The effectiveness of the Covid vaccines against serious disease declines to zero and turns negative within 12 months, official figures from the Netherlands show.
A report this week from the Dutch Ministry of Health explains that there is “hardly any visible protective effect” anymore for people with two vaccine doses because it has “now been nearly a year since they were vaccinated, and the protection provided by vaccinations against hospitalisation diminishes over time”.
Using hospitalisation figures from March 15th to June 28th 2022, the report finds that overall vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation from two doses was 0%. Broken down by age, it was 22% for 12-49 year-olds, minus-52% for 50-69 year-olds and 15% for the over-70s. Vaccine effectiveness against ICU admission was minus-20% overall, breaking down to 45% for 12-49 year olds, minus-31% for 50-69 year-olds and minus-43% for over-70s. These figures are shown in the table below, along with confidence intervals and figures for the booster and ‘repeat shot’ (herhaalprik). (Translations: basis means the basic course i.e., two doses; ziekenhuisopnames is hospital admissions; IC-opnames is ICU admissions; ten opzichte van niet gevaccineerd means relative to unvaccinated.)
Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation over the study period by vaccination status is depicted below. Note that the vaccine effectiveness of the booster and repeat shots start high in February but quickly decline to around 50%, while two-dose vaccine effectiveness starts around 50% and quickly declines to zero or below. What isn’t addressed in the report is why, given that the booster and repeat shot vaccine effectiveness decline to 50% within weeks, these figures will not then carry on declining from 50% to 0% or lower in the following weeks, just as those for two doses did.
The negative vaccine effectiveness figures mean the vaccinated are being hospitalised or admitted to ICU with Covid at a greater rate than the unvaccinated. Addressing this alarming finding, the report claims it is “unlikely to actually measure the probability of COVID-19 hospitalisation increases”. Instead, the “build-up of immunity from past COVID-19 plays a major role”, plus there may be differences in “comorbidity and risk of exposure to coronavirus”.
However, as with similar data from the U.K. Government, once again we find a health authority claiming that negative vaccine effectiveness is entirely due to confounders (prior infection, comorbidities) without producing the data – which it must have – to demonstrate that this is in fact the case, and to quantify it and control for it. Instead what we are given amounts to vague hand-waving and an airy implication that the figures don’t show what they appear to show, namely the vaccines are making things worse. Of course, the message the Dutch Government wants the public to take from this is that they need to get a booster frequently to stay protected, which may be why the Government is now willing to publish data that cast two doses of the vaccine in a poor light.
A further point worth making is that the Dutch Government plainly has no qualms about publishing an official report on vaccine effectiveness using figures calculated from raw data not adjusted for confounders such as prior infection and underlying conditions. This is significant because it is something which the UKHSA and assorted ‘fact checkers’ last year were adamant was not allowed, that it was somehow invalid and misleading to calculate vaccine effectiveness from raw data. Yet here we have the Dutch Government calculating vaccine effectiveness in precisely this way without qualm or comment. As many of us pointed out last year, that’s because this is a perfectly ordinary and acceptable way to estimate vaccine effectiveness.
The latest data from Canada also show negative vaccine effectiveness against serious disease and, in this case, death. Figures from Manitoba for May (highlighted by Alex Berenson) show hospital admission, ICU admission and death rates by vaccination status, adjusted for population size and age (see below). These show that the double-dosed are more likely to be hospitalised and die with Covid than the unvaccinated, and that the boosted have basically the same risk of these things as the unvaccinated. We should note that the triple-dosed count as double-dosed until 14 days after their booster, meaning any Covid deaths in the 14 days after a booster will end up in the double-dosed category.
The chart above omits the partially vaccinated (i.e., one-dosed), which, looking at the figures in the table beneath it in the report, I would guess is because the data for them are dire. For instance, there are 36 deaths in the partially vaccinated over-70s, but only around 1% of this age group are partially vaccinated. This compares to 164 deaths in the 11% who are double-dosed, giving an equivalent death rate of 15 deaths per 1% of population; it also compares to 253 deaths in the 87% who are at-least triple-dosed, for a death rate of 3 per 1% of population. In other words, the partially vaccinated have a death rate more than double the already high rate in the double-dosed and 12 times the rate in the triple-dosed.
I would like to have calculated the death rate for the unvaccinated to allow us to make a comparison with that as well, but for some reason this information does not appear in the table or anywhere else in the report. Which gives us the oddity of a chart which omits the partially vaccinated and a table which omits the unvaccinated. Do you ever get the feeling they only tell you what they want you to know?
Nonetheless, in eagerness to promote booster shots, some governments are now publishing very unflattering data on two doses which show the vaccines not only ceasing to help but apparently making things worse.
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.
If it’s so consistently hard to show a significant benefit from these “vaccines” using trial and real world data, and so consistently easy to come up with concerning statistics regarding excess deaths NOT from covid, post the “vaccine” rollout, and we are spending globally trillions on a treatment not yet finished standard safety trials, and badgering healthy people at no danger from “covid” into taking them, this is folly and evil and it must stop.
It must stop …. but it won’t. Even if you ignore the “conspiracy theories” that this is a planned event with pre-determined outcomes, the Public Health Bureaucrats and Government’s who have used Psy Ops techniques to push these jabs have the tiger by the tail ……. and they don’t dare let go.
They will continue the narrative and the jabbing, because the consequences of the alternative for the Globalists is too awful for them to contemplate.
The alternative that they have to avoid is being arrested and thrown in jail or perhaps more likely that they end up strung from lamp posts.
Like trench warfare in WWI.
Out of control and out.of touch generals continued to throw bodies at guns even when it was obvious to everyone that it would achieve nothing.
If they admit they are wrong they pay a heavy price themselves. If they deny they are wrong and ignore reality, others pay the price.
Obviously they’ll do the latter if they are allowed to.
Agreed. The Pfizer trials showed an alleged relative risk reduction (RRR) of over 90% in catching COVID. Out of the huge number of people (43,000) in the compressed (I might say rushed) trial, just 94 people caught COVID, or I assume, tested positive. Yes, just 0.22% caught the disease. Luck and natural immunity saved the other 99.8% – anyway, that’s an aside according to Pfizer.
This RRR was above the threshold needed for emergency approval (60%?) so off we go.
Except it soon became very clear that the vaccine was doing diddly squat to prevent you catching COVID so they changed their tune from preventing infection/catching COVID to reducing serious illness.
At this point, any mandates around isolating unvaccinated should have been dropped. In fact, as we now suspect, the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID therefore we should restrict them – more infectious and more of them. Of course, that will never happen.
But it’s now equally clear that the RRR of the vaccine is nowhere near 60% and therefore emergency approval should be removed. The fact that RRR is negative is just too much of a head wobble for the converted so let’s not bang on too much about that.
None of this will happen because if would mean government, health and pharma would have to admit they were wrong. We can’t go after pharma as they managed to remove liability so government and NHS must be in the firing line?
PS. And now according to this article, even reducing serious illness is questionable. So why do friends still struggle when I say I’m not having the booster until much more convincing arguments are given? Although more and more friends are saying the same so there is light at the end of the tunnel.
However, the MSM will not comment on this or any other piece of research that show the jabs in a poor light.
When will governments and sheeple of the world wake up?
The DM states that there is a jab waiting for those over 50’s now, the comments say different
This was also in the Telegraph yesterday…all of the comments were ‘anti’ and within an hour the entire comments section had been, not just closed, but entirely erased!
Always a good sign you’re onto something if the enemy tries to silence you
That’s such a common thing with the DT. Or often they contrive to ‘lose’ hundreds of comments. I have had posts removed very swiftly for making critical comments about the vaccine. It is also a popular haunt of ’77th brigade’ type trolls. However I also find it heartening that the vast majority of btl comments are in line with Daily Sceptic sentiments, and some are very amusing.
Exactly same with the Daily Mail online.
And, apart from the ability to think critically it seems we have a sense of humour when compared to, especially, the G******n type readers comments.
Also until recently the Telegraph used to display all of the comments on one page but now you can only ‘load’ a certain number before you have to hit load again. A sneaky way of disappearing them into obscurity.
Gates Foundation grant to Telegraph last year: 3.4 million.
It’s gone way too far now and they won’t wake up as most people don’t even consider for a moment there is anything to wake up from. The majority will always believe we have had (still having) a pandemic, lockdowns were necessary and worked, anti-social distancing were necessary and worked, masks were necessary and worked, testing was necessary and worked, vaccines were necessary and worked. Even if they could be bothered to read every article on this site they wouldn’t change their minds as they have invested too much into believing the official narrative. To them, the ‘pandemic’ and ‘lockdown’ were unavoidable events and every sacrifice was worth it.
Yes, but they won’t take another jab.
They’ll go along with the BS right up to the point where the price of self delusion is too high.
BUT the dragon just gets bigger so the global elites who have caused all of this! will have to face it in the end. And us.
This information seems to be giving weight to those who say, ‘because it only lasts 12 months’ and then you are in the negative risk, you have no choice not to keep topping up’ this will be the global elites new manta.
AND the dragon will just get bigger because people will as they already have, fall for it.
My friends will say to each other ‘great it lasted a year but now we are at risk, have you taken yours yet Maria’ and I will tell them nicely again I am not ever taking it. Ever.
I like your use of the word dragon. This whole story is like a fairytale. The people of the land have fallen under a great enchantment wrought by a group of evil sorcerers and are yet to wake up despite the heroic attempts of a few. In the meantime, as you say, the dragon grows bigger. How will it end?
I notice more and more, if it comes up in conversation, and I say, as I always do, that it is all a load of testicles (whether it’s covid or climate change), I more often than not get a nod of assent, and a ‘yes, it is, isn’t it?’ response. I find it quite cheering. Mind, I am of an age now that I don’t really care anymore if people disagree with me or if I offend them. What does worry me though is how little some people know about what has been happening – the Canadian truckers were a case in point. I think some people thought I had made it up!
Bless the Canadian truckers yes
Linguistic malarkey? “Negative effectiveness” would, in a sane world, be interpreted as “grievous bodily harm (GBH), would it not?
I am tremendously glad that there are analysts and statisticians who can unpick this data in detail…..
But as an ordinary person I sometimes feel it goes over my head….
…..this kind of thing resonates with me on a much easier and honest level. If you can’t access the picture, and I hope you can, it’s a giant road-side hoarding in Italy stating….
June 23rd 2020…0% vaxxed …112 new Covid cases
June 23rd 2021…50% vaxxed ..951 new Covid cases
June 23rd 2022…70% vaxxed…56,166 new Covid cases
HOW DO WE BELIEVE IT?
https://twitter.com/risemelbourne/status/1548072036307972096/photo/1
The head of the MHRA gave the game away in an interview that was picked up on DS and others. These ‘regulators’ are no longer regulating new products instead they are now advocates for them. I have no doubt that the same bodies in most other countries have been similarly captured.
As the article points out these studies are most conveniently designed to promote booster shots. What a suprise!!!!
However, for anyone unvaccinated surely having a booster shot now is equivalent to having a first shot which the various reports show to lead to negative efficacy. So, hardly likely to persuade anyone unvaxxed to take a shot now.
And with regards booster shots, surely they have not been in the population long enough to show their true effects over the same period that first and second doses have.
Finally, the studies of course ignore any adverse events related to the vaccines, which the pro vaccine establishment continues to remain in complete and scandalous denial. Again, suprise suprise!!!
If people can’t smell a rat by now, they must have totally lost their sense of smell (probably caused by the vaccine…)!
I have spent about 45 minutes sampling some of the output from people who are no doubt paid by ******* to debunk any criticism of official data. It’s not difficult to see why they prostitute themselves to such a cause.
When these injections were chosen by the criminals wishing to impose their new slave system, I wonder if their limited window of efficacy was a selling point, so that a regime of regular injections was required? ‘Waning efficacy’ seems to be a term the enemy likes to use in its propaganda. Either way, as we all know none of this is anything to do with protecting anyone from anything. Rather, an open-ended economy of asymmetrical biological warfare against all ordinary humans.
Early on Mick Yeadon said it won’t be the 1st shot or possibly not the 5th but once your hooked one of them will be the killer shot. If we’re going down the dystopian depopulation route.
At the beginning I was trying to persuade people not to get vaccinated. (The lazy ‘you’re not a doctor’.) Now it’s got to the point where I don’t want to discuss jabs with anyone, because what I will tell them will be to horrific for them to contemplate. I’ve moved onto the over all bigger picture, hopefully they can do their own research into what they’ve done to them selves.
Same. My answers to the question “why aren’t you vaccinated?” tend to alarm:
My stock response these days is “why don’t you tell me why I should?”. People used to proffer arguments like “to reduce spread” but these days they can’t as nobody is that stupid. They can’t tell me “to lower your risk of hospitalisation” as I’ve had covid twice and it’s a cold – never got a fever even (whcih is common after the vaccine.
They can’t even say “to travel” any more, unless it’s the states, Canada or NZ. I’m not so desperate to go to those places I will undergo an unnecessary medical procedure to do so. I have principles.
So people now tend to shrug and say “fair enough”. Which is a shame as I quite relish a good fight from time to time. Especially when I know I will win because ALL the data are on my side.
Good news for the drug-pusher then. Get the punter hooked on a drug of which they constantly need another dose.
Loadsamoney ££££ for Big Vax.
Until they runout of punters…..
The charts I find interesting in the Dutch VE report are on page 5 and 6 – they are graphs for hospital admissions and ICU admissions. Graph A shows the actual number, with different coloured lines showing vaxx status (red is unvaxxed). For all ages unvaxxed and 2x/3x/4x vax are pretty much the same or unvaxxed is lower – indeed, chart A for hospital admissions in 70+ (by far the largest group admitted to hospital through the entire pandemic) has more admissions of 3x and 4x vaxxed from approx. mid-May on. However, look at graphs B and C – there they represent the admissions per 100,000 of each group, trying to make the unvaxxed look like the worst off group. They succeeded in that the first time they did it, but even that trick no longer works, unvaxxed is more or less the same as all other groups or better.
Graph A for ICU admissions is even more interesting – the time period covered starts on 15 March 2022. Between what looks like the last week of March and the first week of April (the graph is not very specific), the largest group in 50-69 and 70+ admitted to ICU by far are the boostered (3x). Now, either that shows that the booster puts you at greater risk of serious disease 3 – 4 months after being boostered (these groups were boostered Nov/Dec 2021) or they were in fact 4x vaxxed (started end of Feb. for 70+, end of March for 60+) and are counted as 3x vaxxed because you are not considered 4x vaxxed until a week after vaxxing. Either way, it looks to me that being unvaxxed puts you at no greater risk than being vaxxed in terms of being admitted to hospital, and may well entail a lower risk of ending up in ICU than being 3x vaxxed, depending on the time between vax and infection.
And is it possible that those who do not want to take part in the trial are actually in a better state of health in the first place? It would gel with the indication that they are less likely to be seriously ill from the infection under consideration, and, in effect, immune to the risks caused by the product being promoted.
Lost to Liverpool yesterday in the pitch but beat hands down on avoiding the clot shot
Crystal Palace leave stars Wilfried Zaha, Eberechi Eze, Marc Guehi and Michael Olise at home and take just TEN senior players on their pre-season tour, with many ‘not meeting entry requirements’ for Covid vaccine-requiring Australia and Singapore
“…protection provided by vaccinations against hospitalisation diminishes over time.”
SO Y’ALL BETTER GET YOURSELVES JABBED AGAIN! AND AGAIN! AND AGAIN!