The UKHSA has admitted for the first time that it is undertaking internal analysis “every week or two” to monitor the current real-world performance of the vaccines but not publishing the results.
In an email seen by the Daily Sceptic, Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisation at the UKHSA, admits that her agency is continuing to undertake regular analysis of vaccine effectiveness but, despite publishing a weekly Vaccine Surveillance report, is not publishing the estimates.
The Vaccine Surveillance reports have recently been criticised by the U.K Statistics Authority and others for including data which shows infection rates in the vaccinated running at more than double the rate in the unvaccinated. Critics have argued this gives a misleading impression that the vaccines are ineffective or worse. They say it is really a result of problems with the population estimates and systemic differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
The UKHSA has responded by altering the presentation of its data to draw attention to these limitations and make clear that, in its view, the data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.
However, it has not published an update of its own estimates of vaccine effectiveness using data more recent than May 2021. This means it has not updated its estimates with data from the summer and autumn, a period when its raw data shows infections in the vaccinated outpacing those in the unvaccinated.
In a recent post I encouraged readers to contact Dr Ramsay to ask her to publish an update of her agency’s study of vaccine effectiveness. In a reply to one reader, seen by the Daily Secptic, Dr Ramsay made the stunning admission:
We continue to undertake TNCC analysis every week or two and will update this when things change or when we want to highlight a new analysis, for example for a new variant or the booster effect.
TNCC stands for test-negative case control, and it is one of the approaches UKHSA uses for estimating vaccine effectiveness, which it deems to eliminate key biases in the data, especially from different testing behaviour.
Dr Ramsay has thus admitted that they are continuously monitoring real-world vaccine effectiveness using their worrying data. Why then are they not routinely publishing the results? What have they got to hide?
Dr Ramsay says they will publish an update when “things change” or when they want to highlight a new variant or the impact of boosters. In the meantime, they are publishing the raw data showing infections in the vaccinated eclipsing those in the unvaccinated, but telling people the data is biased and no conclusions can be drawn about the vaccines. This is an absurd state of affairs and needs to be challenged.
As before, if readers want politely to suggest that UKHSA actually publishes its estimates of vaccine effectiveness based on the latest real-world data, you can email Dr Mary Ramsay here (or find her on Twitter here).
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.
Trans women would be much more respected if they simply admitted the obvious: that they are men who want to be women or feel they are women and want to live as if they are women but aren’t actually women.
Sorry to harp on about this but “trans women” is a made up nonsense phrase invented by the enemy to attempt to normalise the lie/delusion that men can become women – and you yourself point out that the concept is a big lie. I think we should strenuously avoid using the phrase, and we should refuse to recognise it as a meaningful phrase in the English language so that whenever we are discussing this subject, the idea is not reinforced and cannot take hold.
Instead of ‘trans women’, how about ‘fake women’?
And then it’s very clear that ‘fake women are women’ doesn’t make sense.
Fake is preferable to trans. In some ways though I would prefer that the word “woman” doesn’t appear at all. But it’s tricky to come up with something pithy. Trans men actually makes more sense to me – men who think they can “transition” to being women.
Some people get mixed up about that. It wouldn’t surprise me if in polls, in the past at least, the question, to women might be something like, “Do you agree that trans women should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms?” and some women probably think ‘trans women’ are women who are ’transitioning to being men’, and they say they agree with that, not realising the reality of what it means.
I’m sure that this is true and I am also sure that this is very much part of the intention in corrupting the language – to confuse, to obfuscate, to present distortions as reality.
Yes, totally.
And have you noticed how all of the stories we ever read about around this trans nonsense are men pretending to be women? Across all scenarios, be it male convicts identifying as women so they can go to female prisons, men wanting to enter female sports events ( professional or amateur ), enter private spaces such as loos, have a melt down if they get referred to by the wrong pronouns, being caught abusing kids or with sex abuse material, inciting violence like that nutter who wanted to punch ‘TERFs’….
The list goes on and on, but seldom do i hear anything about FtM trans people being royal pains in the arse, wanting to infiltrate mens changing rooms, prisons and sports events etc.
One obvious reason is that there is now a huge loophole in the law and opportunity which predatory men and misogynists just cannot let go to waste. The biggest disappointment and betrayal of all though is that it’s oftentimes actual women who are enabling this madness!
Yes indeed
What on God’s f***in earth means “to live as if they are women”? Women don’t “live” differently from men because woman is a state and not an activity. To restate (or rather, requote) this: Men trying to fool others into believing they aren’t men are seeking and having a decidedly male experience no woman will ever share with them.
Indeed, and conversely the only experiences unique to women such as menstruation and childbirth, breastfeeding can never be experienced by men. I’ve never had the pleasure of debating with someone who thinks men can become women, and I am glad because I think I would just burst out laughing – the whole thing is so preposterous.
They could start with getting angry about things, but never actually telling their partner what the problem is, and then go on to be terrible at reverse parking.
A jog in the park on Sunday should never be taken this seriously, surely?
It sounds a bit like a pub quiz ….. meant to be a bit of fun and socialising over a drink or two – until the highly competitive “must win” team turns up!
You can have friendly and enjoyable competition without having a “must win at all costs” attitude.
I disagree. The most interesting aspect of sports and games at any level is the competitive aspect. Without that, for many of us, it becomes dull.
Fair play, I’m neither for or against it I just think trans poeple in professional sport is a major prohibitive to female athletes, not so much in park runs
It’s on Saturdays, but I take your point.
From the article:
In that picture above the article: Can you imagine trying to walk a dog (or a child) in that park at that time?
My brother’s just started wearing dresses and stillettos…I think he’s a transistor
A Spanish matador has declared that he is gay, and pansexual (which appears to mean bisexual – what else could it mean?), apparently the first matador to come out and be open about it.
Here’s how the BBC report it:
“Spain’s LGBT matador: ‘More will come out because of me'”
“Spain’s first openly LGBT matador believes more bullfighters will come out, after revealing he is pansexual.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68226508
He’s not “openly LGBT”. That’s typical BBC manipulative ridiculous use of language. He’s openly G and/or B, he’s not L or T.
Gay bullfighting! Does this mean he fights gay bulls? or is he gay and fights bulls? Wow, whatever next?
No, this obviously means he wants to be conquered by bulls. As profession, that’s probably pretty self-limiting. But why shouldn’t the bulls have some fun, too?
Parkrun… until today never heard of it.
Parkrun had been a huge success. Each year more people took part, and more Parkruns around the world started up. Its success was down to its simplicity. What could possibly go wrong?
Well men pretending to be women and claiming their records was happening which was blatantly unfair. Parkrun HQ were well aware of these individuals but didn’t want to act because they wanted to #bekind or something. So instead they decided on mass punishment wiping out 20 years hard earnt records and data without even a day’s consultation.
Effectively the CEO (Russ Jefferies) picked up the football and ran (pun intended) off, collecting his white feather on the way. He’s now tying himself in knots trying to explain his cowardice. An early favourite for cuck of the year?
The issue in a nutshell (from one of the linked-to articles):
the campaign group Fair Play For Women said: “Parkrun have been letting men hold female course records. Women complained saying it was unfair. Rather than resolve the issue Parkrun has removed everyone’s records from its website.”
In the light of this, Parkrun desiring to be less off-putting to newcomers simply means less off-putting to women who don’t stand a chance of ever holding a women’s record when men are allowed to compete in the women category. IOW, their team of international experts was specifically tasked with finding a legal way to discriminate against women and their ‘solution’ is obviously “complete the destruction of Parkrun by eliminating Parkrun for men as well”. As most people on this planet aren’t already involved with it, there’s obviously a huge potential for New Parkrun and people who liked Parktun are just yesterday’s ballast.
Typical woketurds in action: Destroy what they didn’t create because they’re jealous that someone else created something.
Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrundegeht; Drum besser wär’s, daß nichts entstünde.
to let Satan speak the words Goethe put in his mouth.
In every sport or situation where men who have decided they are now women have an unfair physical advantage over women, there is only one way that this absurdity can be stopped, and that is by the disadvantaged women refusing to participate. —–There can be no sport when 99% of the participants are not present. The disadvantaged might not want to abandon the sport that they have worked so hard in but their non participation will only be temporary as the authorities and body’s who have facilitated this situation will capitulate immediately——–I recall Serena Williams being asked on TV how she thought she would do against the men. “She replied “if I were to play Andy Murray I would lose 6-0 6-0. ——-This is simply the reality in physical sports where men are more powerful than women. That situation will NEVER change.
So-called American progressives like to fool themselves into believing that that’s just due to ‘discrimination’. Reality is such that I can hold woman who’s a head taller than me and at least 1½ my weight away from me with one hand and without serious effort. As fat ‘ladies’ oftentimes mistakenly believe they’re also strong and thus, like to get violent towards smaller man, I had the mispleasure to discover this on numerous occasions.
Just call them fat and you will have won the argument because they will start to cry.
That’s a tactic reserved for dealing with people they don’t really dare to tackle.
:->