The latest UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report came out yesterday, allowing us to update our estimates of unadjusted vaccine effectiveness. Last week I noted that vaccine effectiveness was stabilising, and this week we can see it rising in the older age groups. Despite this, it is still negative for those aged 30-79, highly so for 40-69 year-olds, and barely positive in the over-80s and 18-29 year-olds.
Part of the reason for the recent rises in the older age groups may be the boosters that have been rolled out since September 20th – you can see a staggered stabilising and then rise across the age groups in the graphs above and below. This means that we are no longer seeing clean data for double-vaccinated versus unvaccinated, as some are triple-vaccinated. The UKHSA report doesn’t include figures for ‘dose three’ and appears to include the triple-jabbed in its ‘received two doses’ category, though oddly does not clarify either way.
The report still claims of course that its data is too biased to be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness, and lists the usual reasons. We await any actual data on the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, such as testing rates, seroprevalence and prior Covid positives, that would help to account for these biases.
While the raw data shows infection rates often much higher in the double-vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and a number of studies have shown negligible vaccine effectiveness after six months, the official line is that the vaccines remain positively efficacious. Test-negative case-control studies are often used to demonstrate this, which we criticise here. A recent UKHSA study on boosters put the pre-booster effectiveness at 44.1% for AstraZeneca and 62.5% for Pfizer, five months after dose two. Such estimates must be considered upper bounds, given the biases in the case-control design that seem consistently to inflate vaccine effectiveness estimates.
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.
“Postal voting has proved to be wide open to fraud, says Philip Johnston in the Telegraph.”: Then he asks a very odd question “Why, then, does Labour now want to introduce votes for 16-year-olds?”
We all know why political parties want to corrupt the voting and electioral system; it is to ensure they get elected using fraud, tax payers’ monety and anything else that does not involve them responding to the public’;s demands.
“In the Spectator, Louise Perry writes about the gradual re-emergence of eugenics, although only for the super-rich who want to have designer babies.”
Is nikt free (encouraged) abortion for the masses a form of eugenics?
No, not unless it is done with the intention to ‘improve’ the genetic make up of the species… though I’d accept ‘Birth control for the foolish or unwary*’, perhaps?
* yes, I know there are myriad reasons for pregnancies being aborted, but I’d posit the majority of them will be to rectify ‘mistakes’.
If people cannot regulate pfregnancies they are very incompetent. Perhaps some will justify euthenasia on the basis of rectifying “mistakes”, albeit a lot later.
My point was that if the elites do not practive abortions at the same degree or rate as the little people we will have achieved a euthenasia policy. Any such poolicy or practice wheich is not uniform across society is that.
There’s an excellent debate on Spectator TV between Mary’s Wakefield, Harrington & Louise Perry, concerning this issue. One observation that amused me was that, when the contraceptive pill was introduced it was expected that it would allow the poor to stop having unwanted kids and the richer to have wanted kids. In the event, the opposite has occurred.
That doesn’t sound right to me. I suspect both the richer (more middle class) and the poorer are having fewer unwanted kids, but the richer are more effective users of birth control.
Maybe not in the UK but in the US that was certainly the case, as Louise Perry sets out in her article. A large proportion of aborted babies are black babies. This may not (anymore) be because they are black, but because blacks are overrepresented in the underclass.
Excuse me foir making three early postings.
“Tom Tugendhat, the security minister, is expected to run for the Conservative leadership if a contest is triggered next month by election defeat, The Telegraph understands.
Mr Tugendhat, a former soldier seen as being on the moderate wing of the party, won more votes than expected when he sought the leadership in the summer of 2022.”
Moderate?
I think globalist wet would be nearer the mark. As all sorts of people put their names in the frame, or it is done for them by friendly journos, we will see Tories with a long reputation for Remain and social liberalism, economic incoherence and general non-conservative views and bbvoting history start to claim theyt were Thatcherite all along, emnbrace Brexit as it is (incomplete) and represent the centre of the Tory Party.
The centre of the Tory party is left of most Labour governments we have ever had and it will move further left after the GER for two reasons:
1 few non-wets will retain their seats – the candidate lists of the past 20 years have ensured that
2 that is what the Tories always do – move left and seek support from their competitors.
Farage shoulkd have a field day.
“Starmer: Working people don’t have savings”
Whagt an incfredible statewment. Aside from personal fiunancial buffers whiuch poeople build as soon as they can, most people have saviungs in the form of pension rights. In the private sector that means personal pensions which appear highly at risk from Labour.
OIf course, the public sector, including MPs, do not have to worry because the rest of us have to provide inflation protected high pensions.
Tuesday morning Henley Rd & Caversham Park Rd
Caversham
Reading
Watch the 3min video of Starmer and Khant in this article. It’s nauseating. And what’s going on with Khant’s hair? I think you need a miracle to occur in the UK elections to avoid what’s headed down the line. Blasphemy laws in the UK, FFS. No civilized Western nation has blasphemy laws, for crying out loud;
”Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer said that if elected, his government would take a hardline approach in policing “Islamophobia” as he looks to sure up Muslim support before the July 4th general election in Britain.
The government needs to take a “zero tolerance” approach to supposed anti-Islam statements not only made in real life but online as well, Sir Keir Starmer said in a video with London Mayor Sadiq Khan marking the of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr.
The comments from Starmer, who is widely predicted to become Britain’s next prime minister in a little over two weeks time, suggest that his potential government would look to build upon his party’s history of undermining free speech in the UK.
For example, under former Prime Minister Tony Blair — whom Starmer appears to be modelling his persona and policies after — the Labour government introduced the draconian Communications Act of 2003, which criminalised statements deemed to be “grossly offensive” or intentionally causing “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”. The legislation has been used to arrest thousands of Britons for posts online.
However, the Labour Party seems to look to go further, particularly on so-called Islamophobia. The increasingly urban woke left-wing party has adopted the widely contested All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) definition of Islamophobia as being “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
The adoption of the definition suggests that the party may seek to enshrine it into law once in power, which critics such as Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch have warned will act as a “back door” blasphemy law in Britain.”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/06/17/zero-tolerance-labour-leader-starmer-vows-govt-crackdown-on-islamophobia/
Here’s Peter Whittle’s thoughts on the matter ( <5mins )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56S8WXkWGO8&ab_channel=TheNewCultureForum
Starmer is no more modelling himself on Blair than the monkey models itself on the organ grinder.
Nigel Farage insists Kyiv will have to seek a peace deal with Russia
What’s really going on.
‘Russia can keep this war going for ever.’
That assumes Putin can mobilise; conscription. Can he?
That is also what both China and the U.S. would like Russia to do. That is their ‘Russia’ strategy. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Ukraine clearly would not wish for this state of affairs
‘At some point there have to be face-to-face talks……I’m not suggesting that it’ll happen quickly, but at some point that’s what we’d like to see.’
As a statement of the blindingly obvious……..
Ukraine has already committed to presenting a peace plan at the next peace summit.
Putin has realised it is time to move towards a peace agreement, but isn’t yet ready to admit that this must be done not on his terms.
Ukraine is not ready for a peace agreement because there’s no trust. Ukraine is bothered by the lack of guarantees.
No one can give a clear answer to the question of what to do so that Putin won’t attack again in three years.
Also, after 2014, no one in Ukraine wants to go down in history as the government that lost territory.
So, for now, these, below, are the only deals on the table:
Russia:
Ukraine……..to withdraw from the four regions annexed by Russia last year and agrees to give up its Nato membership ambitions. Russia would then expect Ukraine to consent to holding status referendums in the occupied territories over the next 15 years. European Union is a yes for Ukraine; NATO is a no. The U.S. and Russia would agree that there will be no nuclear confrontation in Europe.
Ukraine peace plan:
1. Radiation and nuclear safety, focusing on restoring safety around Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, which is now-Russian occupied.
2. Food security, including protecting and ensuring Ukraine’s grain exports to the world’s poorest nations.
3. Energy security, with focus on price restrictions on Russian energy resources, as well as aiding Ukraine with restoring its power infrastructure, half of which has been damaged by Russian attacks.
4. Release of all prisoners and deportees, including war prisoners and children deported to Russia.
5. Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Russia reaffirming it according the U.N. Charter, which Zelenskiy said is “not up to negotiations”.
6. Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities, restoration of Ukraine’s state borders with Russia.
7. Justice, including the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute Russian war crimes.
8. Prevention of ecocide, need for protection of environment, with focus on demining and restoring water treatment facilities.
9. Prevention of escalation of conflict, and building security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic space, including guarantees for Ukraine.
10. Confirmation of the war’s end, including a document signed by the involved parties.
And, clearly, both parties are way too far apart.
We also now have an interesting insight into the likely position of the U.S. Government:
‘When the USSR collapsed and Russia was at its most vulnerable, the allegedly nazified NATO (Russia’s claim) did not march its armies into Moscow, dismantle Russian’s nuclear deterrence, seize Russian natural resources, and enslave its population.
Japan did not exploit Russia’s unprecedented weakness to retake the Kurile Islands. Finland did not reabsorb Karelia, nor Germany East Prussia/Kaliningrad.
Instead, Russia was welcomed into the G-7 and the WTO and its business and government leaders regularly feted at Davos.
Western investment and commerce blossomed, and Russia was generally accepted as a more or less normal country.
This continued even after Vladimir Putin’s rise to power and his steady reimposition of autocratic rule, murder of political opponents at home and abroad, poisoning of Ukrainian Presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in 2004, invasion of Georgia in 2008, and military occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea and Donbas in 2014.
Each of these transgressions was met with new “resets” from the US and its allies eager to avoid any serious confrontation.
In short, appeasement.
NATO did, over fierce Russian objections, broaden its membership after the fall of the USSR to include former Warsaw Pact states newly freed from Soviet occupation and the liberated Baltic republics.
Yet this was not the result of NATO’s initiative but arose from the clamouring of these former vassals for a hedge against a potentially reinvigorated and revanchist Russia—remarkably foresighted in retrospect.
Enlargement notwithstanding, Russia’s claim of hostile military encirclement by NATO rings hollow.
NATO actions famously require unanimity by its members, and one need only observe how hard it was to achieve Sweden’s mere admission to the alliance to understand how the notion of NATO initiation of offensive military action against Russia is pure fantasy.
Moreover, while NATO did accept new members, the alliance’s overall military capabilities and the deployment of US forces in Europe during this period were dramatically reduced, as were US intelligence community resources dedicated to monitoring Russia, exactly the opposite of what one would expect from an opportunistic, ruthless enemy.
Russia’s leaders know all this, and the degree to which they claim otherwise represents willful self-delusion. It’s also a self-serving delusion because the claim of being surrounded by rapacious enemies is the regime’s primary rationalization for its autocratic rule……’
‘Providing (Ukraine) with the resources they need to defend themselves is not only the right thing to do, it’s profoundly in our self-interest.’
Gregory Sims 13 June 2024
Or alternatively the other G7 members, in particularly USA, saw Russia becoming and increasing economic power, a threat to dollar hegemony, and tried to engineer the destruction of Russia through draining its economic power.
The reverse has occurred, and the West is becoming increasinly shrill and bellicose in response.
The parties are becoming closer togather as Russia erodes Ukraine’s borders and manpower.
Effective negotiaion requires a degree of reality on both sides, or in this case on all sides as Ukraine utterly reliant on Western sponsors for what little it actually has left.
So what happens next? You’re looking at it……..
Media portal BanjaLuka.net published an interview with Zvinchuk on June 18. Kremlin linked Rybar Telegram channel, Mihail Zvinchuk gave an unusually frank and critical view of the Russian military when asked to discuss the current state of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Zvinchuk stated that the war has not proceeded as the Russian military had planned, in part, because of Russia’s poor planning.
Zvinchuk also claimed that Russian forces have learned to fight at the platoon, company, and battalion levels but still lack the capability to fight at any higher echelons.
Zvinchuk noted that Russian forces have “learned” to seize the battlefield initiative but have only done so in select unspecified locations and that Russian forces are only able to make slow tactical gains.
Zvinchuk claimed that if Russia could seize the strategic initiative that Russian forces would seize “a city per week, not a house or village per week.”
Zvinchuk also assessed that Russia does not have enough materiel to take the strategic initiative but acknowledged that Russia is attempting to accelerate its defence industrial base (DIB) output.
Zvinchuk acknowledged that international sanctions against Russia have hindered Russia’s ability to maintain its technological capabilities, noting that some Russian oil refineries are not working, which has resulted in a 10 percent increase in fuel prices.
No wonder there is so little progress,
Russia still, 28 months later, actually holds less territory now (16%) than it did in June 2022 (24%).
You had better answer yourself, but you should remind yourself that Russia’s stated aim is secure borders and removal of Ukraine as a military threat, especially the Banderite component.
It has never stated any territorial ambitions other than those necessary to achieve the above aims, for example, a buffer zone reflecting the range of Ukraine’s missiles..
The frequency of Ukraine’s pathetic pleas for more weapons and the third or is it fourth round of conscription added added to Syrsky’s comments about depletion of reserves seems to indicate that Russian aims are well on their way.
Amusingly, a North Korean official kicked out Russian ministers who entered the meeting room before Kim Jong Un.
Foreign Minister Lavrov, Defense Minister Belousov, Health Minister Murashko, Roscosmos head Borisov, First Deputy Prime Minister Manturov and Deputy Prime Minister Savelyev were expelled from the hall.
‘Go out into the hall.
-Why did we come here? You should have warned me right away…
Our leader will come in first.’
Imperial delusions…….
Nigel Farage Speaks LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nQGwOsGC-Y
Thanks for that link— I would have missed it otherwise.
“John Caudwell says “he is impressed by Starmer”
Wha? In that case he’d be impressed by an empty baked bean can!
“The “right” amount of concern about racism” Noah Carl writes:
“Properly defined, of course, racism is wrong. And nobody’s suggesting we should ignore the phenomenon. But what’s the “right” amount of concern about racism?”
I don’t agree with any of this. Who decided that racism is wrong, and shouldn’t be ignored, and everyone should be concerned about it?
All humans prefer to live and work with people of their own ethnic group, because they feel most comfortable around them, sharing their common ancestry and heritage. And they all tend to think their own ethnic group is superior to others, and to look down upon other ethnic groups as inferior. This is perfectly normal, natural, and universal across all lifeforms on the planet.
The answer to Noah Carl’s question, “What’s the right amount of concern about racism?”
is…
“None.”
I think it really depends on how you define racism, and what the results are in terms of how a country treats its citizens. The whole debate has become impossible. I agree with most of what you say, though I am not sure about thinking other groups are inferior – I’m sure some do, but by no means all – but the end result of things going more smoothly when you’re mainly surrounded by people with shared ethnicity and culture is the same.
Delhi heat sends power demand soaring to record high says the BBC
Well the per capita consumption of energy in India has certainly increased in recent years:
But is it the heat in Delhi or other cities that’s driven up energy demand? No, it’s modernisation. The same thing which is slowly improving the lives of more people in India and elsewhere in the developing world:
It’s just as well they can continue to generate more and more electricity from coal and oil without climate alarmists trying to blockade their roads and other infrastructure or destroy their cultural art works – otherwise people might die, like they used to: