In an article this week highlighting side-effects resulting from the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, BBC Health Correspondent Fergus Walsh states:
It is estimated that the Covid vaccine programme prevented over a quarter of a million hospital admissions and over 120,000 deaths in the U.K. up to September 2021.
These figures come from a UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report published on September 30th 2021. As it happens, the UKHSA estimates were actually for England rather than the U.K. and the precise numbers were 261,500 hospitalisations averted in those aged 45 and over by September 19th 2021 and 127,500 deaths averted by September 24th 2021.
The estimates were calculated by applying vaccine effectiveness rates available at the time to known vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. With such models, the first question to ask is whether the results pass a basic plausibility test. Let’s see.
In the first nine months of 2021, the ONS reports about 60,000 Covid-related deaths in total. If we believe vaccination prevented 127,500 deaths, then without vaccination there would have been nearly 190,000 deaths in that period.
In the first nine months of the pandemic before vaccination (i.e., March to November 2020), the ONS also reports about 60,000 Covid-related deaths. In other words, if vaccination prevented 127,500 deaths, then without vaccination the claim is that we would have seen three times as many deaths in the nine months post-vaccination as in the nine months pre-vaccination. Given that vaccination was rolled out during a period when Covid deaths were already decreasing following the huge infection wave at the end of 2020, that is more than a stretch – it is simply implausible
Consider further that we know that a large proportion of deaths in 2021 were actually in the vaccinated (the Vaccine Surveillance Report mentioned above reveals that in September 2021, for instance, only 21% of Covid-deaths were amongst the unvaccinated) and many more occurred early in the year before people had access to vaccination. That makes the potential pool of people whose lives might have been saved by the vaccine even smaller and the estimate of 127,000 deaths averted even less credible.
The problem with the UKHSA estimates is fairly obvious. The vaccine effectiveness rates they use relate to hospitalisation or death rates for the vaccinated relative to rates for those unvaccinated and not previously infected. For this and other reasons they dramatically overestimate the effect in real world populations in which significant proportions of people have immunity from a previous infection and in which (as we now know) vaccine effectiveness wanes rapidly over time.
There is another way to test the plausibility of the estimates quoted by the BBC. In January 2023, the UKHSA produced estimates of the expected number needed to vaccination (NNV) to prevent a hospitalisation or death. These were also modelled estimates, but in contrast to the earlier approach, they used updated vaccination effectiveness rates and, crucially, took account of the fact that effectiveness waned over time.
For the primary vaccination rollout, UKHSA reports NNV for hospitalisations but not for deaths (it published estimated NNV for deaths only for the booster period). I’ve taken the NNV to prevent a single hospitalisation for the primary vaccination programme and applied these figures to the total numbers vaccinated with two doses.
Note UKHSA provides separate NNV estimates for those “in a risk group” and “no risk group”, but equivalent vaccination numbers are not easy to identify for these separate categories. For this reason, I have used the reported NNV for both groups combined. I’ve also estimated hospitalisations prevented for those aged 40-plus rather than over-45s on which the 262,000 estimate was based. This is because the NNV is only reported for the whole 40-49 age group. Finally, my estimates go to the end of September, slightly longer than the period used by the UKHSA.
The NNV estimates indicate that just under 32,000 hospitalisations might have been prevented by vaccination by the end of September 2021. The (outdated) estimate reported this week by the BBC’s Fergus Walsh was eight times higher.
We can do a similar exercise for deaths prevented. For this we only have the NNVs reported by UKHSA for the 2023 booster programme. For hospitalisation, the NNVs are nearly three times higher in the booster period than for the primary dose (reflecting lower effectiveness of boosters). If we similarly assume the NNV to prevent one death was three times higher in the 2023 booster period, then we arrive at a figure of about 12,500 deaths prevented by the end of September 2021, just one tenth of the estimate reported by Fergus Walsh.
It is worth noting that the UKHSA still derives its NNVs from modelling and they may not reflect real-world population effectiveness. But at least the estimated numbers of hospitalisations and deaths prevented by vaccination are plausible in the context of actual data.
Presumably the BBC Health Correspondent is aware of the later UKHSA estimates of numbers needed to vaccinate. Why then is Fergus Walsh still quoting estimates of hospitalisations and deaths prevented by vaccination that are not only implausible but also way out of date?
David Paton is Professor of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School. He tweets as @CricketWyvern.
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 nuclear?
BILLIONS HAVE DIED FROM NUCLEAR, THAT’S WHY! RACIST!
Would you care to add any facts to that?
HOW DARE YOU! LITERALLY HITLER!
You do realise that everybody who dies has nuclear material throughout their bodies? It ought to be banned.
SCIENCE DENIER!
Because Nuclear is not suitable as a back up. gas is perfect because it can be fired up and down quickly. —— We do need Nuclear energy. But not a s a back up for renewables.
Indeed. But if you need a backup that at given points needs to supply most of your generating needs, and you have no mass storage of significant volume (both of which are the case), then your backup might as well be always on and ditch the “renewables”.
You mean… go back to the way it was?
Report for a flogging.
Yes I agree——-I would never have renewables at all. I would use coal gas and Nuclear. They are all concentrated energy sources that do what it says on the tin. France gets about 70% of its electricity from Nuclear. But the problem is that we have forced ourselves in law to be rid of fossil fuels and I am certain there will be many more U turns as reality begins to hit home that you cannot run Industrial Society on wind and sun. ——-No matter what any so called environmentalist says.
Excuse me but we were not forced. It was voluntary by the Uniparty.
No——–The Net Zero amendment was simply waved through with no debate and no vote. ——-I call that FORCED, by a political establishment determined no discussion was to had in their desire to pander to the UN and its Sustainable Development politics rather than to their own voters.
Theresa May forced it upon us. Bad laws can be repealed but the trouble is you need MPs capable of critical thinking…
And balls.
There is no “Critical Thinking”. There is only “Group Think”
Why do we ‘need’ nuclear energy. We didn’t when we had 50% plus coming from coal
What we need is some sanity.
Coal was providing a large chunk of the electricity before we decided to pretend to save the planet. Wind and sun cannot do what coal and gas does ie provide electricity 24 hours a day everyday. —–So if we are going to de-carbonise which ofcourse is absurd, then we need the only other reliable way to produce electricity and that is Nuclear. But gas is still required for back up to wind and sun when all the Nuclear is being used up.
There just might be a few more people and a lot more energy usage per capita since the great smogs.
In my childfhood home we had one 5A socket per room and Mum plugged her iron into the light socket.
I think SMRs will offer greater versatility. How do nuclear ships and subs operate if they cannot modulate output?
Great—–I am for all reliable cost effective energy sources.
Why not coal?
Nuclear is vastly more expensive than gas, takes years to build, requires more land. When costing a nuclear power station, the cost of decommissioning must be factored in. That is a significant future liability, which affects decisions of investors and the rate of return required to justify the risk.
That means, among other things, nuclear plant operators must be guaranteed a minimum price per GW irrespective of market conditions.
And that means we the consumer pay over the odds for electricity forever.
So… why not coal? The most efficient electricity production, that means lower consumer… clean too.
Rather than finding the ‘best way’ to solve a non-problem, stop accepting there is a problem that needs solving.
I have no objection to coal. I don’t know how much coal we have under UK ground. Some people might say it’s finite, some might say it’s not. If it’s finite or gets really expensive to extract then we need to buy from others. Energy independence appeals to me. Then again I don’t know where we get our uranium from and how much we need. Just thinking about the very long term.
Uk coal supplies in the ’60’s were estimated at 300 – 400 years and at that time consumption was enormous.
Ah thanks for that. Coal, gas and nuclear should see us through until fusion is developed…
Whut? 30 years?
(It’s always 30 years.)
hp says we’ve got 300-400 years, hopefully the boffins can deliver
Nuclear plants can last 60 years though so the expense is spread out over a longer time making the price acceptable. The only way governments are able to get away with saying renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels is because they have put huge environmental costs and carbon taxes on coal and gas. —-But on a level playing field without all the subsidies that wind gets then coal and gas is by far the cheapest way to produce electricity.
The UK and the rest of Europe supporting the neo-Nazis in Ukraine in the US proxy war against Russia is the main reason UK bills have gone up.
Not true. Domestic fuel bills have increased in this country because we are being forced to provide money with which to subsidise the whole of the renewables industry.
It is that simple.
Yes it is true.
The “main” increase is due to the Ukraine war.
It is also true that renewables subsidies have increased the price.
No, the main reason is the morons in Government blew up our coal-fired power stations. They spend a fortune importing LPG because they closed down our Rough gas storage facility. They spend a further fortune importing chipped trees from the USA. And they pay our continental “friends” for mega-expensive energy because they completely failed to consider energy security when they decided to virtue-signal to the world.
The Fat Oaf said we’d become “the Saudi Arabia” of wind. Well I don’t recall the Saudi’s paying other countries for their energy supply. Instead they exploit their own supply and, as a result, are incredibly wealthy.
We aren’t …. because the Eco Nutters in the Establishment have wrecked any chance of prosperity we had.
correct
UK gets very little energy from Russia; neither directly nor indirectly.
The wholesale price increased dramatically because of the Ukraine war regardless of the UK using very little Russian gas.
MSM propoganda.
Gas prices are at their lowest for around 10 years. It’s not Ukraine. It’s the huge subsidies paid to wind farms, Drax, takeovers of failed Energy companies like Bulb and also covering the bills of people who don’t pay.
This chart shows that the Ukraine war had a HUGE impact on the price of gas.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators
But that is a temporary thing. The cost of energy was already rising and will continue to rise because of NET ZERO…….We are removing affordable reliable energy (coal and gas) and replacing it with unaffordable unreliable energy (wind and sun)
I agree with you BUT we can buy inexpensive gas from Russia if the political will was there.
We can do a lot of things with Political Will. ——-But the political will is all towards the UN’s world view that we need to save the planet and decarbonise. ——-But there is another world view, and that is that climate change is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for political purpose and that there is really no empirical evidence of a “climate crisis”. So we are impoverishing our own citizens with astronomical energy bills under false pretences.
Indeed.
Energy bills were rising way before the Ukraine situation. Because renewables are not cheap. The myth of the wind being free is just that —a myth. Our electricity prices had doubled since the Climate Change Act in 2008 long before Putin went into Ukraine. The Ukraine situation has camouflaged the energy absurdity that already existed and has given politicians and eco warriors the excuse to blame Putin rather than their own preposterous energy policies like Net Zero which is going to cost trillions and all paid for by you and I.
Spot on.
Seems to me the neo- or old fashioned Nazis are based in Moscow.
Your government and their presstitutes in the main stream media will be pleased you have believed all their lies, propaganda and omissions of the truth.
Just the narrative we are sold. It makes it easy to hike up prices by blaming it all on Russia. A manufactured crisis.
Gas is cheap and reliable and we have abundant reserves. The best energy generation mix, given current technology, is gas supplemented by nuclear. The capital cost of the latter is high but it is better not to be reliant on a single source of energy. Wind and solar are inherently inefficient and advocates for these sources of energy need to own the disastrous economic consequences of their energy preferences.
Hear, hear.
Coal is cheaper and prices less volatile.
The brainwashing is strong on the site today.
Get fracking until SMRs come online. China are opening two new coal mines a week and won’t reach peak CO2 (claimed) until 2030. Meanwhile UK is hobbling itself as it limps towards the unachievable Net Zero, whist freezing folk and driving them into penury en-route. Shameful!
The final paragraph on using gas and running down expensive intermittent renewables nails it. Alleged man-made global warming is a giant, horribly-entrenched scam. There is no need to reduced CO2 emissions at all. For proof, search for:
Ed Hoskins, Negligible future warming from CO2
A schoolfriend of mine is completely plugged in to all the dangerous nonsense. Sells electric car charging systems, now to UK councils for charging buses (this is the stage of the game where they’ve run out of private customers spending their own money so need to move on to asking other people to spend other people’s money).
As I say, he’s completely swallowed the narrative. Climate change, electrification, the lot. Hook, line and sinker. But the thing is, he’s a lovely chap. Honest as the day is long. Strong sense of justice. Why else would the company employ him as a sales manager? He believes in what he is selling!
How can I break it to him, Sceptics?
He’ll be fine whatever he does, but I would like to try to warn him. So far, the logic approach isn’t working. He just regurgitates the narrative.
How to do it?
I suppose I could just not care, but I like him…
And, hell – I might be wrong.
Ask him to check his electric bills since the Climate Change Act in 2008 and then ask him “Whatever happened to all the FREE WIND” ?
Good one. I’ll let you know.
Obviously we could all write REAMS AND REAMS to folks like this.
But it’s about finding the key to their souls… for the greater good, y’know
During “covid” I think I exhausted my lifetime supply of patience trying to debate with people I “liked”. I have given up now. Not seeing people helps!
True true. Completely changed my friends. But I do like this guy. He stood up for me in at least two school fights. A really good guy.
“He stood up for me in at least two school fights.”
That counts for a lot in my book.
Exactly. He just needs his wake-up moment. But I don’t think it has happened yet, despite ThePandemic™ …
It may never come. I am not optimistic.
I have considered my efforts so far as a complete waste of everyone’s time! Perhaps I should just accept him as he is. And talk about gardening.
But even gardening is fraught with politics. Nitrogenous waste, anyone?
Ask him to watch this presentation from Prof William Happer (it completely debunks that CO2 is bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nhssPW77I
If he does watch it, ask him what he thought if it. If he doesn’t, then he is displaying his wilful ignorance and let the friendship whither. If people aren’t even going to listen to the other side then what’s the point?
If people aren’t even going to listen to the other side then what’s the point?
That’s where i am at currently.
99% of the people I know are state modified zombies. I do not push my views unless they offer the opening and when they do I make my case with simple facts and figures which usually ends the debate. Some associates are however at the wavering stage and try to argue back. With these I dump occasional WhatsApp messages of truth. A couple are now coming back for more information.
Many are a permanently lost cause and because they know they have been had simply refuse to take their head from the sand.
If you question nothing then you deserve all the impoverishment coming your way, because make no mistake that is what Net Zero is all about. —–The climate is simply the plausible excuse that the gullible fall for.
That is an excellent lecture. Thank you, Solentviews, for pointing it out to me.
Prof Happer does it extremely well. What a mind, and what humility.
I sent it to my friend, with some short introduction. Let’s see!
Glad you liked it. He appears genuine as they come and not looking for the next grant like most ‘academics’. He has nothing to prove and is just demonstrating the truth with evidence.
I will keep an eye open to see how your friend reacts. Obviously if he agrees with the video then his whole outlook on life and job choice may have to change. Cognitive dissonance will also rear its head I’m sure.
There is plenty of this kind of thing in books and on the Internet. Unfortunately most people busy with work and family life don’t have the time to investigate every issues and they get their information on the 6 O’clock News and assume that those news Channels have thoroughly investigated the issue and are giving them a balanced view. ——-Nothing is further from the truth with mainstream News simply being climate activists channels.
But just as important if not more so is the fact that there are 21 million homes with gas central heating and we will need gas for that reason. There is no way on earth that all of those 21 million gas boilers can possibly be removed and heat pumps or hydrogen or whatever fanciful technology the eco socialists come away with will be able to be installed in the time frames that our daft politicians have imposed on us in law. It has taken about 10 years and we still don’t have little smart meters rolled out everywhere so the chances of new energy systems being in peoples homes with all that clutter and expense involved is NOT going to happen. As more and more of the real world comes and bites politicians (of all parties) the more of the NET ZERO nonsense will be kicked down the road. They will then be cursing their mothers for having given them birth that they were stupid enough to force the UK in law to move ahead with this absurdity and I believe OFGEM have up and questioned the cost of all of this. ——The time to question it was in Parliament where no debate was had and no questions were asked. It was simply waved through. ——-As someone once said “You couldn’t make it up”
It doesn’t matter what Fishy says or says he is going to do when the bottom line is that he is still mouthing off about being committed to Nut Zero.
Anybody committed to Nut Zero falls in to one of two camps:
1. the criminally stupid
2. they are working for an authority that does not have the best interests of this country at its core.
Now, allowing Fishy some latitude let’s assume his intelligence level is a little bit above stupid, that must mean that even if he relied on his own research he would quickly come to realise that a trace gas accounting for just 0.04% of our atmosphere, and without which life on earth would disappear cannot be causing climate issues.
If he got excited at his new found knowledge and decided to dig a little deeper he would also find that earth’s climate is constantly in flux ergo there is no need to chase the unicorn of Nut Zero and what we really need to do is get back to normal.
Normal is not what Fishy is about so the only conclusion is that he is a treasonous, lying, fraudulent coward pulling another gaslighting stunt on the British people.
A despicable oxygen thief.
You are correct, but this will not be the last U turn on energy policy….Starmer will have to back down from the pretend to save the planet stuff as well. ——It is called living in the real world.
But…
1) It will not increase generating capacity sufficient to meet the 2 to 3 times increase in demand from BEVs (stop laughing at the back), and switch from natural gas in domestic and industrial use.
2) Even if (1) were to be met, the grid infrastructure – generator to point of use – does not exist to carry and distribute the increased load… nor is work under way or planned.
And – since most of the World is joined in this madness – the materials particularly, copper and aluminium, cannot be produced (think raw materials mining as well as manufacture) on the fast, increasing scale to meet demand. Thus supply shortage will lean the cost of upgrading grids will sky-rocket and inevitably be impossible to complete.
The vexing question, asked about the fake pandemic too, remains, are they just bumbling, incompetent ignoramuses or deliberate, malicious, evil gits?
They are clearly anticipating a shortfall in the comparatively near future.
The choice of gas means that they don’t see energy storage as a feasible solution, that they realise nuclear cannot be provided in anything like the required timescale and that someone sees a nice little earner from fracking.
Fracking is the best way to get gas out of the ground quickly. I predict a sudden fracking epiphany.
The Yanks must be rubbing theirhands together with the prospect of flogging us LNG now they have cornered the European market by blowing up Nordstream and tripled the prices into the bargain..
I thought power stations were essentially private companies these days. Adding gas fired combined cycle gas turbine plant at a site that has an old coal plant can make economic sense. Didcot is a typical example, where once the old coal plant, along with it’s massive stack of coal was demolished, there was a bit of spare land to sell off as well. No need to do much to the national grid feed – it was already there.
You lot don’t actually believe him do you? It’s a pityful exercise at nicking some right wing policy in a vain attempt to win a few votes, pathetic!
I made it adamantly clear I don’t believe one word of Fishy’s nonsense.
Understood
Now they’ve wheel out Boris on a pallet truck! Whatever next, dig up Thatcher?
It is never a good idea when the state builds such plant but it will have to do so. Private investors will run a mile: they cannot get beck the capital cost in the time available.
we can predict these plants will take twice as long and cost twice as much as necessary. By the time they have checked the gender assignment of the site security officers and their dogs this decade will be over.
A very reasonable view of the next 5.5 years.
“It’s obviously good that the PM is investing in reliable sources of energy. But how exactly does building a whole supplementary power system to make up for the unreliability of renewables “keep bills down”?
———–
It doesn’t. It increases them. We are paying once, for a system which provides intermittent, unreliable energy so the Uni-Party can virtue-signal to the world.
And then for a system which provides reliable energy, on demand ….. which they proudly claim won’t be used much.
The policy of a moron. But a virtue-signalling, Globalist moron.
Build out gas and nuclear urgently and stop wasting taxpayers’ money on wind turbines and PV panels.
When there is sufficient nuclear ‘renewables’ become obsolete.
Scrapping, recycling and replacing renewables is a problem governments are storing up that will bite them in the near future as they have a limited effective lifespan.