There follows a guest post by a Daily Sceptic reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, who has some questions about the changing risk estimates being produced by the QCovid risk calculator and why important factors like previous infection are not taken into account.
The QCovid risk calculator was developed by University of Oxford, commissioned in 2020 by the Chief Medical Officer for England on behalf of the U.K. Government, and describes itself as a “clinical decision tool intended to support conversations between clinically trained professionals and patients about COVID-19 risk”. There is a clinician tool and a patient tool; the clinician tool differs only in some of the questions but delivers the same estimates.
I am a 49 year-old female with no pre-existing health conditions of note and am not obese. My daughter is a 19 year-old female with no pre-existing health conditions of note and is not obese. We ran the QCovid risk calculator in summer 2020 when considering the risk posed to ourselves and therefore the potential benefit of a vaccine. My risk of dying was one in 62,000 or 0.0016% and my risk of hospitalisation was one in 4,000 or 0.025%. My daughter’s risk of dying was one in 500,000 or 0.0002%. This data must have related to the variants around at the time although the risk calculator never made that clear.
I checked the risk calculator again multiple times over the past 18 months and it had not changed (or possibly was not updated).
I checked again on January 11th 2022 and the calculator has changed. The questions are the same, but the data generated is different.
- You can now select whether or not you are vaccinated – however it doesn’t ask which vaccine you might have had, or indeed when it was delivered. We now know this makes a difference. It also doesn’t make any reference to the number of doses. This also makes a difference.
- The risk assessment doesn’t delineate between variants and we know Omicron is significantly less harmful than Delta or Alpha. Are they suggesting the risk posed to my health is equivalent?
I have a BSc in medical biochemistry and a Masters in law; I am analytical and data driven – I spend my days reviewing data, searching for patterns and loopholes. I am not a mathematician, but something about the data the calculator is now offering doesn’t feel right. The estimates provided by QCovid for both people (mother and daughter) are below, vaccinated and unvaccinated:
Comments:
- By their own data I am less likely to contract coronavirus and die than I was before, whether vaccinated or not (line ii).
- However I am also more likely to catch coronavirus and be hospitalised if unvaccinated now than I was before (line i).
- There’s a new line in the data showing the risk of dying after a positive test – this can only be included to demonstrate the relative difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated, as the absolute risk differences in the other lines are so small (line iii).
- This table of results may look very different when considering Omicron with higher transmissibility, less effective vaccine, but lower virulence.
- My daughters risk of catching and dying of Covid is no different whether vaccinated or not (line v).
- My daughter’s risk of catching coronavirus and then being hospitalised is the same as mine despite our age difference.
- There’s no reference to the impact of prior infection or treatment protocols. Prior infection will dramatically reduce a person’s risk from Covid.
I suggest that the above data and the inclusion of lines (iii) and (vi) has been included to encourage people to get vaccinated, yet there is important data missing. It would be interesting if a mathematician or statistics analyst could review the QCovid risk calculator, assumptions and algorithm and draw attention to the misinformation and lack of transparency that is being used to influence vaccination uptake in private and clinical settings.
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.
Our authorities like to give us the illusion of being informed.
Incompetency permeates society. Bring back meritocracy.
Well put!
Or as the BBC describes it “so-called natural immunity”.
I think of it as the so-called British Broadcasting Corp.
Please tell me you’re joking.
Direct quote. See the atl article posted earlier:
Fact-Checking the BBC’s ‘Fact Check’ of The Doctor Who Challenged the Health Secretary on Vaccine Mandate
BBC London Thurs evening: a report on the “10%” of NHS staff facing the sack in April in London. Not once in the piece ( I won’t call it a report) did the journalist nor the presenter ask “why” they are refusing the pharmaceutical mocktail!
Like the ‘so-called vaccines’.
BBC – “Public Enemy No. 1”
They have now suspiciously amended this wording to omit the “so called” wording!
https://web.archive.org/web/20220915000000*/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59929638
Why would anyone watch or listen to the bbc? Even my 90 year old neighbour knows she is being misled.
Because natural immunity doesn’t fit in with the NWO narrative. How can you have a Social Credit System if there are get out clauses, like natural immunity? To get passport approval you have to demonstrate that you have complied with the “government” narrative and natural immunity cannot and will not fit in with that narrative.
Back in 2008 I backed a horse in the Grand National called “Comply or Die” as I said it was an EU diktat. Now Comply or Die is government policy, because if you don’t comply you won’t be able to have an upto date passport and you’ll starve to death as you cannot buy food.
Institutional groupthink / dogma at work I feel. But this is exactly the kind of piecemeal deconstruction we need in the fight against toxic corporate influence though so I applaud the unnamed contributor. (Who would have expected to get an honest answer from a Covid calculator though!)
Excellent catch.Would love to see this broken open and properly pulled apart.
“I suggest that the above data and the inclusion of lines (iii) and (vi) has been included to encourage people to get vaccinated“
Almost certainly. As the writer points out, when it doesn’t specify which “vaccine”, how many doses or how long ago they were taken, it clearly can’t make any meaningful assessment of the impact of being “vaccinated”.
Let’s apply a similar calculator to the common cold and see how well that works. Clearly , we’d be wasting our time and so it is with Covid. The Covid calculator is nothing more than propaganda and it always was.
I looked at this thing months ago, and not since. From what the contributor says, it rather looks as if the calculator is, like the “modelling”, set up to produce a set of results to underpin (in part), the “narrative”. This makes it less than effective or truthful.
Against my better judgement, I had another look at it today. Regarding the “vaccination” question, the notes to it say that the assumption in the calculator is that “vaccinated” is two doses received; but nothing much beyond that. Not a lot of help.
I suppose that it would be possible to test this with some “dummy” data, to cover a number of scenarios, and see what results, but I’m not sure it’s worth it. From the time elapsed before the calculator has been revised, it would seem that, from being an out-of-date tool, which may have had some useful purpose, it is now a “nudge” device to promote vaccines.
All carefully devised to trash the opposition and support the narrative that provides greatest profit for the Pharmas – this is all pure Fauci methodology.
How touching that so many are still looking for ‘objectivity’ in pushing these experimental jabs onto the infinitely gullible for profit.
Absolutely every aspect of the plandemic over the past 22 months has been designed to encourage people to get vaccinated. How else are they going to convert the serfs into 5G antennae?
This aired live on the BBC
BBC propaganda organisation pushing more disinformation about supposed “dangers” from covid via its interviewer.
Defund the BBC.
BBC = BLATANTLY BIASED COMMUNICATION
The mistake is assuming propaganda can be addressed logically, and with data.
Propaganda doesn’t work that way, it’s designed to confuse, disorientate, nudge, so as to make one look to the government for answers.
No conflicts of interest there then /s
Conflicts of interest are “so passé” I read that somewhere recently. It applies in spades with nearly everything Covid.
The University of Oxford is set to make millions from flogging ‘vaccines’. Hence the answer to every question these days is….more ‘vaccines’.
Along with an assortment of globalists and bent politicians, a large swathe of academia will one day end up in prison.
The simple answer to that question: It’s not about a contagious virus, it’s about getting people used to being injected with gene serums whenever the government orders them to.
The gene serums have a number of purposes, one of which is to eradicate “useless eaters,” and another of which is the experimentation of installing nano-technology in human bodies.
Another question that should be asked: Why are pharmaceutical companies and governments so against Ivermectin, considering it has been proven to be very beneficial in protecting against COVID-19?
The answer lies in the way Ivermectin defeats COVD-19.
The COVID-19 virus uses spike proteins to latch onto human cells and then to enter and hijack them. Ivermectin stops this by adhering to the virus’ spike proteins and making them unable to attach to human cells. When they are unable to attach to cells, the virus molecules float harmlessly around the body until they are expelled or die off.
The mRNA gene serum also has to enter human cells. When inside human cells, it codes them to produce spike proteins. But the important thing here is that the serum has to enter human cells in the first place before it can get to work in coding for the production of spike proteins or to install nanotechnology.
And if Ivermectin is in the body it disables the gene serum’s ability to enter human cells in a way similar to how it stops the COVID-19 virus.
So, Ivermectin might protect people against more than just viruses. Hopefully, information like this will come out at Nuremberg II in the not too distant future.
This is a brilliant point.
Excellent post.
So, if one was coerced into accepting a jab – in order to visit relatives overseas, or to keep one’s job, say – might it be an idea to take a course of ivermectin in advance to prevent the jabs doing their ‘work’? Or is that too simplistic?
I believe that Ivermectin would in the least slow down your body’s uptake of the gene serum. And if it impedes the spike protein on the COVID-19 virus then it’s almost a certainty that it would impede the billions of spike proteins that the gene serums programme human bodies to produce.
I say “a certainty” because the gene serums have been designed to use the sequencing of the COVID-19 spike protein to code the human body to produce the “vaccine” spike protein. The COVID-19 spike proteins and the spike proteins that the gene serums programme human bodies to produce are essentially based on the same sequencing characteristics.
It’s a nightmarish question you ask. It’s essentially, will I take the highly volatile and proven dangerous serum that’s being forced upon me, or will I refuse it. Or will I fight this battle with one hand tied behind my back, that is: I’ll take the proven dangerous serum, but before I do, I’ll imbibe a medication that may or may not protect me from it.
It puts a person that might have a much-loved dying parent or grandparent on their deathbed overseas in a terrible and awful predicament.
It’s like the kind of teasing question 5-year-old kids would ask each other in the schoolyard, if you were forced to sell either your mum or dad into slavery, which one would you choose? Isn’t it sad that adults like us are reduced to asking such questions?
Thanks for your detailed reply. I wasn’t asking for me – there’s no way on this earth I’m ‘taking’ any of those jabs – I just wondered. It might have helped others; and it goes a long way to explaining why there’s such a public downer on Ivermectin.
Go to the WEF website, login with an email address, go to Strategic Initiatives and explore the multi-layered myriad of policies and objectives mapped out for its government agents to implement over the next few years.
As soon as its agents in government went into Rockefeller Lockstep, this huge globalist agenda was uploaded for the world to see. This was years in planning.
It sets out the future of world governance for every human and commmodity on earth from macro down to micro management level – AND EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE PLAN REVOLVES AROUND COVID.
This is why the hoax must be maintained, at any cost.
Definitely not one of the stats guys, but a couple of things I noticed..
The original risk was over 90 days. So if we said roughly x4 over the year, your chance would have been 0.0064% based on last years calculations. So based on this years, without being vaccinated, your risk has dropped massively.
Secondly if fewer unvaxxed are testing positive in the first place, then this would surely skew the ratio who are dying following a positive test.
It’s all numberwang to me.
According to the results page, they are still quoting the risk over 90 days.
“A BSc in medical biochemistry and a master’s in law”
Obviously intelligent and well read, so why are you a critical thought cretin? From early in 2020 it was known that the virus had a recovery rate of 99.7% for all but the very aged with co morbidities and usually obese! So why on earth did you check a database religiously to too assess the perceived danger that you thought the virus presented? Educated, analytical and in good health…with the greatest respect, you should have appraised yourself of the alternative narrative being espoused by the SILENCED science community. I assume your fully vaxxed? If so, It’s people like yourself that have facilitated this shit show with your idiocy!
Yep agree with that.
Very hard not to. Some people are highly trained in a narrow field and they can never see the big picture.
I think that is unfair: I also did the qcovid calc – not because it wasn’t obvious propaganda – but because it’s propaganda that you can easily turn back on the Covidians. My risk of dying from the coof according to THEIR OWN BOLLOCKS CALCULATOR was lower than the vaccine (according to EMA safety documents, which are also bollocks, but show a risk of death of around 1 in 30,000 for each of AZ, PFE and MRNA). Both the calc and the vaccines cover a period of around 90 days so they can’t quibble on that one either.
So explain to me again why I should take it? is my point. They all look confused and try and deny the EMA safety reports, but you can easily access the pdfs.
While there are pertinent points raised in this piece I think comment “3.” is incorrect.
I do not think the reason why they added the after positive test clause is because of the vaccine but because of this (for example):
“1 in 100,000 chance of dying of covid” [during the time period studied].
People look at that and misunderstand believing that this is saying that your chance of dying from covid-19 after catching it is 1 in 100,000. This is not what it says, it says that your chance of catching it AND dying is 1 in 100,000 over a period of X amount of time – this is not dissimilar problem to the vaccine effectiveness problem. (E.g. even if one assumed that the Pfizer stage 3 trial data were accurate (which it obviously wasn’t) all it demonstrates is effficacy for that particular period of time).
It is therefore not appropriate to say your chance of dying from covid is 1 in 100,000 because that is amplified by how unlikely it is for you to actually catch the virus.
The resource is, of course, fundamentally flawed as it is based upon the same methodological problems that underpin all government reporting on covid-19 “deaths” but it seems to me to clearly be changed because people were using it to underestimate their risk of contracting covid (as per government methdology of covid outcomes).
This then introduces the question of – are university/statistical/healthcare/w.e. term you think appropriate tailoring their data around the respones to it from the community. This seems a particularly pertinent question nowerdays with the open contestation over the ONS data and the changes they have made to the presentation as a result of our questionings of it.
The calculator asks totally different questions depending on whether you choose ‘vaccinated vs unvaccinated’ dismissing most pre-existing health issues if you are vaccinated. How ridiculous.
I keep banging on about this but to no avail.
Where is the data re the naturally recovered and never jabbed.
We don’t appear in any data that I’ve seen.
Could it be possible that when the usual liars refer to the unvaxxed taking up a disproportionately high percentage of hospital beds and 90%, 60% or 42% of CU’s- take your pick, – they really mean the unvaxxed but never had covid before?
The only conclusion one can reasonably infer is the blindingly obvious one, namely that natural immunity has been trashed along with other erstwhile proven evidence based concepts such as that dangers from any vaccine are greater to those already exposed to and recovered from the viral infection.
Anyone would think there’s a hidden agenda, say digital ID going on.
I commented back when this circus show started that, checking daily on the Bing World Covid data map, most countries had numbers (large ones) for the recovered, but the UK never had a single result. So, obviously, no-one ever recovered. (Where have they put all the bodies, one wonders?)
As a fellow naturally recovered (April 2020) and non jabbed , I feel fairly invisible in the stats
“The QCovid risk calculator was developed by University of Oxford, commissioned in 2020 by the Chief Medical Officer for England on behalf of the U.K. Government”
I don’t need to read any more to know the “Calculator” will be rubbish.
Good article, though.
“I have a BSc in medical biochemistry and a Masters in law; I am analytical and data driven.” — Don’t say things like that, you’ll get the Thought Police knocking at your door.
The calculator also omits any consideration of level of fitness (amount of exercise taken) and likely natural immunity (vitamin D from sun exposure – via that outdoor exercise regime)
Strangely, when I ran the calculator, the result (which it claimed was compared to the average for my age and sex) suggested that I am more likely than average to die in hospital if I contract covid, despite the quoted ‘average’ BMI being 25 and my own being 19.5. There may be a good reason for that (if I’m thinner, I may starve to death more quickly on NHS food?) but I can’t see what it would be.
Qrisk calculators are on every GP’s computor. IIRC they were first used to calculate relative risk of dying from CVD based mainly on the patient’s cholesterol level.
The program was so biased towards that one metric that the results were inconclusive.
Good god why? COVID is facilitated by adipose tissue, not cholesterol.
MSM is trying to make fun of people wanting to protect themselves with cheap and proven drugs. Ivermectin has been FDA approved for human use since 1996. It also beats Pfizer’s new wonder drug hands down, and costs next to nothing. Ivermectin doesn’t make tons of money. So they know the Covid shot is on its final gasp, so they take it add something different to it, rebrand under another name and charge 20 times what they would for ivermectin. I cannot wrap my head around this nonsense. When I explain this to my relatives they label me as crazy and ask me if I know better than science. I don’t make up these information out of my ass. All this information is true and proven. For some people it is near impossible for them to wake up. They are comfortable in their clown world life. If you want to get Ivermectin you can visit https://ivmpharmacy.com
Could you ask them on Twitter or via email?
Ben Goldacre, who previously wrote Bad Science and Bad Pharma and lobbied to change the Big Pharma trial publication bias so they published negative results, now works at Oxford University on the Open Safely project.
And if you want to see censorship in action..
He’s also an NHS director though, so his maverick days are long behind him, but you could also ask him on Twitter. Last check of his Twitter account he has ‘get the vaccine’ in his name strangely.
I don’t think Oxford University are completely pro vaccine as stated in the comments, or if they can rubbish Pfizer they’ll do it anyway – quite a few OU studies have come out doing this.
You might get some indication of the weightings of each parameter in their algorithm from this equivalent DoD calculator:
https://github.com/deptofdefense/covid19-calculator
(scroll down to ‘models’)
Objection, the date and number of shots seems to make very little difference to the odds of serious illness or death. This is distinct from testing positive (caught myself nearly saying “infection” there!), where each dose produces a rollercoaster ride that plunges through the ground.
One, two or three shots of anything appear to be statistically indistinguishable, based on critical care numbers to the end of December 2021.
This seems startling, but see if you can spot any difference. Page 44 onwards here.
https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/5d46be46-e36f-ec11-913a-00505601089b
https://insurance-forums.com/life-insurance/oneamerica-ceo-says-death-rates-among-working-age-people-up-40/
Third and fourth quarter of 2021 – as the commenter says, after the pseudo-vaxx rollout had begun.
https://howbad.info/
How Bad is My Batch Are some batches more toxic than others?
Batch codes and associated deaths, disabilities and illnesses for Covid 19 Vaccines
I took a look at the paper that describes the data behind the calculator. From a cohort of 7 million vaccinated people there are exactly zero deaths for anyone under 40 and less than 10 deaths among those under 50. The idea that a precise risk can then be calculated for people in that age range is nonsense. It’s just using a model of the age relationship in older high risk people and extrapolating back to younger ages; the margin of error must be huge both because of the lack of data and due to the confounding of age with all of the other risk factors in the model. The data comes from the early months of 2021 when hospitalizations and deaths were dropping fast and covers only a few months after the vaccination, giving the most favorable possible result for vaccination.
The comparable data behind the calculator for unvaccinated people isn’t given in the paper or the supplement but I’m sure the same issues exist. What is clear is that this data is taken from an earlier period during the peak of the “second wave”. So the calculator results for an unvaccinated person are biased to give higher risks.
Regarding the calculations after a positive test, there is once again a lack of supportive information in the paper. However, I can’t imagine how this could be calculated in a way that would fix the fundamental problem that people are not being tested randomly. The data for high risk (and highly tested) individuals is being extrapolated to low risk individuals with large biases and imprecise models.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n2244.full.pdf
Great post. Ive noticed even on this site that people usually take a government derived document at face value and rarely investigate the source documention – which is where most of the trickery takes place. Sometimes the fix is so obvious, like examining the list of funders, it is simply remarkable how they get away with it. I guess so many are now in on the deception, and making a living from it, there is no one else left. Quite how we get out of this mess is beyond me.
Excellent info. Thank you.
I think the world has moved on since they calibrated the calculator somewhat, both in the effectiveness of the vaccines, the levels of natural infection and the virulence of the predominant strain. It should be considered defunct.
Good article and makes me think that these control mechanism are being designed by those educated in the arts, not the sciences.if not designed, then tweeked late in the process.
I used the calculator last year and it informed me my chance of dying of Covid was approximately 1 in 12,000. Now I’m told my chances of catching and dying from it are 1 in 25641 BUT – here’s the interesting part – my chances of dying after a positive test result are 1 in 165 (against an absolute lowest risk of 1 in 189 for a person of my category with no risk factors). This appears to mean that my chances of catching it are quite low (but overall what time period?) but that if I do, I am at a slightly discomforting degree of risk (compared to the risk of vaccine injury/death). The interesting thing is that if I pretend I’m vaccinated, the risk of catching it and dying drops to 1 in 66,667 and dying after a positive test result drops to 1 in 1825. I mean – seriously? This doesn’t square with UKHSA figures, which calculate that an unvaccinated person in my age group (50-59) is 5 or 6 times more likely to die than if vaccinated – with the arrival of Omicron, this seems increasingly improbable. It does seem that the calculator has been compromised and is now designed to promote getting vaccinated.
Who knows what’s really in it? I did use it last year, and kept a record or two of it’s output. After reading this article, I used the latest version with identical input to start with, and it appears that my risk of “COVID associated death” has gone down by roughly two thirds – from 0.0181% to 0.0069%. I’m not a bookmaker, but I should think there are lot’s more things I tolerate that are worse than that.
Incidentally, the University of Oxford has been deleted from their page!
When a vaxx is totally ineffective, how on earth is it possible to measure efficacy?
The retoric changes daily to suit the narrative, which also changes daily but is generally basically “get the vaccine”.
Last time I have updated my % I was wondering how catching and dying is significantly different than the dying after testing positive????
Is it possible that many many people after knowing their test results go into a panic mode? Are they significantly affected by the mind games and scaremongering??? (or should this mean something else?)
Natural immunity does not fit into The Narrative, which is “Believe everything we tell you, take your shots and be thankful”! Thank the lord for us sceptics!