If you asked a man on the Clapham omnibus how many lives the vaccines ‘saved’, I’d be surprised if he has any idea at all. If, by chance he does have an inkling he’ll probably quote the 20 million claim repeated ad nauseum in the media over the past few years.
If you went on to ask him how many people died across the globe in any one year, then I very much doubt he would have any idea at all. Until I looked into this I had no clue either, so why should our bus passenger know? This is how the claim that 20 million lives were saved by the vaccines gets credence: no one has any context in which to frame the number.
This article puts some context around the claim, showing you where it comes from and why it’s wrong.
Across the world about 60 million people die each year. A much quoted paper, authored by a bunch of Imperial College academics and published in the Lancet in September 2022, claimed that the vaccines saved 19.8 million lives during the 12 month period starting December 8th 2020, the date the first Covid vaccine was injected into the arm of a member of the public.
Rarely has this figure ever been challenged. We see it quoted on the BBC, at the Hallett Inquiry, in Parliament, by broadcasters and leaders across the world. Yet it’s complete nonsense.
Taken from Our World in Data, Figure 1 shows global deaths per year from 2015 to 2023. In the absence of Covid and the disastrous lockdowns, in 2021 there would have been about 60 million deaths. However, because of Covid and lockdowns there were almost 70 million deaths. 10 million extra deaths. I have my doubts about the numbers ascribed to Covid but let’s leave that to one side for now; it’s the ‘saved’ lives rather than the lost lives we’re looking at.
Imperial’s claim is that, in the absence of vaccines, deaths would have been 19.8 million higher, taking the total to about 90 million deaths.
These figures are for the global population as a whole, but let’s break it down a bit and ask in which parts of the world were these 19.8 million lives saved by the vaccines? Figure 2 gives us some clues.
Year in year out, about 55% of global deaths occur in Asia and getting on for 20% of deaths happen in Africa. So surely, most of the saved lives must have occurred on these two continents.
Of course, to have been fortunate enough to have your life saved by the vaccines, you had to have been injected with the thing. In fact, to be fully protected you had to have two, or was it three, or maybe four. Possibly five? Or, even six? But, to stay on the conservative side, I’ve assumed one dose was good enough to save a life.
Having had your vaccine you had to wait for it to take effect. As we’ve known for a few years now, initially the vaccines seem to encourage rather than discourage infection, certainly in the early days. Also, Covid from the date of infection takes about a month to kill you (in the very rare event that it does kill you). That being the case, if we’re looking at deaths up to December 8th 2021, we’re really only interested in people who were vaccinated prior to November 8th 2021.
By November 8th 2021, globally only 51.2% of the world’s adult population had had at least one dose of vaccine. This must mean that Imperial’s 19.8 million saved lives can only have come from the 51.2% vaccinated.
But of course, while by the end of the critical period only 51.2% had been vaccinated, the equally important question is how many were being vaccinated as the year elapsed?
Let’s break the year down into two halves. Pre-June 8th and post June 8th. Given that about 70 million people died across the whole year it’s reasonable to assume 35 million died in each half. For the vaccine to have saved any lives in the first half of the year, an individual would need to have been vaccinated by May 8th 2021. However, by this date (as you can see in Figure 3) only 16.4% of the population had received their first vaccine dose. It follows that nearly all the ‘vaccine saved’ lives must have occurred in the 2nd half of the year.
So, rather than 35 million lives being lost in the second half of 2021 we’re led to believe that in the absence of vaccines, well over 50 million would have been lost! With those extra deaths coming from less than half the population in just half a year.
Figure 4 puts the ‘saved’ lives in context of ‘Covid’ deaths. Again, believe Imperial if you like, but to do so you have to accept that rather than the 5.32 million lives lost to Covid up to December 8th 2021 as OWID data shows, over 25 million lives would have been lost. Or, to put it simply, 80% of all projected Covid deaths would have to have been saved in 2021, despite only 50% of the population having been vaccinated by the end date, and only 16% having been vaccinated with even one dose by the halfway stage of the year.
Imperial appears to ignore any benefit that came from natural immunity and robust immune systems which, in 99.8% of ‘cases’, saw off the virus, with or without the help of a vaccine.
Finally, let’s just see what proportion of UK Covid deaths were of the unvaccinated; it seems reasonable to assume that the results in the UK would have been replicated elsewhere, but we only have these data for the UK. Happily, the UKHSA Weekly Vaccine Surveillance Reports are awash with useful data.
Let’s take the report for week 13 of 2022. Of the 2,368 deaths in the four week period covered by the analysis, 91% were of vaccinated people. Coincidentally, about 91% of the UK adult population had completed their vaccination course by then. The proportion of deaths amongst the unvaccinated was the same as the proportion of unvaccinated people in the population.
When we look at ‘real-world’ data it’s difficult to see that the vaccinations made any difference at all. The idea that total all-cause global deaths would have been a third higher in their absence is laughable.
Maybe if the Hallett Inquiry actually inquired into the data rather than taking them on trust it might have achieved something of value rather than just cheerleading for the ‘establishment’.
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.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Perhaps if these moronic complainants had bombs dropping on their heads, or were trying to work out where their next meal was going to come from, they’d not be so concerned with being offended by someone’s words. Part of the reason we are where we are is that nobody has to endure hardship anymore, so they invent it. Put these tw*ts on the frontline somewhere and see if they’re still so preoccupied with being ‘misgendered’ as bullets whistle round their head.
They are not hurt by the words. They are weaponising them with their own hate
It isn’t a crime to hate something. Or it shouldn’t be anyway. Hatered is what you feel about something. If we start outlawing what we feel we are in real trouble.
But once again the population has been bamboozled and everyone speaks about “hate” as if it was the worst thing in the world and needs to be stopped.
It’s really very difficult sometimes to live in a world of lemmings.
Police Scotland agree that it’s not a crime, but nevertheless have recorded it as a ‘hate incident (non-crime)’
Why are the police recording things that aren’t crimes?
Because they’re utterly useless at dealing with real crimes.
They have nothing better to do.
I don’t think this a decision by Police Scotland. They are following instructions by the Government who wants to use this list in future to identify political enemies.
In that specific case. But there will be others where someone’s says or writes something which is considered a hate crime.
The term is what is especially dangerous. They’ve used a word that is about what you feel and stretched it to define certain types of actions derived from certain types thoughts. So they’ve blurred the between thought and action. Which opens the door to criminalising thought without any associated action. It’s just a question of time.
For anyone who doesn’t get it, you just replace ‘hate” with ‘thought’, as in ‘hate crime’ or “thought crime’ because hating something is just a certain type of thought.
Exactomundo, Stewart. Nail on head. You can’t legislate against being human and humans have feelings and not all of them are loving ones.
Marmite could well trigger a lot of hate crime.
There is no criminal offence of hatred in English law currently. However if a person is guilty of a criminal offence and the prosecution can prove there is an aspect of hatred on various grounds, the sentence can be enhanced.
My latest hit (with apologies to Free)
There she stood, in the street
Singing gospel music so sweet
I said, “Hey, what is this?
A free concert that I don’t want to miss!”
Just then arrived a gang of cops
Telling her that she had to stop.
There’s been complaints, dragged her away,
And banged her up in jail till the next day.
Far Right now, everybody’s Far Right now.
Far Right now, everybody’s Far Right Now.
I hurried home to my place
Told my wife it was a disgrace.
She said “Egad! Dad, that’s pretty bad –
She’d be better off proclaiming jihad.”
Just then the Law broke down the door,
And pinned the wife and me down on the floor.
“You’ll get a fine! Or maybe time!
You know Islamophobia’s a crime!”
Far Right now, everybody’s Far Right now.
(We’re all fascists together…)
Far Right now, Toby, Toby, Toby we’re Far Right!
Yep very funny. ——And Ironically by a group called FREE.
“All White Now”?
I well remember ‘boogieing’ to the original in 1970, Andy Fraser, co-founder of Free as a 15yr old in ’68 co-wrote ‘Alright Now’. An instant classic. Those were the days of sanity.
I don’t think people “boogied” in those days? ——-Wasn’t it not till disco that we “boogied”? I remember having purple bell bottoms and platforms, a Lilac shirt and flowery clip on tie,,,,,,my god I must have looked horrendous, but probably we all did back then.
Is it a hate crime to baselessly accuse someone of a hate crime?
Couldn’t this non-law be used against these people who use this to try to win an argument that they can’t otherwise succeed with.
This springs to mind:
Wasting police time is a criminal offence as outlined under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Knowingly making false reports to the police is an offence, including verbal or written statements that:
True, however there is a pleasing irony in using their “law” against them.
I’ve already done that at work. A Muslim patient in an abaya made a complaint against me. She had wanted a Muslim doctor and became quite angry when she found it was me she was due to see.
In my response I used the phrase ‘perceived recism’, which I felt had been directed at me.
It went quiet after that.
As the song said “There may be trouble ahead”. —-When you give more and more power to government this is where you end up. I have for years listened to an endless stream of politicians decare how “Progressive” they are. And who could possibly have a problem with that, after all isn’t “progressive” a really good thing? Who could object to “progress? ————–Except when it comes to politics “progressive” means progressing bit by bit to more power in the hands of government, and we all should know by now that the bigger the government the less the freedom. I urge all Scots (and I am one) to seriously have a think to themselves that the proper role of government is not to be some kind of morality police that decides what opinions we are all allowed to have. Or as C.S Lewis put it———“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
‘Cancer is progressive,’ is my usual response to that.
I think we can foresee a predictable trend come April Fools ( how apt ) that there’ll be a significant hike in complaints from Transtifa and the Islamists ( sounds like a pub quiz team ), due to these two camps enjoying perma-victim status in society nowadays.
Shall we wait and see how long the queues get outside Ann Summers, Home Bargains, or wherever else has been registered as your ‘One stop grassing shop’ in Scotland, as snitches line up to whinge about being victims of ‘microaggressions’ or bent out of shape because a bloke in a dress was called “mister”.
Well we can be absolutely sure that plod will no longer have the
resourcespeople to deal with real crimes so that’s alright then.Note the MSM headlines today re “trolling” and the Royals, also blaming China and Russia, its always useful to bring “the enemy” in too. We must see this for what it is, Our Rulers want to bring in Censorship and woke blasphemy laws in the same vein as Canada, thus shutting down voices of dissent and of course the alternative media. The MSM are fully on board as theybelieve their power will be returned as the only voices of truth along with the edicts of our leaders.
Do not be fooled, recall the focus of the Billionaire boys club at DAVOS this year, and the biggest threat to humanity, not war, but disin/mal information as blabbed by Vond der Layen, Schwab etc. This is their play using the Royals, in a “look at these people they are kicking a Kitten, we must stop them” play. Do not be fooled resist and see it for what it is, the elites through the puppet politicians and secretarial MSM shutting up the proles.
The concept of “hate crimes” is nonsensical. The concept of a “non-crime hate incident” is off-the-scale bonkers.
We’re not just living in Clownworld, it’s the Stephen King version but with Brownshirts and Maoists.
Who determines if something is a ‘hate incident (non-crime)’ or not?
The complainant.
Humza is carrying out the same destructive policy’s as his ROP mucker Khant in Old London Town !
Also is Murdo related to Michael Portillo