The recent and concerning collapse of the once revered scientific process in large parts of the climate change and medical community is detailed in a highly critical ‘open review’ paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Someday, charge the authors, there will need to be an inquiry into how so many scientific bodies abandoned core principles of scientific integrity, took strong positions on unsettled science, took people’s word for things uncritically, and silenced those who tried to continue the scientific endeavour.
Universities have abandoned their historical role of open and disinterested enquiry on behalf of humanity, and “should be sanctioned for this by revoking their charitable status”. Group-think that maintains prevailing fads and supresses dissent on behalf of alleged ‘consensus’ is the opposite of the central purpose of universities. Mainstream media have long been uncritical receptacles for alarmist ‘clickbait’ political scare stories, and this, it might be added, encourages self-promotion among aggressive publicity-hungry scientists. There are many errors and deceptions and much censorship, state the authors, blighting the complete story being told in an unbiased manner. Singling out the behaviour of state broadcaster the BBC, they note: “Any reasonable observer will wonder whether Ofcom [the state regulator] is asleep at the wheel, not requiring the BBC to correct the errors it has been made aware of by experts, nor return to some form of neutrality.”
The report is mainly written by Professor Michael Kelly, the former Prince Philip Professor of Engineering, Trinity Hall, Cambridge University, and Clive Hambler, Science Lecturer at Hertford College, Oxford. There is also economic input from Professor Roger Koppl from Syracuse University. The full GWPF report is due to be published in December and the paper is currently open for review, comments and contributions from other academics. The GWPF notes habitual attacks on its work from activists, and its ‘open review’ policy is explained here.
The realisation that genuine free speech and scientific enquiry is being replaced by strict politicised requirements to adhere to orthodoxy and pre-set narratives grows with every appalling ‘climategate’-style scandal. Regular readers will need little reminding of the recent retraction of the Alimonti et al. paper by Springer Nature following a year-long campaign by a small group of activist scientists and journalists. The paper, whose lead author was Professor of Physics Gianluca Alimonti, reviewed past weather trends and found no data to support the politically-termed ‘climate emergency’. World headlines have also been devoted to the astonishing story of Dr. Patrick Brown of Johns Hopkins University, who blew the whistle on his recent paper published in Nature on California wildfires. He said he wrote it according to the approved script boosting the role of ‘climate change’ and downplaying any natural causes and the horrendous role played by arsonists.
The full publication of the GWPF paper will add to the growing concern and alarm about the science advice given to governments and the media for onward distribution to the public. The corruptions involved in this process are seemingly built into the current system. Trillions of dollars now back the Net Zero collectivisation project across the world, and most scientists, largely paid for by politicians and wealthy green elites, are fully onboard the gravy train.
The GWPF authors aim to push back by maximising the diversity of advice, challenging advice through opposing ‘red’ teams, ensuring a reasonable level of accountability for scientists to discourage hype, and protecting scientists from career damage if they rationally disagree with mainstream views. Institutions should not take official positions on scientific issues, “since this stifles diversity of thought, freedom of speech and the reliability of advice”. Scepticism must be recovered as a respectful term for scientific behaviour from its present position as an insult, “and reinstated as a core duty of universities and learned societies”, demand the authors.
The authors are particularly dismissive of the role of computer models in the recent Covid pandemic and the promotion of climate change alarm. In the U.K., the “gross misuse” of Covid computer models in the absence of robust data to measure them against is noted. Along with a “paucity of challenge” to scientific advice, this may have contributed to “death tolls, economic decline and societal ills”.
On the climate side, the models have produced temperature forecasts two to three times higher than the actual data eventually showed. What is worse is that the results are getting more inaccurate. If the models were actually modelling the evolving climate, the gap would be narrowing. The inaccuracy is a “major embarrassment” and would not be tolerated in any other field of science, and certainly not in engineering. Separation of human-induced warming from natural temperature variation is far more difficult than that portrayed by the UN-funded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC), since experimentation and replication is “simply not possible”. The inability to model significant parts of the atmosphere are “fatal flaws” in any system that is supposed to be predicting future climate change.
Yet, as regular readers will again recall, computer models play a vital part in promoting the unhinged Thermogeddon fantasies of people like the UN Secretary-General Antonio ‘global boiling’ Guterres. The UN-backed IPCC seems addicted to using computer models incorporating a ‘pathway’ of 5°C global warming within less than 80 years. Over 40% of its impact predictions are based on this forecast, despite an admission it is of “low likelihood”. According to a recent Clintel report, over 50% of clickbait climate science papers incorporate this pathway in a seemingly desperate attempt to attract the attention of activists writing in the mainstream media.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.
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.
And we know at least two thirds of those admissions are not covid related.
Deja vu.
we know this for general covid admissions, but does this apply to ICU patients too ?
One assumes that ICU admissions are covered under general admissions but whether the same percentages apply, I agree – not known at the moment?
But in either case how to reconcile these numbers against the UK HSA data on admissions and deaths? Can we assume that most deaths will occur in ICU?
The latest HSA data shows that since August, 70% of admissions and 85% of deaths have occurred in vaccinated patients.
Does that mean that although a higher percentage of unvaccinated are being admitted to ICU, that they are not dying there? If so, there is certainly a question about disproportionale use of ICU resources by the unvaccinated but it raises the question WHY are fewer of them dying? Does that imply that the fully and partially vaccinated are doing WORSE when very sick from Covid as implied by the HSA raw data?
And ultimately, the number of deaths between the three group is what matters most isn’t it?
The only other way to reconcile these two data sets is if only very few “Covid deaths” actually occur in ICU. That would suggest a “Simpson’s Paradox” and the need for caution when looking at ICU data in isolation of total admissions and deaths in the three groups.
Well it turns out that someone else had made exactly the same data discrepancy connection and took a deep dive into the available raw data.
And, surprise surprise, it seems like the answer to the discrepancy might be that our old friend the definition of “Vaccinated” has reared its ugly head again. It comes back to Prof Fenton’s work on earlier data showing that basically anyone who was not “Double vaccinated + 14 or 21 Days” was dumped into the “unvaccinated” group.
And it seems that this same “Lying with statistics” approach has been used again here by an Establishment increasingly desperate to keep up the FEAR!!!! despite the failure ( for them) of their latest OmiCON game.
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/are-the-double-jabbed-removed-from
So the majority unjabbed in ICU are actually recently jabbed within the time period where they initially increase their chances of getting sick, the body is essentially weak and less able to fight infection …..
Most patients are admitted generally first, then assessed for ICU.
HOW MANY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DISOBEY?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RODHSc0FuLco/
The Milgram study – Sanity4Sweden
Tuesday 28th December 2pm to 3pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
By the Peel Centre Skimped Hill Lane,
Bracknell RG12 1EN
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham – Howard Palmer Gardens, Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Join our Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Great article. Thanks
I suppose the really important questions are:
1. How do these very well analysed numbers of patients compare to the usual numbers in an average year?
2. Are the number of age groups similar to the average year?
3. If similar, could be that close to zero of these patients are in intensive care for COVID and are, in fact, in ICU because of pneumonia/flu/common cold/vaccine related issues?
I love a bit of analysis, but unfortunately it is all rather pointless when basing it on COVID positive tests or when not comparing it to “normal times”.
Boris shouldn’t care about how many are vaccinated, as COVID may not be causing any issues at all!!
Honestly, let’s start facing the truth here….people get sick and require ICU….at any age…..are the numbers now any different to “normal”?
Forcing mass vaccination with a gene therapy onto the world is surely the whole point of this exercise- why do you think testing in the UK is suddenly hyped on an unprecedented scale with amplification cycles of 40+ cycles used by the NHS alongside a massive new propaganda campaign being used to assault the British people? Even all our private phone data has been released to the Government to allow harassment of the whole population.
Fourth jab already on the way -( they have yet to pick a ‘new variant’ to go with it.
Omicron is not dangerous – but this Government is – as even Jesus has now been hijacked and recruited on Christmas Day and has told Johnson he wants more vaccinated – how totally outrageous! .
Question for obedient BBC viewers and listeners
” As mass vaccination doesn’t stop the harmless Omicron infecting (according to the PCR tests known to produce over 95% false positive results which cannot even identify Omicron or an ‘infection’ and we therefore know is a total fraud) what is it all for?”
Choose from the following:
(a) to create a Stealth Genocide through death ( sooner or later) after injection (see rising deaths and severe injury figures globally)
(b) to enforce vaccine passports and a total surveillance police state
(c) to enable the imposition of digital currency
(d) to sell more vaccines when natural immune systems are completely destroyed by spike proteins
(e) to protect us all from a deadly man-made virus…er.. not deadly to 97% of the population
(f) to make us dependent on Big Pharma drugs forever.
(g) to impose Schwab’s “Great Reset”.
(h) to pave the way for the imposition of ‘Technocracy’ – World Government Tyranny dreamed of by Kissinger, Brzezinski,David Rockefeller, ( ‘the Trilateral Commission’ – K. Starmer member) Schwab and the WEF and the Club of Rome
(h) None of the above
(i) All of the above
All of the above. (Btw how do you define “unvaccinated”?
Very interesting. It is always useful to have clear, easily understood data to hand for discussions.
all cause mortality by age and vaxx status is also extremely important information, which hopefully will become more widely available and up to date as Norman Fenton and others get the data they need to work with.
Excellent article and analysis
the message has been hugely over egged, polarised and hyped up by the media and SAGE for no good reason.
Ramming noise down hesitant’s throats won’t make them take the vaccine, informing them the truth may persuade some to have at least 1 jab.
a balanced approach for this would be for wider scale antibody counts so people don’t need to take the vaccine unnecessarily.
On the contrary. Sage has a very good reason.
There is no truth coming from this Government and has not been for two years.
I don’t know any hesitant people, only people who are not at all interested.
You mean they’ve been lying to us?
Surely not.
(Sarcasm).
Lying – every day for two years – apparently that is now worth a knighthood!
Interesting. I had not expected the unvaccinated to be consuming so many ICU beds (relatively speaking). I suppose I have to acknowledge that the shots do appear to have a significant impact against severity of Covid symptoms. This information needs to be used within the context of all cause mortality though – that’s the real indicator of how safe and effective these shots are.
that all depends why they’re unvaccinated – eg you’re so ill that a vaccine would have killed you off even quicker but then you’re unlucky enough to pick up the dreaded wuflu while getting treated for whatever terminal disease you have.
True, the numbers are relatively so small that there could be some underlying health problem that’s yet to be discovered.
Also depends on why the patients are in ICU in the first place. The media have become very good at stating a number of separate pieces of information in such a way that people make certain assumptions that are either untrue or unsubstantiated.
Some of those who have remained unvaccinated will either have severe asthma or have suffered anaphylactic shock or other bad reactions to previous vaccines, such as flu vaccines. Sadly, they are not amongst the healthiest people.
It may also be that some who are unenthusiastic about these vaccinations may include a larger than usual cohort of those who don’t take some basic common sense precautionary measures, like avoiding jampacked venues, washing hands and so on.
These figures dont look at all realistic to me. It seems to suggest that 50% of all admissions are for unvaccinated patients in Nov?
Come on, something is wrong here. With the majority of people vaccinated, on the face of it this seems to tell us that getting vaccinated will keep you out of ICU. But how can that be, after 2 years of a terrible pandemic rampaging through a nation, most unvaccinated people should be immune. Natural immunity works, unlike vaccinated immunity.
Do we know how many of these ‘unvaccinated’ in patients were actually really vaccinated in the two weeks beforehand? We know that if you get an injection then you are deemed as ‘unvaccinated’ for two weeks. This detail ought to be made clear in the data.
If the data is true, then nothing makes sense. You have a nation with increasing numbers of cases despite two years of people becoming immune. As immunity spreads, then the virus finds it harder to spread as there are fewer susceptible people to infect.
So something is off and smelly about this data. I suspect that the reason is the mis categorisation of ‘unvaccinated’.
Good point. I was also very surprised by the data. I wonder if they have twisted the definition of ‘unvaccinated’ to fit the narrative. A FOI request needed I think.
People who’ve had just the one jab are now considered unvaccinated. The Italian “Prime Minister” stated on 22 December that three-quarters of Covid deaths are of the unvaccinated. Not true. According to official data, between 22 October and 21 November 1.755 people died “of” “from” ? Covid, 722 unvaccinated (41.1%) and 1.033 who had received at least one jab (58.9%). Codacons, a strong national consumers’ asoociation, is now asking him to retract what he said or face prosecuton for inducing panic – a crime punishable by six months in jail or a fine.
Yes – I also wonder if the decision to shift patients into ICU is somewhat dependent on ‘vaccination’ status!
Well, I think you can be pretty certain it will be somewhat dependent on age and general health.
According to official statistics, the majority of people in hospital in NL with the lurgy in the past few months were over 70. They had a separate cohort of 90 and over. The Majority of people in ICU were in the 60-69, 70-79 cohort, it was noticeable that there was no one from the 90 and over cohort in ICU.
One can say that meant people over 90 were more resilient and less ill or assume the more logical view that someone of such advanced years who was in such poor shape that they would need ICU would be very unlikely to survive the ICU itself and if they did, would probably not live for many weeks after, meaning poor use of scarce resources. The same logic must apply to the 70-90 age groups – the poorer their general health, the less likely ICU would be worth it, meaning ICU was reserved for younger groups, which have more unvaxxed.
In other words, there may be equal absolute numbers of vaxxed/unvaxxed falling ill and ending up in hospital, but ICU treatment in particular is reserved for those most likely to benefit from it, which will be those younger/with better general health. The younger the cohort, the greater the number of unvaxxed.
I do think you’ve found the root cause here. The very different age ranges alone could, as you say, explain the surprisingly high proportion of unvaxxed, because elderly people are less likely to be admitted to ICU. This is not an RCT with matched participants in each arm of the trial so it tells you little about relative risk.
There might be a policy yes. The arbitrariness of referring to ICU was one of the reasons NICE gave for dismissing the spectacular success of the Spanish RCT for calcifediol in late-stage COVID.
The report actually mentions (middle of p44) that 2.2% of the patients had received their first dose within the 14 days before the positive COVID test, and the report counts them as unvaxxed, so it may be a contributory factor albeit a relatively small one. No mention of the equivalent percentage for the second dose although again it will be small because they are counted as single-dosed, and the reported percentage of single-dosed is small.
I always had the suspicion that the pregnancy data would be the hardest to unpick. If a healthy expectant mother went into hospital to give birth but ran into complications, I assume she could then be admitted to an ICU ward. If she stayed in the hospital for any length of time then she clearly has a higher than normal chance of returning a positive PCR test.
So the act of giving birth increases the ICU admission chances for women under 40 and the mere fact of being in a hospital increases the chances of returning a positive PCR. Is this accounted for within the figures?
We would really need specific information of pregnant women being admitted to ICU’s solely for prior diagnosis of specific covid related complications. Otherwise we can’t really draw meaningful conclusions from it?
To me, it hasn’t made much sense that pregnant and recently pregnant women have become more likely to end up in ICU “with covid” over the duration of this so-called pandemic. The only thing that has changed is the roll-out of the vaccination programme. I would be very interested to know how many of those pregnant women identified as unvaccinated by ICNARC had actually received one jab within 14 days of testing positive for covid so don’t count as vaccinated, but may have been put at greater risk of developing serious health problems as a result of having the “vaccine”? There has to be a reason why the government are busy hiding the data concerning what is happening to people within the first 2 weeks of being jabbed.
In simple terms, who trusts them now?
One of the points that is very lightly brushed past is that by far the biggest risk factor of ending up critically ill with Covid seems to be BMI. Average BMI in the UK population is 27.6, yet average BMI of critically ill Covid patients is over 30. Yet this does not seem to get any coverage anywhere?
Mmm, so countries like Japan, India, as well as Africa can be assumed to have no obese people at all as they have virtually no one critically ill with Covid?
The population of Japan is about 99% Japanese, and differences in genetic susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 (with Japanese amongst the leading beneficiaries) have been discovered, and previously reported in DS.
Average BMI in Japan: around 23. Average BMI in the UK: above 26. So yes, in Japan there are significantly less obese people. Well spotted.
I think the BMI observation is very important. The data here says the median BMI was over 30! Remember 25 is the maximum considered healthy. Could it be that the surest way to avoid a bad case of Covid is to lose weight?
Are there any data showing the numbers/percentages of those who have had covid and recovered (and who have never been covid jabbed) being subsequently hospitalised or in ICU or dead from it?
If not, why not?
If so, then why are they not released? (Or have I missed something? ).
I’m sure the figures would be very interesting.
Could well blow the pro “vaxxers” out of the water.
Or not…
Not sure how that would be of any relevance – the point is not to play Russian roulette with the virus, the point is to reduce the chance of ICU admission in those who might not be immune yet – and the tool for that is vaccination.
Russian roulette’s what you play with the “vaccines”!
The proper tool would be to determine whether each person was already immune or not, before taking the risk of the novel ‘mitigation drug’ at all. Would be a two step process, and a fair bit more costly, and would undermine the drug trade a bit, though.
Excellent article. Balanced and objective. It won’t see me in any great rush to the jabbatoir. Particularly interesting is the fall in ICU numbers by Christmas Eve. As omicron displaces delta, hospitalisations appear to be falling.
Indeed, there is a string possibility that the figures for the unvaxxinated are being skewed by the inclusion of those stabbed within the previous 6 weeks and those who were only jabbed once.
Prof. Jem Bendell of Cumbria University has found the origin of the 90% claim, linked to some dodgy stats. https://jembendell.com/2021/12/23/lies-damn-lies-and-hospitalisation-statistics/
For me this report is excellent, but raises so many more questions than answers. Some questions I have after reading this:
Without some of this wider context it is hard to truly make sense of the numbers.
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Only 20% of ICU beds are occupied by patients who have given a positive covid19 PCR test ( 60% tested negative and 20% of ICU beds are empty – all figures from NHS England).
If around half (as an approximation from this article) of the “positive” patients are unvaccinated, then only 1 in 10 ICU beds could be said to have “an unvaccinated covid patient” in them. This is the exact opposite of the “90% of critically ill patients are unvaccinated” narrative.
Of course, even these patients may be in ICU because they were hit by a bus.
Numbers…statistics…and lies…
You need to stop including smoking as a risk factor.
Smoking has a protective effect against Covid which sends the haters & nannies in the Medicofascist state into hysterics.
http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2021/8/11/smoking-and-covid-what-has-happened-to-the-living-evidence-r.html
Reminds me of the script for an old political comedy show, in which the minister was advised that smoking was good value, as it reduced life expectancy, thus less cost for the NHS, and increased revenue via tobacco duty (and tax on top) up front!
How interesting! Thanks for sharing this, I didn’t know about it. I wonder if it makes a difference how much you smoke? I’m an odd smoker in that I have a smoke roughly every couple of days and fascinating to think it could be a protective factor. Do we know if it is a quality of tobacco or more about the smoke itself? I wonder if it makes it harder to infiltrate the lung cells? Just thinking out loud. I will see what else I can discover!
A medical expert in a podcast the other day explained one way in which they fiddle graphs.
One particular graph that showed a massive peak of deaths in the unvaccinated as compared to the “vaccinated” had been faked in the most childish way.
An X-amount of people due to old age or other ailments are going to die every week, regardless of there being a pandemic or not. The way they faked the graph was that they never entered the data for a specific number of unvaccinated people in the period that they actually died.
They actually held this data over, and then at a later period entered it into the statistics, which doubled it up with the unvaccinated people who had passed-away from natural causes during this later period. When these statistics were then displayed as a graph, they showed as a massive spike in unvaccinated deaths as compared to “vaccinated” deaths.
This medical expert noticed this because he knew that a certain average number of old people are going to die in England in any given month. For instance, in the month of September, 2021, from data available from previous years and decades, an x-number of old people would be expected to pass away.
The expert noticed that these expected deaths had not been subtracted from data he was looking at. It was as if these people died but were still being counted as being part of the general population.
But then at a later date, they were removed from the general population and entered in the statistics, so as to give a particular graph a camel’s hump.
Not that easy to follow. Can you provide a link to the podcast you’re referring to?
The attached picture explains it in quite simplistic terms. But, then, Covid-19 bedwetters have shut themselves off to all simplistic understanding.
But don’t worry, you might grow out of it.
“Over 80% double-vaccinated” ?
The Executive Summary on page 3 of the UK Health Security Agency ‘Covid-19 surveillance report – week 50’ states that “…by 12 December 2021, the overall vaccine uptake in England for dose 1 was 67.9% and for dose 2 was 62.2%“.
Is it me? Who’s right?
A brilliant defence for anyone under pressure to be jabbed
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-brilliant-defence-for-anyone-under-pressure-to-be-jabbed/
Direct link:
https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine?postId=4b6beceb-3fa2-45d4-9e95-3b96defba00b
This last sentence is critically important. Most sceptics don’t disagree that the vaccines give some level of added protection in the vulnerable but that it’s the loss of overall perspective in the responses that are questionable.
Exactly. In six and a half months a total of around 7,500 people have spent any time in ICU “with covid”. One can pore over the breakdown of that cohort and create as many headlines as required but in a population of 65 million they represent 0.01% of society. Put inversely, regardless of vaccination status, 99.99% of people did not require ICU attention “with covid” during this time.
“Most sceptics don’t disagree that the vaccines give some level of added protection in the vulnerable”
At what cost to their health?
The jabs briefly increase anti-bodies to the spike protein but NOT to other parts of the virus.
Soon after being jabbed peoples immune systems are compromised and they are more susceptible to the virus for a couple of weeks.
Long term, due to Original Antigenic Sin, Antibody Dependent Enhancement, etc. plus all the possible side effects from the experimental jab people will be potentially more ill from the jab than they would be from Covid.
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?
I may well agree with this as I’m currently listening to this excellent damning report on the flawed Pfizer trial:
https://rumble.com/embed/voaxg5/?pub=qdzr7
Anyone know what the criteria are for getting oneself admitted to ICU these days?
One criterion would be to call round to me and attempt to get me to take a SARS‑CoV‑2 gene serum.
Yeah, that might leave the protagonist qualified to get into an ICU.
Excellent article, however how do we reconcile “The ICNARC data provide good evidence of the protective effects of vaccination against Covid” with the observed negative vaccine effectiveness over several weeks (see for example https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/24/vaccine-effectiveness-drops-to-minus-75-in-18-29-years-olds-as-omicron-slices-through-vaccine-protection-and-booster-effect-starts-to-wear-off/)?
Also what about natural immunity? Has this been taken into account? Presumably that also reduces your risk?
It’s all so confusing. How do I build up an accurate picture of effectiveness Vs risk to enable informed consent?
The Government/Advisers/Experts don’t really want every last person to have the jabs; They would have nobody (the unvaxinated) to blame for this shambolic overreaction.
There needs to be a real effort to accurately number the % of unvaccinated in the population. Some recent government numbers suggest the 20% estimated number is under the true number.
I think blood groups should be taken and form part of these statistics to get a more accurate picture since there is a significant variation in immune response.
“My final point goes to how this valuable information has been portrayed in the press. “
This is how the same ICNARC data was misrepresented by the Daily Mail two days ago:
Unvaccinated people who catch Covid are 60 TIMES more likely to end up in intensive care, new research reveals
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10344695/Unjabbed-people-catch-Covid-60-TIMES-likely-end-intensive-care.html
But the exact same grossly misleading and scaremongering analysis also comes up in the Mirror,the Sun, MSN and other outlets.
A remarkable coincidence.
Newly created statistic shows that the relative frequency of ICU admission is 60 times higher for unvaccinated people than for vaccinated people is an anecdotical datapoint and creation of statistics is not research as it’s not determining new information but systematizing known information.
There’s nothing in that which would enable predicting the future, in particular, there are no probabilities in here. A probability is the relative frequency a certain outcome of a random selection process will approach given enough tries. There’s none here.
Sociologists are really the augurs of our time because they do something terribly complicated most people don’t understand and claim this would enable them to predict the future. As such, they’re just soothsayers armed with computers and not scientists.
Assuming that 15% is correct and that this refers to the UK and not to England, there should be 10,083,000 unvaccinated people. 820 people in ICU, 48% of them unvaccinated equals 393.6. Hence, 0.004% of the unvaccinated are on ICU, versus 0.0006% of the vaccinated. Both of these numbers are much too small to communicate anything about general trends: 0.004% means 4 of 100,000 people.
The only sensible conclusion from these numbers is that the statistical risk of ICU admission because of COVID is generally vanishingly small and not worth making any fuzz about. Blaming 99,996 people for something that happened to 4 other people is insane.
Lastly, you’re missing the gut of Savage Jabberers argument: It goes as follows People who had all n (n >= 3) Pfizer injections I consider currently necessary for COVID prevention did what I wanted, hence, they’re the worthy sick and those who didn’t are the unworthy sick. The latter clearly don’t deserve anything because of their unworthiness, the classical standpoint of the bourgois noveaux riches asked to contribute anything to the community. It can be generalized a little more: People in need to NHS care belong to the lower orders and are thus subject to my arbitrary value judgements, whatever these currently may be.
Unsurprisingly, the Jabberer is a former banker.
So any excess of unvaccinated in ICUs are mainly; youngish females , non-white , London, and pregnant. Where do 33% plus of people ‘get covid, ie have positive PCR tests? In hospitals. I conjecture that a good proportion of these pregnant non-white London females were in hospital already and have ended up in ICUs , probably for a short period of time, because of PCR tests and concerns over their pregnancies.
Wonderful health service probably reflected across Europe.
And the report also shows that the only group showing increase in ICU admissions is non-elective, non-covid patients.
Coloureds also more likely to have low vitamin D level; and to be poor and therefore have worse health care etc.
UKHSA has up to date stats on vax status and death. Really worth looking up their vaccine surveillance reports which show, for example, x5 deaths in the very old when double jabbed.
Headline in Times today… a total lie???
Yes and no, see reply to Mark above. Using the numbers from the article, about 0.004% of the unvaccinated and about 0.0006% of the vaccinated people are in ICU. The 0.004% is really 0.0039… rounded and 0.0006 times 60 is 0.0036. This would even justify writing about more than 60 times liklier but for one thing: These numbers are relative frequencies of something which happened in the past, not the relative frequencies of something which will happen in future (probabilities).
OTOH, getting this into the head of people who generally believe that sociology is a science and not an exercise in bullshitting the gullibe but who just object to COVID sociology which is surely something comepletely different is probably impossible.
I’ve seen the future and it was an exact replica of what little we happen to know about the past! is apparently a highly credible claim, provided it comes with the necessary academic titles attached and fits in with the – possibly manufactured – political beliefs of an audience.
Thanks Mark. Quite aware of lies, damn lies and statistics. The percentages here are so small and slight variances causes big swings. Like when our local cases went up by 100% overnight – from 1 to 2 people.
I’m not Mark :-). I was just referring to something I wrote earlier about relative frequencies derived from statistics about something versus probabilities (likeliness of a certain outcome of some random selection process, eg, throwing a dice).
When one keeps throwing a dice and keeps a statistic about the outcomes, the relative frequencies with which each number appears in this statistic will approach 1/6. That’s because there are six possible outcomes and all are equally likely. Thus, it is said that the probability of throwing a six is 1/6.
However, it’s possible to create statistics about pretty much anything and to calculate relative frequencies of anything in them. But dividing a number a by some number b does not turn the resulting quotient into a probability. If the underlying process the original numbers came from was random, the relative frequencies would approach the propability when collecting numbers for long enough. But the process of developing or not developing serious COVID is certainly not random. And even if it was, the relative frequencies of anything in a statistic terminated at an arbitrary cutoff point (like all of these studies) can be completely different from the actual probability.
As a famous computer scientist named Donald Knuth once quipped: A sequence of 100,000 snake eyes (rolling two dice and coming up with two 1s) is perfectly random.
I’m a simple man. You quote Knuth, I click like.
What I like about statistics and probability in general is how counter intuitive they are.
Something can be perfectly random and extremely unlikely at the same time.
Error in here: 0.0006 times 60 is 0.036, not 0.0036.
The calculaton in the Times article (assuming its the same as in the Mail) claims to be based on people catching COVID. It seems to be copied from an otherwise undescribed table giving a “rate per week per 100,00” from INARC.
Thanks for your post, I usually enjoy the deep dive into the data that you kindly provide. Unfortunately on this occasion I disagree with some of your conclusions.
While the proportionate admissions to ICU might suggest V are protected more than Uv, I think the two graphs in fig 27 show a very clear decline in Vac efficiency as its rolled out to younger age groups. Those graphs should be mirror images of each other so that the more people that are V, the more ICU only has Uv patients (in the ideal situation where mass V reduces absolute risk in the population), but of course it doesn’t because the relative risks of covid itself are not equal across ages. As pointed out by HART, the Number Needed to Treat is around 228, that is, the number of people needed to be V to prevent 1 severe case is over 200 (quite high from a public health economist point of view), and clearly ICU admissions of V people have not been declining across the year at the same rate as the V has been rolled out to younger age groups. What I take from fig27 is the glaringly obvious diminishing return from vaccinating age groups that don’t benefit from it much. Probably because the margin for improvement was so small in the first place.
The numbers are obviously not representative. England has a population of about 55.98 million people. Assuming they were all unvaccinated and had a risk of 0.004% of needing ICU because of COVID, this would amount to 2239 people. If they were all vaccinated and thus, had a risk of 0.0006%, it would be 336 people. Vaccinating 55.98 million people in order to keep 1903 of them out of ICU is certainly not an efficient use of public resources, especially not if they all need to be revaccinated periodically.
And then, neither 2239 people in ICU nor 336 in ICU have (as far as I know) any relation to real COVID hospitalization numbers.
Our healthcare system is about to experience a tsunami! Potential side effects of jabs include chronic inflammation, because the vaccine continuously stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies. Other concerns include the possible integration of plasmid DNA into the body’s host genome, resulting in mutations, problems with DNA replication, triggering of autoimmune responses, and activation of cancer-causing genes. Alternative COVID cures EXIST. Ivermectin is one of them. While Ivermectin is very effective curing COVID symptoms, it has also been shown to eliminate certain cancers. Do not get the poison jab. Get your Ivermectin today while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
“If” those who remain unvaccinated do my free salt water cure at the onset of any viral like flu or cold, then they won’t get Covid because that is a practical impossibility – kill the virus or Coroanvirus BEFORE it is allowed to become covid anything: Covid Crusher: Mix one heaped teaspoon of Iodine table salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If sore, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the soreness goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don’t have any soreness at all, when you flush – job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia there too.
My simple salt water cure, kills all Coronaviruses and viruses, as soon as you think you have an infection, or while self isolating, before the viruses mutate into the disease in your head and body, for which there is no cure.
I have been doing this simple cure for over 27 years and I am and others never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be either – when your only alternative are those vaccines!!
Richard
1 to 10% of deaths/adverse reactions reported.
1 to 10% of deaths/adverse events reported. Yet most vaccines pulled from the market for only 50 deaths. UK is on nearly 1900, and VAERS, Eudravigilance and the Yellow Card reporting sites are only part if the world. I wonder what the real total us.
Body Mass Index 30-across all three categories
“the effect has been exaggerated” – by playing a one armed bandit game against some of us, by deliberately hiding the statistics about damage caused by the other side, i.e. ‘negative effects’. It’s actually possible that some are so healthy they don’t end up in the system at all, all being well.
What is the definition of “vaccinated”? It says in the footnote to Table 16: “Vaccination status assessed [my emphasis] at 14 days prior to the positive COVID-19 test.” But suppose someone has a single dose then ends up in an ICU within, say, one week. Would they be counted as “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated”? Could make a difference to these conclusions!
As far as I can see, it does not define when the positive covid test was, presumably just that they are still testing positive at admission to ICU. If there is no time limit on when the patient first tests positive, it is therefore feasible that a person could have received their first jab several weeks before ending up in ICU with complications, so long as the time between receiving the jab and first testing positive was no more than 14 days. Given that the figures above only start in May 2021, long after the start of the vaccine rollout, the once-jabbed people not counting as vaccinated will almost all fall into the (relatively) younger age groups. The way the data are presented appear to be a prime example of statistical manipulation.
In my experience the unvaccinated have tried extremely hard to stay away from an NHS they no longer trust. They have their Ivermectin, vitamins D and zinc. They rely on their own immune systems to work this through.
Indeed. Re. Recommended vitamin D supplements, the NHS site has quietly doubled the number recently, and others even more. Spot the products available in various supermarkets as well. This is the time of year when we need them, given the lack of light (UV B) used to create our own automatically, via our skin.
Denominators for vaccinated patients were based on the numbers vaccinated from NIMS over the time period 17 April 2021 to 1 November 2021 (14 days prior to the date range of the analyses). Denominators for unvaccinated patients were based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) population estimates for 2020 minus the numbers vaccinated. (P44, ICNARC report)
If ICNARC used NIMS to estimate the population in England (62.7m as opposed to ONS estimate of 56.5m) as UKHSA does, then the proportion of “unvaccinated” (including those actually vaccinated but who don’t count as such because the poor wee vaccine hasn’t been given a chance to work yet) in ICU “with covid” would look even lower.
All this unnecessary analysis to prove the “vaccine” is effective when 82% of the adult UK population has already been double vaccinated. Why so much effort and propaganda for such a small percentage (18%) of the population?
Many of whom are just children?
Depends how you work out the sums, but it could be that more than 18% of us have said no. Quite recently it appeared that roughly 23 million in England have not used it at all, and if they redefine unvaccinated (as less than 3, or 4 and so on) it could easily change.
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 the virus for a couple of weeks.
Long term, due to Original Antigenic Sin, Antibody Dependent Enhancement, etc. plus all the 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.
Many of the contributors on here have been jabbed themselves and we really need to challenge the notion that these experimental jabs are helping to curb hospitalisations and death from Covid.
Seconded
And susceptible to other viruses for a while, quite likely. It could be a contradictory jab (CJ).
And what about the boost to the numbers of seriously ill (therefore likely to end up in ICU) that occurs as a result of the vaccination? These victims are probably still labelled ‘unvaccinated’ because the protection from the vaccine does not officially start until x days have elapsed.
I wrote about this report here. Are the double jabbed being removed from the stats? https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/are-the-double-jabbed-removed-from
Most of the people in hospital with the ‘virus’ are nosocomial infections, but are useful for distorting the figures.
I would want further information on the claim that almost all of those under 40 in ICU were unvaccinated. We know that some had been pregnant or recently pregnant which can put a massive strain on the body but there is no logical reason why suddenly there were very few in ICU under the age of 60 previously with the more virulent strains but there are now. Is it possible that some of these are there for elective surgery and have happened to test positive too now that electives are back on? I am not buying the raw figures and analysis