Like buses, you wait over six months for Office for National Statistics (ONS) data and then two publications come along within weeks. On February 21st 2023 it released its deaths by vaccination status data set and on Wednesday it looked at ‘COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimated using Census 2021 variables, England: March 31st 2021 to March 20th 2022’.
There has been lots of analysis of the February publication so today I will look at the latest ‘vaccine effectiveness’ data.
But to give you a heads-up, it’s good news – take as many jabs as you can and your life will be extended! We are witnessing the results of a miracle cure. Squirt some in the eyes of a blind man and I wouldn’t be surprised if he could see again.
According to the latest data, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation for Covid was 52.2% for one dose, 55.7% for a second dose and 77.6% after your booster.
Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 mortality was 58.7% for a first dose, 88.6% for a second dose and 93.2% for a third dose.
One question that isn’t addressed properly in the ONS’s publication is why are you 100% more likely to be hospitalised with Covid three months after your first dose? An obvious answer to this is that someone who didn’t go on to get his or her second dose was probably too ill to do so and so perhaps was in and out of hospital anyway. He or she may have caught Covid in hospital or the test produced a false positive. Either way, the ONS just says that this may be due to not all confounding from differences in health being taken into account. I think it should have looked at this further.
But now on to the interesting part that shows that any of its vaccine effectiveness statistics are nonsense – non-Covid mortality.
As you can see, apart from the “First dose: after three months” category, if you had a Covid vaccine you are less likely to die than those pesky unvaccinated individuals. Each group is adjusted three times. firstly by age (light green), then by age and socio-demographics (light blue) and then fully (dark blue).
The fully adjusted data show that if you have had three or more shots you are 50% less likely to die of anything than an unvaccinated person! It really is a miracle.
To be fair to the ONS, it admits as much itself. It says:
As coronavirus vaccination should not provide protection against non-COVID-19 mortality, we can use non-COVID-19 mortality as a control outcome to assess the amount of confounding left in our model. The risk of death would not be expected to differ between vaccination status groups if all confounding factors were accounted for, the vaccine has no effect on non-Covid mortality and all deaths caused by COVID-19 were accurately classified as deaths involving COVID-19… This indicated the presence of residual confounding, despite taking into account recent socio-demographic factors and different sources of health data.
The confounding factors the ONS used to adjust the data were:
- age on Census Day (March 21st 2021)
- sex
- self-reported ethnic group
- religious affiliation
- region of residence
- index of multiple deprivation
- level of highest qualification
- English language proficiency
- National Statistics Socio-economic classification (NS-SEC)
- key worker status, derived from Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2020
- classification
- care home residency
- long-term health problem or disability
- self-reported general health
- body mass index (BMI)
- number of comorbidities as defined in the QCOVID model
- frailty
- hospitalisation within the last 21 days
But still, even after all those adjustments, the data show the boosted are 50% less likely to die of anything, which is clearly wrong. This shows how inaccurate its data on vaccine effectiveness against Covid must be.
In the publication, the ONS also says that “given instances of adverse events are rare, we can assume that the non-COVID-19 risk of death should be similar to, or close to, zero if there is no residual confounding”.
I wouldn’t assume anything, ONS, that’s not good sciencing. You should be open to the possibility that perhaps adverse events aren’t rare and the non-Covid risk of death isn’t similar.
And finally, a little trick which we’ve all come to know and love that completely muddies the water.
The unvaccinated group includes anyone who had a first dose less than 21 days ago. So for three weeks you count as unvaccinated even though you clearly are not. And the ONS are scratching their heads as to why the figures don’t add up!
Again, to be fair to the ONS, it has been clear that the unvaccinated group includes the under-21 days first dosers and, according to the ONS, this doesn’t apply to its February mortality statistics.
And finally, why do the data stop in March 2022 – a whole year ago? The ONS has the data up to December 2022 because it used it in its February publication. As a sceptic I would look at the excess deaths rising from April 2022 last year and wonder whether there is any connection. I have asked the Head of Mortality Analysis at the ONS, Sarah Caul, as to the reason why, so will update with the answer if she responds.
So to conclude, either we have witnessed the invention of a wonder drug that reduces your risk of dying by 50% or the stats are wrong. And if these stats are wrong, how many of the other stats are wrong? And if these stats, a year later, are wrong, how many of the stats from a year ago were wrong? You know, the ones that were used to sack people from their jobs, stop them from participating in society or travelling to other countries.
This post first appeared on the Naked Emperor’s Substack page. Subscribe here.
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.
Good work Chris. More nails into the coffin of the anti-science, anti-reality Climate Cult. Fraud, deception, censorship. So much $cience. I doubt that even the Sheeple will believe that 20 parts per million human emitted plant food, most of which is recycled, causes El Nino.
Oh, they’ll claim it all right, simply to try and maintain the narrative, i.e, save face. At some point though, the populous will wake up.
Chris, any thoughts on cloud seeding and the odd trail patterns observed in the sky from time to time?
“We have experienced three strong El Niños in the last 25 years – 1998, 2016 and 2023”. In fact, the NOAA graph of the Multivariate ENSO Index shows the 2023 El Nino to be relatively puny, less than that of 2009 for example. I believe that the unprecedented spike in global temperatures in 2023 was due mainly to the 2022 Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which spewed massive quantities of water vapour, the most powerful greenhouse gas, high into the stratosphere.
Establishment meteorological authorities (e.g. the UK Met Office), the MSM and social media, politicians, COP28 activists and NGOs have conspired to suppress all news and views on Hunga Tonga which goes against the man-made global warming narrative in order to continue their puerile pretence that every rise in global temperatures is due to man-made CO2 emissions, no matter the true cause.
For more, search for:
Joel Smalley substack, Net Zero climate change broadside
Chris seems to have a problem in his logic circuits. El Niño is not considered to be an effect of climate change. It is a partial short term alternative contribution to high temperatures. So lack of an El Niño is not any kind of evidence against climate change. What will be telling is if high temperatures persist despite the end of the El Niño.
Nothing wrong with Mr Morrison’s logic circuits:
‘Niño is a natural transfer of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere that starts in the Pacific regions. The effects of an El Niño are far from completely understood but they are essentially large heat transfers from the tropics to the northern hemisphere.’
But definitely something wrong with logic circuits in other circles (cults) as this article makes clear to anyone taking the time to read it:
‘……these…sudden spikes in ocean temperatures and unusual weather events……have been ruthlessly catastrophised by activist scientists, politicians and journalists seeking to nudge citizens to accept the collectivist Net Zero agenda.’
Apologies. That should read ‘Nut Zero agenda’
That’s not the point.
It is absolutely true that El Nino is one of the causes of sudden spikes in ocean temperatures and unusual weather events. And when these things happen they are sometimes ascribed to climate change. It doesn’t follow that the end of an El Nino is somehow evidence against climate change. In fact quite the reverse. If the El Nino finishes and high temperatures and unusual weather event persist then it cannot be the cause and it becomes more plausible that climate change is the cause.
“it becomes more plausible that furiously flapping pigs is the cause”
fixed it for you.
The difference being that there is a recognised causal chain from increasing GHGs to temperature rises and unusual weather events. Note that even sceptical scientists such as Roy Spencer, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke recognise this – they just dispute its extent and significance. As far as I know, you are the first person to introduce the flapping pigs hypothesis.
Everything plays some role. But on this issue we are confronted with the insistence that there is a “climate crisis” and a “climate emergency” and that millions will die, millions will migrate to Europe etc, and that none of this will occur if we simply decarbonise by 2050 even as the rest of the world doesn’t ——–This is as tall a tale as I ever heard and is totally evidence free.
And that’s it. There is ‘recognised, i.e., belief, and proven, i.e. evidence. The former abounds in great quantity, but the latter is still playing hide & seek.
Good come-back. I appreciate the dry humour.
Let’s constrain ourselves to the question of whether reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have an impact on the weather, and if it does whether that is a bad thing.
Of course, even if you could show that reducing GHGs was a good thing, possibly even a very good thing, then you still have to prove that the cost of reducing GHGs was acceptable. It very much is not and if the developing world is to, well, develop, then cheap energy, which means fossil fuels, needs to expand, not just a bit, but hugely. It is very much worth nothing here also that development is a precondition for being able to adapt to changing patterns.
Lastly, I’m very much in the camp of ‘no collective decision making for any reason whatsoever’, as any reason WILL be used disingenuously by those waiting in the wings of society for a chance to wield power.
I appreciate your politeness. I am afraid I am not going to play any more. You have really opened up every aspect of the climate change debate and that is more than I can digest right now.
Totally unscientific idea I had yesterday: Considering that some amount of plants end up turning into coal and other so-called fossil fuels, thus permanently withdrawing some amount of carbon from the atmosphere, could it be that life is not stable on this planet and that eventually, everything will die because of asphyxation unless an effort is made to restore this carbon to the atmosphere?
Well constructed.
I suspect the earth is on an elliptical orbit around the sun and its axis it not aligned with that of the star. That’s why we get Deadly Heatwaves® every year, the non-trademarked name of these being summer.
If El Nino is a naturally occuring thing why do you call the weather events it creates “unusual weather events”? ——Surely they are natural weather events created by a natural phenomenon. You just let a bit of confirmation bias slip into your language there.
Unusual is not the opposite of natural. Think about it.
But you are implying the events are unusual and purely as result of humans. Why do you class something that happens all the time “unusual” —-Activists cannot help themselves.
But you are implying the events are unusual and purely as result of humans.
Not at all. Some are. Some are not.
Why do you class something that happens all the time “unusual” —-
I don’t. What makes you think I do?
Do a little thought experiment. —–Just imagine humans don’t exist and so there was no Industrial revolution and no human emissions of greenhouse gasses. —-In that world there would still be El Nino’s. But you said that this causes “unusual weather”——-You said this” It is absolutely true that El Nino is one of the causes of sudden spikes in ocean temperature and unusual weather events”. ——If these events happen all the time as result of something called El Nino that is entirely natural then whatever it is that occurs is not at all “unusual” is it? So why are you calling something “unusual” when it isn’t?
This is precisely where the muddle starts.
You say Mr Morrison’s logic circuits have a problem, insinuating that he is arguing that the end of an El Nino is evidence against climate change.
Quite clearly, he is not.
His point is that Nut Zero jobs have ascribed El Nino effects to climate change caused by human activity.
He mentions that UAH temperature records confirm the El Nino effect.
Maybe unusual weather events, higher temperatures, will occur in the future, quite separate from El Nino.
We very much look forward to you keeping us updated; but, for the moment, if it’s OK with you, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, many of us will continue to argue that the Nut Zero agenda is total and complete lunacy.
Yes and actually the entire climate system exists to distribute heat about the planet.
Can you specify which climate has changed please? As there are specific characterizations of all of the Earth’s 30 or so climates, such as Hot, Arid; or Polar, then what are the characteristics of Earth’s climate that need protecting?
Good question and I am waiting for the answer. ——tick tock tick tock
The article was about El Niño effects being (ab-)used as evidence of man-made climate change or rather, the upcoming problem of finding an alternate source of convenient weather events, always due to climate change except when they’re not suitable for that. In this case, they’re “just weather”, as per the usual have-cake-and-logic: Whatever happens is only relevant when it fits in our preconceived theories about what should have happened. Actual events can prove us right but never wrong.
“If high temperatures persist”———Persist relative to what?. ——The temperature record is a dogs breakfast of adjusted and manipulated data. Then ofcourse just because something warms does not mean humans warmed it. There have been very similar warm periods before eg 1920’s and 30’s before we were emitting much in the way of CO2. —-The climate complex assumes a lot of stuff. This isn’t science. It is politics or “Official science”
If global temperatures stay high when the El Nino wanes it will be due to the continuing impact of the Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption, see my comment above (currently second-best rated).
There are three main reasons why 2023 was much hotter than 2022:
Notice I don’t include climate change because that applies to 2022 as well. What climate change does is explain why the 2023 temperature was higher than expected given all these effects. To see if the other three explain the observed temperatures you have to do the sums which are extremely difficult, require a computer, and cause opponents to shout “model”. I am sorry but there is no short cut. Once you do the sums you find that these three together are not sufficient to explain the observed temperature.
There’s one reason why some average of temperatures readings calculated in 2023 was higher than an average of different temperature readings calculated in 2022: The people doing the calculations want that. The calculation is nonsense and there’s no reason why anyone should seek to explain its result by speculating about the effects of some random set of natural events we happen to know about.
But the sums aren’t done very well, are they…..
‘For more than 20 years climate scientists—virtually alone among scientific disciplines—have used TLS to estimate anthropogenic GHG signal coefficients despite its tendency to be unreliable unless some strong assumptions hold that in practice are unlikely to be true.’
‘……why is the TLS so popular in physics-related applications? Good question! My guess is because it keeps generating answers that climatologists like and they have no incentive to come to terms with its weaknesses. But you don’t have to step far outside climatology to find genuine bewilderment that people use it instead of IV.’
Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing, Ross McKitrick Dec 2023
That’s a pretty obscure technical point. Many years ago I exchanged e-mails with McKitrick (via a friend of his). He is inclined to get a bit obsessed with relatively unimportant academic points (in this case it was his claim that all types of average are equally relevant to climate change).
Or not really
‘despite its tendency to be unreliable unless some strong assumptions hold that in practice are unlikely to be true.’
In other words assumptions made that are nonsense on stilts dressed up as science.
As the man said: ‘…you don’t have to step far outside climatology to find genuine bewilderment…..because it keeps generating answers that climatologists like and they have no incentive to come to terms with its weaknesses.’
Dodgy assumptions:
‘…..most of the climate alarmism is based on unrealistic scenarios like (shared socioeconomic pathway) SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0, which result in overestimation of future projected warming
…..the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) should be between 1 and 3 °C. Unfortunately, the IPCC AR6 relied heavily on Global Climate models with ECS ranging between 2.5 and 4 °C (likely range), which overestimates future projected warming.
models expect that the troposphere will warm faster than the surface, not less. As a result, the warming rate of surface temperature records should be questioned. In this case, all CMIP6 GCMs (Global Climate Models) are running “too hot,” indicating a very low actual value of ECS (1-2 °C)
‘……a vast body of research indicates that the CMIP6 GCMs are incapable of reproducing natural climate variability because they ignore multiple well-known climatic cycles at all time scales. There is a quasi-millennial climate oscillation with a likely solar origin that characterizes the entire Holocene and is responsible for the well-documented Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, which models are unable to reproduce (as timidly acknowledged by the IPCC AR6 figure 3.2).
Other natural oscillations were also detected, such as the quasi-60-year oscillation seen in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation signal, as well as many other oscillations classified as solar/astronomically driven in previous studies.
While GCMs suggest that over 100% of the observed warming is manmade, these oscillations could have contributed significantly to the warming recorded in the twentieth century. Introducing cyclical natural variability predicts low ECS values (1-2 °C) and that the GCMs grossly underestimate the solar impact on climate.’
Nicola Scafetta Dec 2023
I think you will find McKitrick suggested that when it comes to averaging of climate data that it would be difficult to know which averaging type to choose. He also pointed out that when it comes to averaging, some things loose their meaning when you average them and temperature is one of those things.
Yes that was it. It is many years ago so I can’t remember or find the details but I vividly remember thinking this man is a bit divorced from reality. However, without the relevant details to hand it is not worth pursuing.
“This leads to sudden spikes in ocean temperatures and unusual weather events.”
Small correction please.
“This leads to sudden spikes in ocean temperatures and changes in weather events.”
I note a passing reference to the Chuckle Brother Doppelganger Jim Dale. He even sounds like them except his proclamations are more preposterous, espousing as he does, the ‘tipping point’ (scaremongering) belief. He doubtless honed his presentational ‘skills’ in the RN and now is a ‘hired gun’ for the AGW brigade, heading up as he does the somewhat grandiosely titled ‘British Weather Services’ (which he founded). Risible!
Dale is a recipient of millions in renewable subsidies, about £100 million so far.
Can you give more info on that, or is it parody?
Are you thinking of the other unflushable, Dale Vince?
Hurrah! Our ruthless exporting of jobs, manufacturing and carbon emissions to China is working!
On another note, Prof Cliff Mass should really be a geologist rather than an atmospheric scientist.
https://thenewconservative.co.uk/net-zero-nuts/
And this piece by Roger Watson at The New Conservative is the perfect accompaniment to the Nut Zero lies.
If TPTB can’t be bothered why should we although in fairness Dr Watson does admit to sharing the conviction that climate change blah, blah, blah is a load of Bollox?
Dale and McCarthy.——- The Alias Smith and Jones of mainstream climate advocacy news programs. Two activists that are like a hammer that sees everything as a nail. They claim at all times certainty where none exists. They take themselves so seriously and are convinced with the huge dose of confirmation bias that they swallow everyday that every single thing they say is all ultimate truth and everything that occurs is all due to humans and our emissions of CO2. Not only do they assume there is dangerous climate change afoot all based on modelling rather than observations or empirical evidence, but they also know the solutions to it all. Yet Dale calls himself a “Meteorologist”. But if that is the case why is he dabbling in economics? Why is he onboard with every turbine, solar panel, heat pump, electric car etc. Why does he not just stick to telling us what the weather is going to be doing in a weeks time because that is all he is qualified to do. ———Dear Mr Dale and Mr Mcarthy, when everything that happens is due to your theory, you are not indulging in science you are indulging in politics.
Except Dale is only Navy trained to be a meteorological ‘observer’. He’s NOT a qualified meteorologist.
Thanks for that. ——A more irritating pompous twit you could not get, except possibly that other twerp Mccarthy.
No mention of weather manipulation, Geoengineering or chem trails we see in our skies. Three months of grey wet weather is not normal in anyone’s book. Ask the farmers. Food shortages coming in the UK which cannot even grow enough food for its own during “normal weather”