In the US, Southern states have the lowest vaccination rates, while North Eastern states have the highest vaccination rates. This pattern appears to be largely down to partisanship: Republicans are less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats.
At the end of August, when the Delta variant was dominant, case rates were highest in Southern states like Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Meanwhile, they remained low in North Eastern states like New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. This is shown in the map below, which gives the official case curve for each state up to 26 December:
The much higher case rates in the South seemed to provide evidence that the vaccines stop infection (in addition to protecting against serious illness and death). Hence, it was believed, vaccine passports will help to curb transmission.
Fast forward three months, and the situation is rather different. Infections are now surging in the North East. This has led to the somewhat peculiar situation whereby case rates are highest in some of the most vaccinated states. See the chart below, based on data from the CDC:
What explains this? One factor is waning effectiveness against infection. A few months after vaccination, you’re not that much less likely to become infected than someone who’s never been vaccinated.
Another factor is regional clustering. Case curves seem to be strongly correlated within regions of the US. This is probably due in part to seasonality. But it could also be due to the simple fact that transmission is more likely to occur between neighbouring states than between ones that are far apart.
A third factor is the spread of Omicron. This mysterious variant has immune escape properties, rendering both the vaccines and natural immunity less protective. And there’s even evidence of negative vaccine effectiveness – i.e., that double-vaccinated people are more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaccinated.
While offering vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable makes sense as a way to achieve focused protection, it’s clear that high vaccination rates in the North East have not curbed transmission. Vaccine passports don’t work in Europe, and they don’t work in America either.
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.
You know, I have a feeling that the non “vaccinating” Amish will be alright!
They will have been put at risk by the highly vaccinated population around them.
Is spike protein shed an issue, or just the fact the “vaccinated” appear more likely to test positive?
The vaxxines clearly introduce or trigger RNA/DNAsequences that may trigger a positive test. However, this is one of their more minor problems.
The people who write articles on here keep saying the jabs are working but are they really and at what cost to the future health of the jabbed?
The jabs briefly increase anti-bodies to the spike protein but NOT to other parts of the virus.
Soon after being jabbed people’s immune systems are compromised and they are more susceptible to viruses for a couple of weeks.
Studies have shown negative effectiveness of those jabbed compared to the unjabbed.
Long term, due to Original Antigenic Sin, Antibody Dependent Enhancement, etc. plus all the other possible side effects from the experimental jab people will be potentially more ill from the jab than they would be from Covid.
There are rogue batches of the jabs which are causing the most harm. People are playing Russian roulette with their lives depending on which batch they are jabbed with of which they have no choice.
Many studies show natural immunity is better than jab induced immunity.
Many of the contributors of articles on here have admitted as being jabbed themselves and we really need to challenge the notion that these experimental jabs are helping to curb hospitalisations and death from Covid even in the vulnerable.
I wonder if it is more than conjecture that they are being leant on? Perhaps we’ll never know…
All celebrities and msm journalists know that the jabs work, therefore no further debate is necessary.
I cannot see what the mechanism might be to reduce deaths, and given that the trials did not demonstrate any overall mortality benefit, I genuinely doubt it’s happening at all.
Well, when they spend months telling you the jabs are primiarly to keep people from burdening the hospitals, then tell you as more and more vaxxed get infected, that the vaxx still protects you from serious illness and hospital admission, you do have to wonder why they are going hell for leather to get the booster into so many arms. If they’re not going to be very sick and not going to end up in hospital, what’s the rush? They know or are very seriously starting to suspect this stuff doesn’t do what pfisser told them it did.
I remember so well the head of Dutch OMT, a prof. in infectious diseases, saying some time in Dec 2020/Jan 2021 that the pfisser data looked very promising – although he had only read the pfisser press releases… I bet he was never given more info than that before the government pushed him into becoming a vaxx pusher.
A few months after vaccination, you are MORE likely, not less, to become infected. The data shows negative efficacy. So not sure how Noah can write that they would be not that much less likely. They wouldn’t be less likely at all. More likely. Hence the results are not peculiar at all. They are exactly what we should be expecting, and exactly what the data is showing all over the world. Once the vaccinations ramp up, so do infections.
You know, it reminds me of that story about states that didn’t lock down last Winter having a lower IFR than those that did.
The whole thing is clearly a scam, and as far as I’m concerned, certainly since the Belarus all cause mortality data came out up to March, anyone who thinks it isn’t simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
So the jab spreads the infection through shedding?
I’d thought we’d all learnt by now that ‘case’ rates mean absolutely nothing. Certainly nothing to do with a person being diseased. False positives because the PCR is used at high cycles.. on purpose.. equals a Casedemic.. Bullsh*t in other words..
PCR tests cannot detect viruses or an infection with anything and were never designed to – so says Kary Mullis who invented them .
Mullis has been attacking Fauci as someone who “is not a scientist and doesn’t understnad medicine” for 30 years . ”
His death from pneumionia at 74 was ‘sudden’.
“PCR Pandemic”!
PCR tests are highly specific and highly accurate at detecting a virus.
Scientists have always known that it can’t tell if the virus is dead or alive and therefore infectious or not.
Unfortunately the late great Kary Mullis is always being misquoted.
Negative vaccine effectiveness means you get far more cases than just the increase in risk for the individual. I estimate that 50% of adults with -50% VE should at least double the number of cases, compared with everyone being unvaccinated, possibly triple.
So the vaccine is spreading infection?
Sort of. The vaccine is making people more likely to become infected, and once infected they have the same viral load as the infected unvaccinated. And then they will transmit to those around them, of whom the vaccinated are the most susceptible.
So, it’s not the vaccine itself (i.e. parts of the vaccine itself being shed) that is driving transmission, it is vaccinated individuals.
Add to this the lie peddled from the beginning, and being repeated to this day, that if you’re vaxxed, even if you’re infected you’re much less likely to spread it.
Right, a vaxxed person coughing and sneezing left right and centre and an asymptomatic unvaxxed person – and it’s the asymptomatic person who’s the big spreader. Sure, if you’ve gone through the looking glass.
It doesn’t. Vaccination randomly correlates with detectable infection. Everybody who writes about vaccine effectiveness agains infection is directly or indirectly spreading COVID-BS. One could as well create statistics about vaccine effectiveness against forgetting umbrellas.
Sure to the above , but what have facts got to do with any of this ?
Peculiar only if you have reached the conclusion that the jabs are effective before there is enough evidence to support the conclusion.
For the last 12 months, the world has tried to make the COVID jabs effective by diktat. They ignored the fact that years of trying to produce a vaccine against coronaviruses had resulted in failure. They ignored the fact that mRNA jabs are a new, barely tested technology. They thought that they could just announce that the jabs work and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
It is sooooo obvious that positive test rates follow seasonal patterns and that is what we have been seeing in the US for the last 2 years.
So the only peculiar thing here is the stupid mindset that jabs work and that evidence to the contrary is peculiar.
In a sane world free of bullying by media and technocrats it would be assumed jabs DON’T work until properly proven otherwise.
Looking at the agendas of those currently trying to enslave the world it is clearly no longer sane.
Differences in vax rates are as much a function of ethnicity than political leanings in the US. Mississippi and Alabama have huge black populations, and black Americans are understandably suspicious of medical experimentation.
They are really not vaccines.
“While offering vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable makes sense as a way to achieve focused protection“
Perhaps so, perhaps not. But let’s see a proper NICE cost/benefit analysis establishing that it’s a sensible medical use of our tax-funded healthcare money first.
No reason to treat this disease and this treatment any different from any other, obviously.
Doesn’t the data show across the globe a spike in deaths of the elderly following the initial rollout of the shots?
In all honesty, I have no idea. I’ve seen and heard intelligent, seemingly honest, highly qualified people argue the data both ways quite convincingly.
The bottom line, for me, is that whichever side is correct the effect is marginal and risks trivial, both of the disease and the”vaccine”. If there is no clear, incontrovertible signal in the data, then the case is clearly made against the intervention.
“vaccination rates“
Is there any understanding above the line that these are not vaccines in the conventional sense, but rather novel therapies that act similarly to traditional vaccines in their final stages?
Is there any understanding that they were falsely called vaccines precisely because that would allow them to be treated differently from a regulatory point of view, and accepted more easily by both the wider population and the medical community?
It’s clear that there is no intention of addressing this editorially at DS, but it would be interesting to know if this is through wilful ignorance of this point or some kind of resignation – there’s “no point fighting” on the issue because the term is so generally accepted, the propagandist liars have succeeded and there’s no point fighting them.
Or perhaps the editors here have some argument that it really is perfectly legitimate to pretend that a therapy that goes into your cells to make them produce a substance that then triggers an immune response is really identical to the older treatments called vaccines, that exposed your body to something that directly stimulates an immune response? If so, I’d like to hear it.
Because at the moment it appears they just don’t understand the crucial importance of the language in these issues – an odd thing for journalists.
Suffice it to say that if these had been honestly named, as “novel quasi-vaccine therapies” or whatever, then there is no way in the world that they would have been able to impose them on a mass level in the way they have.
Well said, that man! Below is a message I sent to a friend via WhatsApp about a week ago, effectively saying the same thing:
The big con that Pharma and governments made was calling the stuff in jab a “vaccine”: because notwithstanding the novel technologies that work very differently to vaccines, the outcome for protection is not at all like traditional vaccines. If they had just said it’s a protective treatment that is analogous to the anti malarial drugs you take before visiting some countries, that just like anti malarial they aren’t 100% effective and they wear off and you will need to be topped up now and then if you are a vulnerable person, and if all this was just an optional treatment plan available foc, then the toxic, panic stricken, divisive and downright dangerous scenario we now find ourselves in could have been avoided. But no, they had to find a route out of the lockdown cul de sac they had forces us down and they bet the future on these “vaccines” and attached to it all the moral opprobrium we have for old fashioned anti vaxers that would have let millions die of polio and measles. The whole shit show is an ill thought through disaster
I’m not so sure about the “ill thought through” bit, though.
We are dealing with professional, highly paid “nudgers” and colossal marketing budgets, both at government and global corporate levels. Do you really think they didn’t think these issues through thoroughly and consider them from every possible angle, with their own benefit the only consideration?
If so, you are a far less cynical man than I!
I think you’re probably right, Mark. I’ve been resisting the “conspiracy theorists” position for much of my sceptic journey, but I’m just about done with that now. Yes, they knew what they were doing. I stand corrected
Good oh
Though I think you’re safe, this isn’t really full “conspiracy theory” territory.
Pointing out that the government spends a fortune (of our own money!) on psychologically manipulating us (there’s a whole “nudge unit” dedicated to doing just that – see Laura Dodsworth’s and Gary Sidley’s stuff, for a start) is mere observation of established reality, as is noting that the big pharma corps spend fortunes on “marketing” and misrepresent their products (they’ve been convicted of it in the past).
We’re both on safe ground here…
The “toxic, panic-stricken, divisive, downright dangerous scenario we now find ourselves in” is precisely what has been maliciously planned and orchestrated.
It must be obvious by now that if you control language you control thought.
Indeed. And a journalist and politician like Toby Young must understand this better than anyone.
Suffice it to say that if these had been honestly named, as “novel quasi-vaccine therapies” or whatever, then there is no way in the world that they would have been able to impose them on a mass level in the way they have.
That was the point that Peter Doshi, associate editor of the BMJ, made. You wouldn’t get many takers if they were properly described as ‘gene therapy’.
It seems fairly obvious that the vaccination is causing the symptoms of Covid, which is then mistaken for the actual disease.
Which raises the question of how many deaths are due to the vaccine…
Here’s a question. If each dose cost you personally £1,000 a pop, would you say they work? Given what this data shows?
I think if claiming these vaccines work actually cost the individual to do so, there would be much more scrutiny employed
And of course it will over time cost every tax-payer and everyone with any vested interest in the health of the economy (i.e. virtually everyone except the vandalistic elite who have taken their share of the profits from the mass destruction).
Noah doesn’t seem the sharpest pencil in the pack. I dislike his dismissiveness:
This is the old “correlation is not causation” mistake and I am discouraged to see it here.
I don’t refuse the vax for partisanship. I don’t refuse because I’m a conservative. I refuse because I value liberty. I am a conservative because I value liberty. This is totally different than partisanship.
Good point! Moreover, you need only travel 15 miles beyond the periphery of any US metropolitan area (with the exception of the New England states, perhaps) to find a majority of the population refusing the shots. Urban/suburban living breeds conformity.
And in France..
The French State Council Quietly Voted the Vaccine Pass – No Longer Democracy but a Putsch..
The machine is not going to stop unless the people stop it..
https://www.europereloaded.com/the-french-state-council-quietly-voted-the-vaccine-pass/
The first paragraph is interesting – “This pattern appears to be largely down to partisanship: Republicans are less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats.”
I concur as an ex-pat living in Texas, heart of the South.
Why is this? In my experience Republicans are more likely to access alternative media and so have a far broader knowledge of non-mainstream views, both right and left. Here in the USA we have truly conservative broadcast media with satellite news channels such as One America News and Newsmax supplementing the middle of the road output from Fox news, plus the enormously popular talk radio with claimed listenership in excess of 100 million people.
Texas vaccination rates amongst working age people are driven by demographics, with take up in the democrat dominated inner cities such as Houston and Austin exceeding 60%, but in the predominantly republican suburbs and particularly in rural Texas the vaccination rates for those in the 18-50 age group can be as low as single digits.
I attend a suburban church where vaccination is the subject of much discussion. Take up in our congregation of 150+ is less than 10%, a figure that has remained stable for much of the last year. Apart from five weeks from March 2020 the church remained open throughout Covid and we have never social distanced or worn masks. Most of the congregation have been diagnosed with Covid at one time or another, probably the highest concentration in Autumn 2021 when ‘Delta’ swept through the south. Only one person has required hospitalization, a man in his late fifties who had weight and heart issues and is a type two diabetic.
Amongst the vaccinated church members is a young dentist who since the injection has suffered a miscarriage and a pharmaceutical salesman who suffered a severe reaction to his second shot and is dreading the booster – a requirement for his job.
My wife works for a company that contracts to the US government, so they instigated the federal vaccine mandate. With some 30,000+ employees they imposed a deadline of 18th December for staff to upload their vaccine cards but this requirement has been delayed as only 47% of staff complied. My wife is among thousands who applied for religious exemption and is prepared to loose her job over this unconstitutional and dangerous requirement.
When people have access to more data, and are able to decide for themselves whether Covid or the vaccine is a greater risk, you see better results. Despite high levels of urban deprivation in Texas and an aged, high risk population in Florida, these states have seen lower hospitalization and death rates throughout Covid than many highly vaccinated democrat dominated states. Those truly at risk have taken the vaccine and it may have helped them, those at little risk from Covid have listened to the arguments, and got on with life much as before.
One factor is waning effectiveness against infection. A few months after vaccination, you’re not that much less likely to become infected than someone who’s never been vaccinated.
Logic? If vaccines are waningly effective but still have positive effect, there should be a negative correlation between case numbers per 100,000 and percentage vaccinated. The graph shows a broadly positive correlation (Vermont aside).
Also it is not clear that the higher the percentage of a population vaccinated, the more the vaccines administered will wear off. A higher percentage may reflect having got vaccinated earlier, but it will also probably reflect a drive to go on vaccinating, so that waning immunity is continually being counteracted by booster jabs.
It could also be that cases are higher in densely populated states where it’s cold in the winter.