I suppose Bridgen hosted a similar session, albeit attended by only a few.
The AFD is mentioned and their logo shown on the screen behind Dr Homberg.
Makes sense. They were the only ones to oppose covidianism at a national political level in Germany, to my knowledge. Horrible right wing racists of course.
They were the only fascists in favour of freedom, funny that!
AFD
That’s definitely not in parliament. It seem to be some sort of recorded AfD conference.
Interesting. I thought it might be some kind of meeting room within the parliament building.
That’s from the 11th and 12th of November 2023 and – as also seen on the German sign in the background – is from the 2nd corona symposium/ conference of the AfD faction in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag).
It should also amply demonstrate why the parties of the current coalition (SPD, Greens, FDP) would very much like to outlaw the AfD which is already observed by the German inland secret service.
Complete recordings (in German and presumably, without subtitles) can be found on YouTube by looking for
2. Corona-Symposium der AfD-Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag
Thanks for the link. I had already come to the same conclusion, but just intuitively. It’s nice to know that someone collected the necessary informations. Summary of factual key claims:
According to official statistics released by various German government offices (all quoted),
The only epidemic which occurred in Germany was an epidemic of positive PCR test results of overwhelmingly healthy people and an epidemic of sensationalists headlines about the purported horrors of COVID.
Politicians playing God.
I hate the bastards.
Back in March 2020 was an interview with a Korean COVID-19 ‘expert’ and as well as the assertions that China controlled this well with strong restrictions there is this answer about education.
Stephen Park (Interviewer): “In Korea the start of the school is being postponed, people are practicing social distancing, and the government even sends regular updates via texts. How well do you think this is all being handled?”
Professor Kim Woo-Joo “On March 20th, a couple days ago, the prime minister made a special announcement that he strongly recommends social distancing. So religious facilities, places people hang out, like bars, and indoor gyms… From march 20 for 2 weeks, these 3 types of places were strongly recommended to shut down. But this is not mandatory. People who are over 50 or 60 are following these protocols well. But teens and those in their 20s are not, because for teens in Korea, their education is very important. Even if they are sick and have a fever, they have to go to school and academy. The school year was postponed for elementary, middle, and high school because of COVID-19, but in the evening kids go to academies. So even if the government pushed back school, kids will still go to academy to study at night. Since I checked last weekend 90% of academies are open. In Asia, the college you go to determines your future.”
So not only did the kids continue their education, even when infected, but they were taught, presumably by someone much older!!!
Evidence is at 25:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU&t=1808s
You Need To Listen To This Leading COVID-19 Expert From South Korea | STAY CURIOUS #15
Schools, shops, who cares?
Rishi Sunak “admits” covid was a scam and he is guilty of malfeasance in public office – that would be worth reporting
An even better ending would be one of the leading figures committing suicide due to being plagued by his conscience and leaving a long letter of possibly tearful confessions. Sadly, due to the need for cost savings, they don’t build public officials or politicians with consciences anymore these days.
Ah secondary school transmission…. The old orange juice on the lft giving a positive trick….
Neither should have been closed in the first place.
The Government knew Covid was a Low Consequence Infectious Disease, with low mortality rates and really only dangerous to the very elderly and people with serious co-morbidities.
They should have shielded the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with their lives and develop herd immunity.
But I believe Johnson was ordered to lockdown – probably by the CIA which knew it was a bio-weapon and wanted a mass human medical experiment to test the “vaccine” against it.
The Government knew Covid was a Low Consequence Infectious Disease, with low mortality rates and really only dangerous to the very elderly and people with serious co-morbidities.
This is still standing on its head: What’s dangerous (in the sense of risk of death) to these people is that they’re very elderly or have serious comorbidities aka already very frail. Which means that even generally harmless diseases may push them over the edge. So-called elderly people are at least a large fraction of those still running around masked and someone really ought to tell them that it’s not the Chinese mummery¹ which stopped them from dying during the last three years but their generally still robust enough constitution which enabled their bodies to cope with everyday diseases like colds.
¹ I have no proof for that but judging from observations, I’m pretty convinced that Chinese mummery, insofar actually done by the Chinese, is not so much about real-world protection but more a social status symbol for those who can afford it which roughly means I’m sufficiently well-to-do that I don’t have to breathe the same air than those of the lower orders and they’re certainly not entitled to see my face when I can’t avoid interacting with them. Maybe with some additional I don’t have to expose may face to the sun and risk it getting brownish thrown in — prior to holiday beach culture, a tan used to be a mark of people who had to work out in the open all day.
But I think here in the West a tan now represents affluence because those with a tan can either afford a sunbed, or they can afford to travel to warm destinations. All those wonderful things the West once prided itself of, now TPTB want to slowly remove those opportunities without the majority noticing.
Middle-class affluence — can afford package holidays, as opposed to being stuck in an eternal on work – off work zero hour contract loop in some low-level service job.
“It was designed in the context of a safe reopening.”
Posturing or did and does he still really believe this cr*p?
Safe like giving James Bond’s name and tel.no, or like walking in with masks and taking them off when sitting down?
Nothing made and could have made a difference.
Until he gets that, he has not understood a thing
And don’t forget the substantial meal (is a Scotch egg one)!