Dramatic confirmation that the sea ice in the Arctic has been stable for nearly two decades is contained in a recently published science paper from a team led by Dr Mark England from the University of Exeter. The finding is of course obvious to anyone who studies the data but it will inconvenience the activist cranks who continue to promote supposed reductions in Arctic sea ice as an important sign of their imaginary ‘tipping points’ and their fake climate crisis. Despite the data showing the ice has been stable over every month in the year since around 2007, Sir David Attenborough told BBC viewers in 2022 that the region could be summer ice-free by 2035. The climate hysteric Al Gore never quite recovered his authority when he said all the ice could be gone by 2014.
There is still an occasional sighting in mainstream media but the ice vanishing act is having to be retired. In fact the smarter scientists seem to be rushing to accept the ice data while moving the climate trenches back to more defendable lines. The England paper notes a “surprising, but not unexpected pause” simulated by climate models, “relatively frequently”. Old school to the end, the Guardian reported last March that “scientists say” that ice-free summers were possible in the Arctic within the next decade.
Here is the graphic evidence from the two databases consulted by the England team.
These scientists are not the only ones to spot something that appears to have alluded mainstream journalists, scientists and politicians, keen as always to promote the Net Zero fantasy. Recently, the Arctic scientist Allan Astrup Jensen noted that the summer ice had plateaued from 1979-97, and then fell for 10 years. Either side of the drop – manna from heaven for climate cranks – there have been losses, albeit minimal ones. In fact, evidence shows that 1979 was a high cyclical point in Arctic sea ice, a cherry-picked date that conveniently marks the start of more accurate satellite measurements. Sea ice extent was lower in the 1950s and observations stretching back 200 years suggest a 70-80 year waxing and waning cycle. In line with these findings, scientists suggest ocean currents play a large part in determining the sea ice extent.
Last year, the Daily Sceptic noted that Arctic sea ice had soared to its highest level for 21 years. The article noted this interesting and correct fact but made our usual point that ice trends can only be understood over a long, preferably very long term context. The BBC More or Less statistical radio programme referred to the article without putting the high in context. Rather it provided a case study in how alarmists counter the obvious lengthy pause. Professor Julienne Stroeve from UCL suggested the ice extent was thinner, although the presenter Tom Colls had to admit, “the data is not available yet”. What you see, claimed Stroeve, is that the trend is downwards for four decades. The overall decline in long-term Arctic ice is very easy to see, added Colls. A more statistically objective view, something the programme constantly tells listeners it aims to provide, might have noted the lower levels of the 1950s and the recent obvious lengthy pause.
Of course when you are in the climate alarm business, there is a frequent need to explain why the various scares and tipping points never seem to occur. One favoured approach is to simply ignore any unwelcome improvement such as the coral growing back in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef, and hope nobody has noticed. The other favoured tactic is to state that the computer models that predict one thing are in fact still entirely correct when the opposite occurs. We might refer to this as the ‘global warming leads to global cooling’ explanation. Since computer models rely on inadequate human input of a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere that is impossible to fully understand, it is usually possible to claim with a tweak or two that they were right all along.
The England paper is to be congratulated for laying out the Arctic sea ice data but most of its work is seemingly designed to stay onside with those using computer models to provide what is sometimes called ‘evidence’ of a climate crisis. Rather than the multi-decadal pause being an unexpected event, the scientists note, “comprehensive climate models from CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulate such pauses relatively frequently”. According to these climate model simulations, it is noted, “this pause in the loss of Arctic sea ice could plausibly continue for the next five to 10 years”. ‘Plausible’ and ‘evidence’, it might be reasonably pointed out, are not words that always spring to mind when considering the output of climate computer models. It is of course only one small step that is needed for the crystal ball pseudoscientists to claim they can use models to attribute individual weather events to humans eating Big Macs and driving SUVs.
We can assume that the sea ice predictions of Gore and Attenborough were also derived from computer models – ever reliable to provide whatever scare you want to promote.
But all can be forgiven in the climate Armageddon business, particularly if you happen to be a high-profile eco loon like Gore. It would have been a “rather brave person” to have predicted that a sustained slowdown in ice loss was just around the corner after the large losses of 2007 and 2012, states the England team. This despite the ensuing pause which many have shown was “entirely consistent with what climate models simulate”. What utter bunk. How brave do you need to be to understand past sea ice cyclical trends? How much intelligence is required to abstain from making ludicrous predictions of an ice-free Arctic on the basis of two years’ data? And why give a free pass to a redundant American politician looking for a role who has helped cause enormous societal distress and economic destruction by inventing a climate crisis primarily designed to impose a supra-national collectivist agenda?
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.
Will, thank you. You are about two months behind your commentators on your own website but you are catching up.
I would say at current velocity you’ll be calling these “experimental death shots” like me in a couple of months.
If this were ANY other vaccine in history, these things would have been banned months ago.
That they continue to be deployed is an absolute disgrace and I firmly believe that those pushing them are ultimately going to be charged with crimes against humanity and hung by the neck until dead.
This has to stop. The time for playing nice is over. If they start sticking this shit in children then it’s time to take matters into our own hands. We’re on the right side of history.
We are witnessing the banality of evil. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. My grandfathers weren’t into that, they put holes in Nazis’ heads. I’m prepared to do the same.
Sic semper tyrannis.
They need to be charged, but in the present climate where the far left globalists have been in charge for nearly 40yrs, I suspect there will be no accountability. If we are lucky the millions who have not fallen for the scam will be enough to stop this crime. We will then be able to turn the institutions around.
If we are not successful the unforeseen consequences will be played out over time. We will see determined and silent slaughter like never before. We will see a world in turmoil and maybe even the end of the human race. Never forget that every single time in history that evil men have tried to control their fellow citizens, the consequences have led to anarchy, poverty and famine. The shame that history repeats itself, is because good men and women never learn that socialism in all its guises never works. Nothing is for free. The future has to be worked for. Our values have to be upheld within the family and community. Is there really any need for central government ?????
“the far left globalists have been in charge for nearly 40yrs”
Are you really that thick and isolated from reality?
Don’t tell me – Mr Toad is a ‘marxist’!
You can match the Covmaniacs for bug-eyed fantasy.
I guess 77th Brigade must be getting desperate.
It’s the left-wing March through the institutions. As much as you don’t like it, that’s what they are. They may not be classic Marxists, or communists, they are absolutely not conservatives or on the political right.
The old left-right labels are inadequate for current politics. It’s globalists/oligarchs versus the (small n) nationalists and liberals.
There’s the Socialist Democrats, as they call themselves in America who are much more left-wing than the Democrats of even 20 years ago, those like Ash Sarkar who proudly call themselves Communists, Susan Michie who is a member of the UK Communist party.
They are not conservatives (small c). Neither is Johnson, though I’m unclear what his true political beliefs are. They conserve nothing, and allow the social justice warriors free reign to destroy our history, monuments, education, culture, etc.
It’s the power-hungry versus those who want to be left alone to live their lives. The ultra-rich who have ambitions to control the world. The left-wing social justice warriors, the followers of the Frankfurt school, admirers of communist USSR and China, their useful idiots, versus the rest of us.
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
As I told my brother recently, this is the most serious thing ANY of us have experienced in our lifetimes.
Get with the program. Evil is here and it is amongst us.
Think it “can’t happen here?”. It’s happening. Right now.
That is such a powerful quote. At each stage we convince ourselves not to act, it’s only for a few weeks; it’s only a cloth mask; it’s only sensible to keep a distance; it’s only a vaccine card, ….
I am part way through volume two – it is terrifying how the same regime of control, coercion, lies, and top down criminality amongst many other beyond dubious behaviours is presenting itself now; Solzhenitsyn would recognise 2020 as a continuation of Gulag terror for sure. Dense books, from a brilliant mind.How he retained his sanity and equilibrium is beyond me.
I read some of Solzhenitsyn while at school. I don’t remember anything about what I read, but an image remained of trying to survive in the extreme circumstances of the gulags, similar I imagine to the Nazi concentration camps.
I’ve held a dread feeling that it would happen to me ever since.
My father was Jewish. He was born here in the UK, but his family left Eastern Europe some time previously. I have no idea which country they came from. Had they not left before Nazi Germany arose, I’m sure his family would not have survived, and I would not exist.
Truly a powerful quote. I’ve copied and pasted to my files for future use.
Excellent and inspiring quote. Thank you.
“He gazed up at the enormous face. A year and a half it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the blonde dishevelled hairdo. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two ritalin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Pharma.”
Determining the effectiveness of a vaccine for a disease which has such a tiny death rate, and produces so many infections with only mild or non-extant symptoms is extremely challenging from a statistical point of view. Massive studies would be required, and these have not been done.
The effectiveness of a vaccine is how it reduces your chances of getting an infection. It is a separate thing to measure how much it reduces your chances of dying – so the death rate is irrelevant. The RCTs in the phase 3 trials were very large with tens of thousands of participants.
That’s ridiculous. Severe illness, hospitalisation and death are the only end-points people really care about. It is ludicrous to describe them as irrelevant.
For some reason – censorship perhaps???- this site is no longer allowing me to downtick your comment – so I am having to do it manually. I am downticking your comment
From the actual vaccine trial results… Checkout the reduction in absolute risk as opposed to the publicised relative risk reduction and the numbers needed to treat/vaccinate. R in AR varies between 0.7% and 1.4% depending on the vaccine, albeit this will change according to the background incidence of the disease. Search BMJ for info. For example:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/
Massive honest ones.
None of those done sofar.
The trials were already manipulated on every front.
Determining the effectiveness of a vaccine for a disease which has such a tiny death rate, and produces so many infections with only mild or non-extant symptoms I would argue would be unnecessary under normal circumstances.
It’s probably now unarguable that the virus came from the virology lab, and was “enhanced” or weaponised. Maybe the drive and panic is because the PTB know that and are concerned about long-term side effects
I don’t understand why Will Jones draws this conclusion.
I do find it bizarre, however, that either group had such high rates of positivity.
The effect of the statistical adjustments to the odds ratios also stretches credibility beyond breaking point.
They might have been even quicker than the CDC and manipulated the results by using a low CT of 28 for the vaxxed only….
These studies are like calculating the returns for an account at Madoff or the profits of Wirecard: you can come up with anything and be very sophisticated in your process, but at the core, the result is always negative in reality, as you are dealing with fraud.
Another possibility is that they might have been testing the unvaccinated more/more frequently than the vaccinated. This happened with a Pfizer study in Israel, discussed by Norman Fenton.
What do the snake oil goons mean by ‘effective’?
It stops you getting covvie?
It doesn’t stop you getting covvie but you don’t end up in hospital?
You do end up in hospital but you don’t die?
You do get covvie, and you may end up in hospital and die, but you don’t pass it on?
Or: it has no effect whatever on covvie but it entitles you to cry hatred against those who refuse snake oil?
Occams Razor still applies. The best explanation for the post vaccine spike is picking up the virus from aerosols in the centralised vaccination centre everybody trooped to, or those doing the vaccinating.
A population moving from being isolated to meeting will cause an increase in infection – as we see every year when kids go back to school after summer.
We could do with data about whether other aerosolised infections spiked at the same time.
Stop lying.
This person applied to 34 councils around the UK.
Under the Freedom of Information Act he requested the burial & cremation figures from 2015 to 2020.
This link contains the official response from each council.
Each letter clearly states that the death rate has remained the same every year, even during the so called ‘spike’ of the pandemic.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/nick_milner
Thank you for this link, TFCF. It’s good to have the data. I’ve seen a lot of comments over the past fourteen months about how funeral directors, crematoria staff, gravediggers etc have been no busier than usual. I live near a large cemetery and I don’t think it has been any busier (of course I had never thought about making year-by-year comparisons before 2020). I’m sure the fact-checkers have got a good explanation, however – the reports probably don’t take into account burials at sea or spontaneous atomisation within 28 days of a positive PCR test.
Useful.
Magic WuFlu again then? Older people jabbed, die, younger people in the same centres, not jabbed, don’t die? In these circumstances Occamms Razor suggests have the jab, get infected die.
There is another explanation. Those most likely to get Covid were on the whole vaccinated first – so if they had not been vaccinated we would expect a higher rate than the group that were not vaccinated. The vaccines take at least two weeks to have an effect. So during that two week period we would expect slightly more cases amongst the vaccinated group – which is what we see. It comes across as a spike because anyone with symptoms in the week (two weeks?) prior to the vaccination is asked to defer. So the rate immediately before vaccination is suppressed. Then it bounces to slightly above normal. Then the vaccine kicks in and it drops
I am not claiming this is definitely the explanation. I am just saying that it is another possibility.
NHS Test & Trace App updated to a Chinese Style Social Credit System
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCiC1oqbQMA
It seems that, in america, the figures are being fabricated to suit the situation by manipulating the flawed PCR tests:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/caught-red-handed-cdc-changes-test-thresholds-virtually-eliminate-new-covid-cases-among
No doubt the same is going on here to provide whatever is wanted to prolong this farce,
Wow. I double checked the CDC website and yes “breakthrough” covid cases are going to be redefined for vaccinated people as only if it’s hospitalisation or death. They’ve removed the bit from their website about reducing the cycle threshold to <28 but you can tell it was there by searching the exact wording and being brought to the relevant CDC page where it once was.
“Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be.”
― J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
We failed. The field is empty, the kids are at the foot of the cliff
The kids are never coming back
The vaccine industry is like a Behemoth, a huge Juggernaut, I feel like an irrelevant sniper with a spud gun taking pot shots at a Sherman tank. My biggest worry is that as this programme moves to the younger people it will have an effect on fertility and vitality. But what can be done about it? or are we doomed to let this horror play itself out? is anybody listening?
Some study has been trumpeted on BBC in order likely to persuade pregnant women to have the jab, saying that covid will cause an increase in the number of still born babies. The greatest fear of any pregnant woman would be that here baby would be still born, ergo she will likely roll up her sleeve to have the jab. Would it be harmful either to her or to her unborn baby to instead take a good level of vitamin D3??
They looked where they were going. They jumped.
If the jabs result in mass deaths, the CRT guys will have accomplished their mission. African kids will then take their place in those rye fields in Europe and the USA and Palestinian ones in those in Israel.
You’re backing the eugenics case? The more civilised replacing raddled old stock?
Never thought of that
Ultimate proof that Covid is a fraud. It is now a proven fact that they are lying.
Burial and cremation figures from numerous UK councils from 2015 to 2020.
Freedom Of Information strikes again. Blair did one good thing. Thanks Tony
There was no spike in deaths in 2020. They are lying. What are we going to do about this? We cannot let this proceed when it is so clearly based on fraud. Arrest these people NOW.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/nick_milner
Any spike in deaths that occurs from now is due to the genocidal vaccine rollout only.
You’re right, but who is going to arrest them when they’re all in it together?
The house will come down when the rats start to turn on each other.
See the New York Mafia.
Plenty of detail. The last but one paragraph suggests that the usual suspects will use a ‘circular argument’ tactic to justify what they have done, and are attempting to pursue. Some might realise that ramping up the supply at a time of year when related infections are likely to crash is part of that idea.
re. “The first thing to note is the huge difference in the positivity rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. It is 24% in the vaccinated and 65% in the unvaccinated.”
I’ve fallen at the first hurdle. (i) I can’t find those percentages in the table, so I don’t know what they are referring to. (ii) Isn’t the point of the vaccine to reduce the positivity rate, and therefore wouldn’t you expect the positivity rate in the vaccinated to be lower? What am I missing?
I did reverse engineer the charts in the PHE summary and replot them on a linear Y-axis and linear time X-axis so I could see the data – the chart in the BMJ paper is, in my view, highly misleading regarding the 2 week post-vaccination spike: https://twitter.com/_RichardLyon/status/1395694783318958081
I had the same problem but think i’ve worked it out. If you add the totals of both negative and positive results for the whole vaccinated group vs the unvaccinated, and then take the percentage of that total that is positive, i think you will get to 24% and 65%, though i haven’t done the maths exactly but it looks about right..
Yes, that’s correct. I added the totals and the percentages match the figures given in the article.
Phew, thanks. My maths hasn’t completely deserted me!!
Yes, here’s what I make it:
Positive test result:
Any vaccine Unvaccinated Total No
32832 23.6% 11758 65.1% 44590
Negative test result:
Any vaccine Unvaccinated Total No
106037 76.4% 6303 34.9% 112340
TOTAL:
138869 18061 156930
Thanks Maggie
There are no sampling controls here. The figures are from opportunity samples, and thus worthless.
If PHE say the chocolate ration has increased then the chocolate ration has increased
Looks like another great piece of analysis from Will. But it’s too early for me to get my head around. I’ll try again later.
For the time being I’ll stick with the latest magnet and UFO videos.
Yes what is the deal with the magnets? Is iron chelating out of the blood and collecting by the vaccine site?
No idea! But watching magnet videos is a good laugh.
UK Column have been all over this for a number of months now. Gareth Icke last night said the gaslighting and propaganda are now going to be ramped up, society split and those who are holding out for the trials to be completed before they submit to a dangerous and unnecessary injection, will be ostracised.
If people are not waking up now, they never will. The brainwashing has been successful. As with the build up on all the scaremongering for the last twenty years, we have all had the opportunity to educate ourselves but many have chosen not too.
We must hold the line. We must not cave in to the next stage of this terrible crime on humanity. We are the difference between saving our future or unleashing something so disgusting and frightening that our children (the chosen few) will be in permanent serfdom.
I am a bit more encouraged in that regard since yesterday.
I think it is really only the chattering propagandists and their celebrity lackeys that are in favour of apartheid and discrimination who are creating and trying to spread the hatred.
As with the unmasked, the vast majority of the population is far too polite to fall for it. They can also smell the many rats here.
I had a run in with some Covidian and jab zealot friends recently and stressed that I won’t want to have anything to do with them anymore if they are in favour of vaccine related discrimination, vaxxing the children or vaxx passports.
Not one of them was in favour of that.
This ‘divide and rule’ scapegoating thing is back of a fag packet old style brainwashing.Who would fall for it nowadays?..rhetorical!
sadly you would be surprised
That last D and G Icke broadcast was scary, but inspiring, he has been right all through this, and his site has contained so much uplifting stuff from such as Steiner, Alan Watts, Philosophers various etc. kept me going, frankly…
The playing with numbers and the suspicious results are completely to be expected. I don’t have the time or the patience to look at the detail to be honest and I’ve always known that scientific research is never unbiased. What actually annoys me more is that these studies are completely reliant on a sizeable proportion of the population not taking the vaccine for the control group. They need us and yet they victimise us.
For me, the problem with this study is it doesn’t actually tell me what I want to know and what is probably most relevant for the GBP. if someone had said to me a few years ago that i could have say a flu vaccine that had 95% efficacy, i would have assumed that meant that out of 100 people who have this vaccine, 95 of them won’t get the flu. And i think that’s what most people would assume from being given a figure of 95%.
We know that that’s not the case with the covid vaccine, that it’s only meant to lessen the symptoms. So what i want to know is how many of those in this study, either vaxxed or unvaxxed had it badly enough to go to hospital? How many of them died? Pure numbers and ratios might be interesting to statisticians but not to the average man in the street. We’re back to case numbers again which is completely misleading without the severity numbers.
If all the vaccine is going to do is mean I will spend possibly 3 days in bed with it instead of 1, frankly, I’m not interested. Perhaps this information is elsewhere in the report and Will was only concentrating on the numbers.
Don’t forget to factor in the 3 days you are more likely to spend in bed because of the immediate side-effects of the “vaccine” (if you’re lucky!)
Yes, one of my friends was out of action for more than a week. She has MS and was persuaded to have the vaccine by her mother and her MS nurse, wishes she hadn’t. And she’s certainly not getting the second one.
i realise i got the numbers round the wrong way in my original post, i meant so say if the vaccine meant i spent 1 day in bed instead of 3, that’s not much of a big deal to me.
I know a good handful of people who have been completely wiped out by the “vaccine” so far (so much so that they haven’t been able to work or function normally), all in the under 65 age group. I don’t personally know anyone who has been unwell with covid.
Following an article posted by Will yesterday about vaccinating children, I got thinking about the increasing likelihood of side effects following the “vaccine” the younger you are, which is actually being admitted now by the authorities. Does anyone know why this is the case, or have a good theory?
I suppose one argument could be (and this is as a purely layperson) that younger people have stronger immune systems than the old and so their bodies perhaps react more powerfully to the arrival of a foreign substance ie the vaccine. But it does seem to be the case, my sister, BIL and cousin all in their 70s, have had the vaxx and haven’t said anything to me about bad side effects though my cousin said she felt exhausted for a couple of days.
The friend i mentioned with MS who is an ex ICU nurse reckons that any frail and elderly person who had the same sort of side effects that she did post vaccine would be unlikely to survive.
“… 95% efficacy, i would have assumed that meant that out of 100 people who have this vaccine, 95 of them won’t get the flu.”
… which is what most people would indeed assume. Which is why relative risk figures are often used to deliberately mislead. They distort the real world impact, and good research always quotes both figures.
Tested positive for what exactly? I haven’t read the detail of the above (not enough coffee) but have the authors mentioned the sensitivity of the tests used in the study and how this compares to those used in the real world?
Dear Mr Jones
Rather than kowtowing to the “vaccine” rollout and whether it’s effective at stopping the disease could you please investigate the harms it’s doing. There have been over 750,000 (yes you read that correctly) 750,000 ADVERSE REACTIONS AND 1100+ DEATHS – YES DEATHS!!!! You could start by going into the UK Column News site and looking at the shocking video “A Good Man Down”. Sobering stuff before you start extolling the virtues of theses abominable experimental medicines.
Very good article thank you. Please read dr Mercola’s daily newsletter as well as Robert Kennedy’s children’s defense newsletter. Both have many articles, graphs, studies, regarding the experimental biologicals. Both try very hard to give us an alternative narrative which is lacking elsewhere.
Yes!
” discussed it at length with others who are medically qualified ”
Does that explain the lack of noting the absence of ARR data? – the medical profession isn’t good at stats.
These observational, non-RCT ‘studies’ are post-hoc justification, undertaken by another interested party.
Sorry to be cynical – I think we have justification.
I have a suggestion for a couple of variables to add to this mess.
1.) The flu vaccine. Flu vaccine has been documented to somehow induce greater susceptibility to coronaviruses. So although you think you’re looking at vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, what you’re actually looking at is flu vaccinated but no covid vaccine vs flu and covid vaccine, especially in old people’s homes, where the erosion of trust means that some inmates are not being covid vaccinated but are still happy to be flu vaccinated.
2.) The proper question is NOT how many people got sick, but how many died? I’d moot that if someone would FOI it, the number of people from old age and nursing homes dying within 28 days of receiving the covid vaccine are quite high. They might not turn up in this study because they aren’t dying in the home, but in hospital, (I live between 4 nursing homes and the number of ambulances coming back and forth ramped up massively over winter, although more coinciding with the AZ rollout than Pfizer), and the study doesn’t appear to be asking about deaths.
3.) The hypochondria and fear of missing out that started up as soon as the Pfizer was licensed was intense. I don’t think you can underestimate how many people will have got a sniffle, (doubtlessly picked up from a nasal flu vaccinated child), and presented for testing, whereupon they’d have fallen into the PCR black hole. They aren’t proper covid cases. Without decent testing, we will never know.
4.) A trend that is going under-investigated but is much more important is how many younger people (75 and younger) with good life expectancies (ie not likely to die within the next month from any health issue), are dying within 28 days of being vaccinated.
Will Jones – a challenge – send off an FOI to PHE to find out that statistic, (death within 28 days of vaccination, age graded to eliminate natural wastage). Also why not ask about rates of hospitalisation within 28 days?
See how far you get. See if they’ve even collected the data, (not collecting the data being the surest way the vaccine industry have of deflecting any implication that their product is in fact not “safe and effective”).
Haven’t done a FOI, just looked at ONS stats.
In the first Covid wave 50 odd K died from Covid vs 85K in the second wave so far.
Interesting is that first wave excess deaths were more in line with Covid deaths whereas excess deaths in the second wave are significanly lower than Covid deaths.
NNT vs NNH (plus ARR vs RRR in thread)
Data from NEJM Israeli study and Pfizer trial published by UK Gov MHRA.
(References and data summary pic in tweet link below, see thread for ARR vs RRR):
https://mobile.twitter.com/JavRoJav/status/1372749574629060608
The thing about ARR/NNT is they vary with the prevalence while RRR does not. While virus levels are extremely low, as they are at the moment, ARR will be low. RRR has its own problems. The odds ratio which is used in the study avoids the problems of RRR and ARR.
As Baboon said at the beginning of the thread “Will, thank you. You are about two months behind your commentators on your own website but you are catching up.”
BTL has been right on most of this:
ATL has been woefully wrong or late to the table on all these points.
How To Create An “Epidemic” – YouTube
Nice watch
Great post! Trying to estimate anything, least of all “real world effectiveness” from Pillar 2 data is complete garbage right off the hop, with the completely non-random and arbitrary sampling criteria.
It sounds like they have a bunch of AZ nearing its “Best Before” date and want to get rid of it.
I agree the vaccine actually works well, but the second dose of AZ (according to all studies that weren’t completely science-free) showed very diminishing returns. It’s more worth getting the second dose if having one of the mRNA vaccines.