A new week and a new update from the UKHSA on the performance of the vaccines. Table 12, the rates data for vaccinated and unvaccinated, once again shows data for those triple-jabbed rather than two-or-more doses as was given for the data for 2021 since September up to Week 2’s report, however, we can estimate the rates for those with only two jabs using data in tables 9-11 and vaccination data available from the NHS.
Using these data we can estimate infection rates by vaccination status (above); from these data we can then estimate the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness for infection for those having two or three doses (below).
The vaccine effectiveness data for those receiving two doses are particularly concerning. Because we do not have full data available to us there is a risk of some biases creeping into the data and making things look worse than they are in reality. However, the very very negative estimates of vaccine effectiveness for the double-jabbed shown in the graph above (lower than minus 300% in those aged 40-59, meaning four times as many infections than in the unvaccinated) are likely to be much greater than what could easily be accounted for. What’s more, the data show significantly negative vaccine effectiveness for those aged between 18 and 50, a group which has not received the booster in particularly high rates, reducing the impact of some potential biases that occur with small numbers in each cohort, meaning we can be more confident the figures are closer to reality.
The new estimates of vaccine effectiveness by dose for this week allow us to continue the graphs of the change in vaccine effectiveness with time.
Note that data for 2022 is separated out into those with two doses only and those with three doses only. Note also the scale on the y-axis: almost all the points are highly negative; those for two doses are hundreds of percent below zero, equating to infection rates many times higher than in the unvaccinated.
It is interesting to see in the graph that for those aged over 60 the trend in the data from last year most closely tracks into those having had a booster dose for the 2022 data, while for those aged under 50 the data most closely follows those only having had two doses for the 2022 data. This reflects the earlier boosting and much higher booster rates in those aged over 60 producing the ‘hump’ in the estimate of vaccine effectiveness going into the last month or two of last year.
The negative estimate of vaccine effectiveness shown in the graph above will be affected to some extent by the biases inherent in the raw, uncorrected data that we have available to us. However, it reflects the negative effectiveness seen elsewhere. Of course, the UKHSA would be keen to point out that its own data still shows at worst zero vaccine effectiveness, but their estimates are influenced by biases of their own, mainly associated with their choice of method (test-negative case-control (TNCC) methods are significantly affected by testing biases in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations – a bias warned against in scientific papers that describe how the TNCC method should be used). It is likely that the true vaccine effectiveness lies somewhere between the raw analysis shown above and the ‘zero or slightly negative’ estimate given by the TNCC method. I note that the cohort studies published last year suggested that two doses of vaccines had a negative effectiveness of between approximately minus-20% and minus-150% (for example, see S12 in a study of infections in Qatar, a study of infections in Israel National Airport, or cohort study undertaken by Imperial College, data given in Table 2) – given that Omicron has further escaped the protection offered by the vaccines it is likely that the true vaccine effectiveness is now significantly negative and that the estimates shown in the graph above aren’t too far out.
It is likely that the small uptick in apparent vaccine effectiveness in this week’s data indicated in the graph above is an artefact related to the biases that remain in using raw data – if only the UKHSA would gather and release better data…
Of course, the approach we’re taking to estimate vaccine effectiveness should be used with caution; the question is how much bias it introduces. While there will be some bias introduced by using raw data, the impact should not be too great and certainly the trend in the data shows a very worrying situation. The authorities could assist by releasing more useful data or by undertaking vaccine effectiveness studies that are more robust (what’s needed are large scale matched cohort longitudinal studies). However, they’re extraordinarily keen not to do this and merely rely on the highly biased TNCC method (presumably because it significantly overestimates vaccine effectiveness). Of course, more robust estimates would cost a little more money to undertake – but it isn’t as though governments worldwide aren’t throwing huge amounts of cash at other aspects associated with the Covid pandemic (for example, the nearly useless Test and Trace programme). As it stands, the data that are available to us paint a very worrying picture that really should be rigorously investigated by our health ‘security’ authority.
It is important to note that the impact of negative vaccine effectiveness on case numbers would be greater than suggested simply by looking at the proportional risk of infection indicated by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness – this is because infectious diseases have an exponential growth pattern. The impact of highly negative vaccine effectiveness on case numbers would be for there to be a very rapid increase in cases to a much higher eventual peak, than would have been the case with only unvaccinated – note the speed and scale of this winter’s Omicron wave…
We can also analyse the new data to get hospitalisation and death rates by vaccination status.
Hospitalisation data suggest that only having two doses of the vaccines now have negative protection against hospitalisation for all age groups aged 18 or over. The data suggest that three doses are still offering some protection, although even this protection appears to be waning.
The trend lines in the data suggest that there has been a significant drop in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with the Omicron variant. However, there was probably a more gradual drop over the last few months of 2021, hidden in the data above by the insistence of UKHSA in not releasing data by vaccine dose for two and three doses separately. Perhaps the very poor performance of the vaccines at protecting against hospitalisation is the reason why they didn’t want to release these data?
If anything, the data suggest that the protection against death (below) offered by two doses of vaccine is even worse – however, it is possible that the particularly negative data for those aged over 70, and to a lesser extent those aged 60-70, reflects a ‘healthy vaccinee’ effect. This would occur if those most close to death were spared from the booster vaccine, resulting in relatively higher death rates in the small two-dose-only group. However, the booster take-up in those aged under 50 is much lower, and would mean that a healthy vaccinee effect would not significantly affect the data – thus it is very likely that the loss in protection against death offered by two doses of vaccine has fallen to zero, as indicated by the data, and might well have fallen below zero for those aged over 60 (i.e., those whose vaccine protection has waned the most).
If we are seeing a ‘healthy vaccinee’ effect then we should expect to see the very negative effectiveness figures for those aged over 60 rebound a little further and then flatten out over the next few months.
Finally, in all of the data above it is clear that the booster doses are now having little positive protection against infection (and probably make infection more likely), but still have some worthwhile protective value against hospitalisation and death. However, it is likely that even the booster will repeat the spectacular drop in the effectiveness of two doses of vaccine seen in recent months. While our authorities will be keen to promise that the booster can just be repeated at regular intervals, immunology is not that simple. The boosters appear to work by increasing antibody levels even further, rather than boosting antibody levels back to ‘where they should be’. It is likely that further boosters will have a small positive impact and for a shorter duration of effect. Omicron specific boosters might well improve on this,. However, it is likely that these will merely introduce new evolutionary pressures in the virus to evolve escape to those vaccines, and might introduce new viral behaviours that won’t be as benign as those apparently seen with Omicron.
In summary, the latest data suggest that:
- Infection rates are soaring in the vaccinated, with even those boosted seeing increased case rates than the unvaccinated. The apparent lack of any ability of the vaccines to protect against infection (and onwards infection) suggests that the current mania in governments worldwide to vaccinate everyone to keep Covid under control is counterproductive. The UKHSA really should comment on the purpose of vaccinating the non-vulnerable in the population.
- There now appears to be an increased risk of hospitalisation for those with only two vaccine doses. This risk appears to be rather high for those aged over 70, but it must be considered that this might be an artefact due to a healthy vaccinee effect. The data for younger individuals should be more robust. Urgent work should be undertaken by our authorities to fully understand what is going on with hospitalisation rates. It may be necessary to inform the vaccinated that they need to keep getting booster doses to keep their risk of hospitalisation below that of the unvaccinated.
- The increased risk of death in the double-vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated is troubling. I hope that this is an artefact due to a healthy vaccinee effect and that the real situation is only that vaccine protection against death falls to zero, as suggested by the under 50 data. I also hope that things don’t get any worse.
Hope is not a strategy.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. Find him on his Substack page, Bartram’s Folly.
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.
In a happier, simpler time, this would have been a rather boring academic discussion about temperature measurements.
Today it’s part of a battle to keep the state out of our lives and be able to live free.
Pretty nuts really.
This academic discussion is being controlled and as far as I can see, discussed less (ie detail) and sensationalised more! Very nuts!
Some time in the late 1980s or very early 1990, I was on a summer holiday on a farm on Bodmin Moor. By that time, it hadn’t rained in this area for 19 weeks in a row and some of the moor farms received water supplies from tankers. That was a generally hot summer, not the five weeks of no rain with mostly lovely temperatures we had this year.
Ha, my lasting memory of Bodmin is failing my first driving test there ( steep inclines + crap clutch control = going backwards when attempting a hill start. Not great when there’s a car behind you.
) but passing second time. I miss Cornwall though.
Real experts manage to do that after passing the test. I’ve recently encountered one (and waited patiently on the pavement until he had remembered which of all these pedals are supposed to be used in what order).
My brother’s instructor used to put my brother’s cigarettes, and later his wristwatch behind the back wheel. Made for really good hill starts!
The Met Office used the “break in the clouds” explanation to explain the Heathrow “record”, ignoring criticism that by amazing co-incidence three jets landed on an unusual approach (West to East) and promptly turned on to a taxiway and blew jet exhausts over the exact spot that the temperature sensor was positioned. These Mexplanations are getting tedious. In other news, some US “records” are held by sensors positioned a few feet from a municipal incinerator, or top of a black roof or in a car-park. They served their purpose, but that purpose was not as a measure of climate, and were then re-purposed to create bogus records to fill newspaper headlines and create climate scares.
More detail on the Heathrow 2015 “record”, including site map and aircraft movements: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6721
Don’t know if it’s of any use but by looking at Flightradar24 playback for that day, two RAF Typhoons were operating from that base around that time: Flights CHAOS011 (reg ZJ914) and CHAOS012 (reg ZK377). After a brief exercise over the North Sea, CHAOS011 landed just after 15:10. CHAOS012 landed 15 minutes later.
Of course, it must be sheer coincidence!
A weather event is not Climate.
A normal summer is not Climate Hell.
Putting an electronic measuring device at Heathrow on tarmac, near jet engines, behind a magnifying glass, next to a fire is not science. It is fraud. Move it 5 miles to the countryside and the temp was 36C.
The entire cult of warm and cult of the changing thingy is a fraud.
I had first-hand experience of such temperature anomalies during my working life. I knew this was bs as soon as it was published.
“The Met Office distorts data and lies” is not the surprise. That would be them telling the truth
My kitchen is usually a fairly cool room since it’s north facing. But strangely enough, after I’ve cooked a roast and I leave the oven door open, the kitchen quickly warms up a bit for a while and then fairly quickly the temperature drops again.
Must be climate change – so I’d better stop cooking roasts and start eating raw insects.
All these institutions that have been hollowed out by GangGreen termites must eventually realise that trust, once destroyed, take years of effort to reestablish. Witness also the Zro Covid, Lockdown and “Vaccine” enthusiasts.
So far as the “Climate” scam is concerned, it should be remembered that accurate records for a significant number of years is the exception rather than the rule, so suggesting that some weather event is “Unprecedented” is meaningless at best.
And that is without considering the multitude of proven cases where activist “Scientists” have had their smelly little thumbs on the ‘data’.
So we have Australia’ BOM admitting that under their regime, the temperatures of the past have been ‘discovered’ to be around 1°C colder than originally recorded.
Coming back to 2022 (and before), all the recent ‘unprecedented’ temperatures such as Coningsby are blatantly and deliberately fraudulent. If we had even a few honest politicians, all these MET chancers would have been sacked, long ago.
“Global Temperature” ??? “Warmest year” ???. etc etc . But what does any of that stuff really mean? Is there really such a thing as a “global temperature? If so, how is it calculated?—– But since most of the time we recorded temperatures using thermometers at individual places around the world at different times and mostly only in wealthy western countries (USA, Europe etc), how can we know what temperatures were where we did not have extensive coverage, which was really the case most of the time and over most of the globe? —-The answer is we cannot. Then we started to get temperature data from satellites around 1979, but how can you compare thermometer readings where coverage was sparse from let’s say 1925 or 1845 to satellite data that covers almost the whole planet? —You cannot.. —–So this idea that we have a “warmest year on record” or “warmest since records began” etc is misleading, especially when it is used to promote solutions to some problem that might not even exist, or that might exist but is not much of a problem. On TV I regularly see politicians and bureaucrats, eco activists and assorted “save the planet” people latch onto elements of the unreliable temperature record, like the one this summer where a temperature of 40C was apparently recorded. This ofcourse is what is known as “cherry picking” or “confirmation bias”, where someone only looks for things that support their preconceived idea and ignore everything that doesn’t.— The temperature record of earth is a jumble of data ,adjusted here and there for various anomalies, such as the build up of towns and cities around a site where temperatures may have been recorded for the last 100 years or more, and it is known that towns and cities are warmer, sometimes by several degrees. Out of all of this clutter of guesses, assumptions, missing data and different forms of data collection we are led to believe that some “scientists” know what year was warmer than some other year, often to accuracies of hundredths of a degree, when the thermometers used were never designed for such accuracies. It is also important to bear in mind that if something warms, it does not necessarily mean humans warmed it. To claim humans have warmed something requires evidence, and since there is nothing unusual about current temperatures that would simply be an assumption, and when the assumption is motivated by the desire for certain public policy’s then what we have is a “cautionary tale”.
So either the Met Office lie by sticking to their story, or lie by giving an unbelievable excuse why they didn’t quality check it thoroughly enough?
In 2015 I happened to be in North East New Zealand, when Cyclone Pam caused extreme damage and around 11 deaths in Vanuatu and some damage to other Pacific island states. The MET (using their extreme GangGreen technology) forecasted major problems next for NE New Zealand but, fortunately this turned out to be a nothingburger.
Although we are assured that The Science is absolutely Settled, it is, in reality, anything but. At that time, Richard Betts, now Head of Climate Impacts at the MET Hadley Centre, was presumably charged by his gaffer, Dame Julia Sligo, to occasionally go onto Climate Blogs and fly the GangGreen flag.
On the then excellent Bishop Hill Blog, I pointed out the inadequacies of their forecasts for Pam, the fact that the claimed wind speed was obviously inflated and that severe tropical cyclones were entirely ‘precedented’.
Betts replied pointing out that the attribution of extreme weather arising from burning “fossil” fuels was well established, quoting the UN’s IPCC Report. To which I pointed out that the IPCC’s latest report said nothing of the kind (as contaminated as it is by GangGreen assumptions) and that his quotation was lifted directly from the “Summary for Policymakers”, which is a 100% political document.
We then heard nothing more from Betts, who is obviously not any kind of scientist, just another GangGreen charlatan.