The Prime Minister may have acknowledged reality and stated that being double vaccinated “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on” but others appear to remain in denial.
On Sunday I asked whether now that the PM had let the cat out of the bag the media would start reporting properly on the UKHSA data showing higher infection rates in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. It appears the answer is no, at least if the Times‘s Tom Whipple is any indication.
In a typically mean-spirited piece – in which anyone who doesn’t agree with his favoured scientist of the hour is smeared as a conspiracy theorist and purveyor of misinformation – Whipple quotes Cambridge statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, who heaps opprobrium on the U.K. Health Security Agency (the successor to PHE) for daring to publish data that contradicts the official vaccine narrative. Spiegelhalter says of the UKHSA vaccine surveillance reports:
This presentation of statistics is deeply untrustworthy and completely unacceptable… I cannot believe that UKHSA is putting out graphics showing higher infection rates in vaccinated than unvaccinated groups, when this is simply an artefact due to using clearly inappropriate estimates of the population. This has been repeatedly pointed out to them, and yet they continue to provide material for conspiracy theorists around the world.
This is the graphic he is presumably referring to.
If Professor Spiegelhalter has a source for his claim that higher infection rates in the vaccinated are “simply an artefact” of erroneous population estimates then he doesn’t provide it.
Whipple says the data has been “seized upon around the world”.
The numbers have been promoted by members of HART, a U.K. group that publishes vaccine misinformation. They have also been quoted on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast in the US, which reaches 11 million people.
Appearing on that podcast, Alex Berenson, a U.S. journalist now banned from Twitter, specifically referenced the source to show it was reliable.
The UKHSA is adamant that it is doing nothing wrong. The Times quotes Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at the UKHSA, explaining: “Immunisation information systems like NIMS are the internationally recognised gold standard for measuring vaccine uptake.”
So Professor Spiegelhalter thinks that the gold standard gives “clearly inappropriate estimates of the population”, and using it is “deeply untrustworthy and completely unacceptable”? That may be his view, but the UKHSA can hardly be criticised for following the recognised standards for its work.
A more measured criticism is provided by Colin Angus, a statistician from the University of Sheffield, who the Times quotes saying that using NIMS data makes sense but the “huge uncertainty” in the population estimates should be clearer.
Whipple, however, goes further and claims that “using population data from other official sources shows, instead, shows that the protection of vaccines continues”. Yet he does not provide those sources or go into any detail about how they back up his claim.
For now, the UKHSA is defending its report (we’ll see how long it holds out for). But even so, Dr Ramsay is adamant that the report rules out using the data to estimate vaccine effectiveness: “The report clearly explains that the vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpreting this data because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.”
This defence somewhat misses Professor Spiegelhalter’s criticism about population estimates. But it’s also misleading in that the report doesn’t “clearly” explain that its data “should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness”. What it says is it is “not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation”. But, as explained before, using population-based data on infection rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated is certainly a valid method of estimating unadjusted vaccine effectiveness, which is defined as the reduced infection rate in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. While a complete study would then adjust those raw figures for potential systemic biases (with varying degrees of success), we shouldn’t necessarily expect those adjustments to be large or change the picture radically. Indeed, when a population-based study from California (which showed vaccine effectiveness against infection declining fast), carried out these adjustments the figures barely changed at all.
The UKHSA report adds: “Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.” In fact, though, most of those estimates are reported as low confidence (see below), which means: “Little evidence is available at present and results are inconclusive.” While it claims high confidence for its estimates against symptomatic disease, a footnote explains that this only holds for 12-16 weeks: “This typically applies for at least the first three to four months after vaccination. For some outcomes there may be waning of effectiveness beyond this point.”
It is precisely this “waning of effectiveness” that the latest real-world data is giving us insight into. Rather than trying to discredit that data and those who report it by throwing around general, unquantified criticisms, scientists and academics like Professor Spiegelhalter should be redoubling efforts to provide constructive analysis to get to the bottom of what’s really going on with the vaccines. If there are issues with the population estimates then those need to be looked at, and if there are biases that need adjusting for then those need to be quantified. But do, please, get on with it – and lay off the smearing of those who raise the questions.
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.
Built a fortune from the pharma and biotech industries….So this chump made millions poisoning and killing people. How noble, how intelligent, how diligent, how hardworking, how ‘American dreaming’….Why would anyone vote for another fascist-enabling corporate stooge? Wasn’t Drumpf the quackcine salesmen enough? Or that idiot Biden the military salesman with his endless wars?
Farage is clueless about many things including the Rona Fascism and the $cientism of our world which seeks the destruction of just about everything. Maybe instead of ejaculating praise he can analyse the world for what it is.
I share your suspicion of anyone capable of emerging out of the whole rotten system.
However if this guy is a fascist enabling corporate stooge he’s brazenly lying to everyone because he openly calls for a greatly reduced state, eliminating corporate welfare, fiscal prudence. These are the opposite of a fascist agenda.
He could of course be lying through the teeth. How could we know either way other than by voting him in and seeing what he does?
I tend to agree. My preference would be for DeSantis as he has a proven track record in Florida. Trump would be better than Biden but his execution was poor last time and he was unsound on covid.
Voting solves nothing.. if it did they’d ban it..
Whilst certainly a yellow flag, not all pharma and biotech is evil.
What an odd choice that would be. Not sure why DeSantis is not doing better in this process. Perhaps he is too much of a risk to this who like to influence what happens
DeSantis is no risk.. he’s owned by Israel lock stock and barrel. Watch what they do, not what they say. Politicians are liars.. professional liars.
Personally, I have been watching DeSantis and he has been doing ok from my perspective. The media support, however he is “owned” has definitely changed so perhaps some of the other people “owners” do see him as a risk.
They’re all owned Graham.. politicians are just puppets.. told what to do..
Indeed. Guilded slaves.
If they’re all professional liars, how do you suggest we pick a leader then?
It’s OK to bad mouth everyone but please suggest an alternative!
Do you need a politician as a leader.. I certainly don’t. Never have, never will.. perfectly able to lead myself thanks.
As for bad mouthing.. you appear to have learnt nothing over the past three years about the political class, both in UK and abroad, but don’t fret.. you won’t have to worry soon.. your precious politicians are leading you towards the Great Reset, and New World Order, then you’ll be enslaved to a World Governing Technocracy.. should be fun..
FWIW George I am in complete agreement.
Tah Hux.. on reflection I think I was a bit hard on Dinger.. I got spiked.. haha
Blimey.. all the 11s.. I must be popular.. I’m keeping that one..
Not wanting to be negative Toby.. but American presidents are chosen.. yes.. Trump too.. he was no maverick.. a little research into his son-in-law Jared Kushner will put you on the right track. There will be no saviour from the wings.. especially one from an established political party like the GOP.
Politicians that get to power are bought and paid for, those that aren’t languish on the sidelines.
Just like UK.. voting for a politician is not going to get America or any other country out of the mess we are in. The only way that will happen is from the grass routes, the bottom up. The populace have to realise what has happened to them, what has happened to their countries, and whose been responsible. The ‘gilet jaune’s’ in France were an example of ordinary people rising, and look how brutally they were put down. The put down was brutal because TPTB knew that there is real danger to them when the common people are united.
Sadly.. Gramsci’s long march through the institutions has taken place over decades, and been largely successful. Groups like Common Purpose have infiltrated every institution. Our culture’s have fundamentally changed. Those leaving our universities are carrying a cultural Marxist banner. A slick wealthy politician of any persuasion is not going to change that in five minutes.
As the late great comedian George Carlin says.. we have owners.. we are owned. Watch the video.. The American Dream.. its an education..
https://youtu.be/acLW1vFO-2Q
Carlin’s monologue points out it could all be fixed with a truthful media.—-Fat chance!
Well at least with a truthful media people would know what the f*ck was going on and be able to make decisions based on that knowledge.
The media is the most powerful tool in powers control.. because it does the controlling for them..
Our salvation is not going to arrive via the ballot box.
I need to ‘tm’ this phrase.
The idea of the grassroots revolution is, I think, a myth.
I can’t think of any revolution that wasn’t led by a group of elites, generally a different one to those already in power.
The only grassroots revolution i recognise is mass non-compliance which doesn’t look very revolutionary as it generally entails not doing rather than doing something.
Yes.. Richard I’m afraid you’re right about revolutions and the leadership of them.
If you’d been with me during the rise of the Gilet Jaune’s though I’m sure you’d have thought one was taking place, especially if you were manning the many roundabout encampments or facing off against totally unwarranted tear gas volleys.
No.. what that was, was a groundswell demonstration against Macron and his cronies. People sick to death of being pushed around. It scared them rigid and that’s why it was brutally put down..
“… [Ramaswamy] built a fortune via the pharmaceutical and biotech industries…”
What could possibly go wrong?
Working on a new covid jab maybe..
Its a bit disappointing to see him written off by my fellow posters because he is involved in pharma. I’ve seen very little of the guy to be able to tell you who’s pocket he is in, but on the principle that there is no ‘independent’ candidate, I will wait and see. Scepticism doesn’t mean you have to be negative about everything.
My post didn’t mention pharma Neil.. he’s a politician.. if you expect a politician to solve problems, and make life better for the ordinary man on the street, I’m afraid you’ll have a very-very long wait.. oh.. and that includes DeSantis..
I certainly don’t expect any politician to “solve” any problem. The best we can hope for is that there are some who create fewer problems by leaving law abiding citizens alone.
Yeah.. I’d rather have cancer than the plague..
Sorry George, but I didn’t think I was replying to you. I have no expectations of politicians at all. They are all bought and paid for, but some are worse than others…
Believe it not I agree Neil.. thank God for Andrew Bridgen..
I understand where you’re coming from, Neil, but given our experiences over the past three years, is it any wonder that people aren’t getting overly excited by what seems an already moulded product of the system – Harvard, finance, pharma and biotech? We should all know by now that Presidents and their VPs are frontmen for the real power. Anyone getting into the prime position of US politics won’t be because of a popular uprising.
Thats true, But the current Democrats are beyond appauling, I suspect as Labour would be if they win the next GE. I was very disappointed that Trump, for all his faults, didn’t win in 2020. I’d like to see him win in 24, with a running mate who can win the next two after that. I still think that a rejuvenated Republic party is the medicine the USA needs right now, and the western world with it..
Trump did win in 2020 and accepting the lie that he did not simply reinforces that lie.
Don’t dump desantis just yet!…watch this space
I have read interviews and listened to Vivek Ramaswamy speaking and I think that he talks sense, if I had a vote he would get mine, and in my opinion he doesn’t need Trump.
He’s a politician, of course he talks sense.. it wins votes. What happens when they get into power though is nearly always the exact opposite, the many promises made seem to vanish as if by magic..
Might he fare better if he changed his name to Victor Ramsden?
Just asking…
He also wants to raise the voting age to 25, so he will alienate a pretty big chunk of the population. Probably that’s because he knows that such voter suppression is the only way his party could win without blatantly cheating nowadays. Even if it would require a constitutional amendment to do it. That said, 18-24 year olds are known for the subpar voter turnout. So it really is “use it or lose it”.
I really have lost all faith in Farage’s judgement.