Public Health Scotland (PHS) has announced it is no longer going to publish its Covid infection, hospitalisation and death rates by vaccination status. Purportedly this is because it is being misrepresented by “anti-vaxxers”, according to a report in the Scotsman. But a more likely explanation is because it looks so bad. Here’s the “notice of change” (there are further notices for each section going into more detail).
NOTICE OF CHANGE
From February 16th 2022, Public Health Scotland (PHS) will no longer report COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status on a weekly basis. PHS will continue to provide updates from the latest scientific analyses and reports on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. An explanation behind this decision can be found below.
Since July 2021, Public Health Scotland (PHS) have [sic] reported COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status in the weekly COVID-19 statistical report. These data were first published to help monitor the impact of the vaccination programme on the pandemic, impact on the NHS, and to help understand where to prioritise vaccination delivery. While PHS has stated that the data in the report should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness, PHS is aware of inappropriate use and misinterpretation of the data when taken in isolation without fully understanding the limitations described below.
Due to the increasing risk of misinterpretation from growing complexities as the COVID-19 pandemic enters its second year (as described below), PHS has taken the decision to no longer report COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status on a weekly basis. PHS is currently reviewing the content and frequency of reporting this information. PHS will continue to communicate up to date and high quality research on COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of a severe outcome, such as hospitalisation when infected, however no vaccine is 100% effective and some COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths may still occur, particularly in vulnerable populations. PHS, in collaboration with partners such as the EAVE II consortium, will continue supporting comprehensive scientific studies evaluating the risks and reasons for severe COVID-19 in vaccinated populations and will communicate its findings as and when appropriate.
In its piece explaining the change, the Scotsman points the finger at us (well, Toby – but the “promotion on social media” referred to will presumably be his tweets promoting Daily Sceptic posts):
The data has been promoted on social media by individuals including the Spectator’s associate editor Toby Young, the American right-wing opinion website, The Blaze, and anti-vaxxer American talking head Alex Berenson.
How dare we promote data published by the Government! I’m not sure exactly which tweets or articles this is referring to, but if it’s Thorsteinn Siglaugsson’s recent piece then I defy anyone to find inaccuracies or misrepresentations in it.
The main argument appears to be that the official Scottish population data overestimate the unvaccinated population. This may be true – but if so it would be the opposite of the ONS data, which underestimates the population of England (leading to greater than 100% vaccination rates in some age groups). Even if true though, the trends the data show are still informative. Besides which, PHS claims it is the “very simple statistics” that are being misrepresented, but this is not true: the data PHS presents is age-adjusted. Why bother adjusting for age if not to try to convey something meaningful about the infection rates and the effectiveness of the vaccines?
It also claims the vaccinated are more likely to get tested. That may also be true, but why not quantify it and adjust for it as many other studies have done? It’s not difficult and PHS has the data to do so.
Instead though, PHS is going to stop publishing the data altogether and refer people instead to its studies. Which use – you guessed it – modelling. From the Scotsman article:
One PHS official said that focusing on vaccine effectiveness rather than the existing “very simple statistics” would result in “much more robust” data for the public.
They [sic] said: “The main important point around all of the analysis is we understand whether the vaccines are working against catching it and against getting severe Covid, and that’s where the vaccine effectiveness studies come in which are a completely different methodology. The case rates, hospitalisation rates, the death rates are very simple statistics, whereas for the vaccine effectiveness studies we use modelling, we compare people who have tested negative to those who have tested positive and match them on their underlining co-morbidities. It’s a completely different method which is much more robust and that’s what we want people to focus on.”
This is referring to a test-negative case-control study design, which numerous critics have pointed out should not be used for a disease like COVID-19.
However, the one positive this week is PHS did publish the data one final time, so we have one last opportunity to ‘misrepresent’ them. Here are the data from the report.
Here are graphs showing unadjusted vaccine effectiveness (actually, it is adjusted for age, but it’s not adjusted for anything else, such as testing behaviour, comorbidities or prior infection). The data seem a bit noisy, but the sharp decline in the three-dose and two-dose effectiveness this week may lie behind the decision to stop publishing them.
Here are the absolute proportions of cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status, courtesy of the Freedom Podcast, showing it is most definitely not an epidemic of the unvaccinated.
Stop Press: Read Eugyppius’s Substack post on this.
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.
Why not simply ban all clothes, phones, accessories, shoes, food, drinks associated with the petro-chemical industry in any way? Okay, there will be a fair few chilly, hungry and thirsty people but they won’t be associating themselves with The Evil Capitalists!
Incidentally, the ban should include the musicians instruments, all wind and solar power since anything that, in any way whatsoever, is associated with Fossil Fuels is The Great Evil of the day. I somehow think the Eco Warriors won’t be quite so keen to lose their gadgets in order to Save The World.
Obviously they also must be able to prove they walked all the way to the venue and did not walk on any tarmac, brick or paving.
The world’s gone batsh*t f*in crazy. Looking forward to my deathbed to get some peace from the asylum.
Not yet Lemming. Do not go quietly…
How does the upvote work on this one? An agreement that the world’s lost the plot, or an agreement that a Lemming funeral would be rather good? Surprised I haven’t had more up-votes! Even the usual double-act have let me down!
Uptick for the first sentence not the last.
Be careful what you wish for.
.
“True gent”
In the name of ‘cultural appropriation’ ban anyone from elsewhere from wearing any western clothing. Native dress only for our foreign visitors. No denim jeans for them. Saris only for our Indian female residents. No Nike trainers for our African residents. Only Kimonos for our Japanese visitors.
To take it to its absurd conclusion, no western inventions can be used either. No electricity, no TV, no computers.
We must never ever use chopsticks for eating Chinese food, nor must we ever again use the numeric system originally derived by Arab scholars.
Drop all English words derived from other languages, including words influenced by the Vikings, the Romans, the Normans, the Neanderthals and the proto-hominids…
Loopy thinking.
Offense isn’t given, it’s taken.
my thoughts exactly, its the Lefts way of creating constant division and hatred so that they can divide and conquer.
If you’re not Chinese, you shouldn’t be eating Chinese food. Cultural appropriation, don’cha know.
“They include “clothing/garments/items which promote cultural appropriation”.
So, jeans, cowboy boots and stetsons all banned. Each item specifically developed for the cowboy / rancher lifestyle.
Hmm. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
What happens if somebody turns up and is denied entrance on the grounds they are wearing a proscribed item yet there is no list of what is and is not proscribed and for and by whom?
Could an English man, or girl wear an Akubra hat or a Davey Crockett “coonskin” hat – oh that could be fun…
What’s that on your head?
‘A coon.’
Completely unenforceable and would doubtless infringe on yuman rights.
Other than causing trouble, upset, division and mindless aggravation what is this intended to achieve?
Obviously the sensible approach is to avoid marxist festivals or blatantly defy the vague guidelines and turn up ready for aggro.
if we take it to its conclusion will they ban black women who have straight hair extensions and blonde hair?, will they ban middle eastern women from wearing anything but the Hijab? will indian women be made to wear Saris?
What about the food supplied? will the ethnically British be only allowed to cook and eat Roast Beef and Fish and chips? meanwhile each race only allowed to eat and cook culturally appropriate dishes? What about the Trans men who puport to be women, will they be refused entrance because they have appropriated womens clothing?
Or is it as I suspect that the White ethnicity people will be the target of re education and bullying?
A fine example of how to create hatred and division between people by forcing them into the vituous lefts defined boxes of which you must fit and comply and if you refuse they will destroy you.
Potatoes came from the Americas, didn’t they? Chips are out.
What the hell is ‘cultural appropriation’?
I dont understand
What if one was mixed race?
How would you be expected to dress?
Say you were half Scottish and half Dutch would turning up to said festival painted blue wearing just clogs be appropriate?
So meaningful
I presume the Festival will also be banning the “cultural appropriation” of eating foreign foods.
So the Indian, Thai, Chinese, Jamaican, American etc food outlets must be restricted to customers with those origins.
For the Brits, it’s fish n chips, bangers and mash, pies or pasties. And none to be served to those who are obviously not ethnic Brits.
Does this include men dressed as women?