Moderator here. At Lockdown Sceptics we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our role as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy
Moderator here. At Lockdown Sceptics we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our role as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy
So considering the referenced article, which discusses the fact that unadjusted data is no longer in the vaccine surveillance report.
The headline states the following...
"Hide the Vaccine Failure: UKHSA Caves to Pressure and Removes Chart Showing Higher Infection Rates in the Vaccinated – as Effectiveness Hits New Low of Minus-132%"
The following seems to be the case..
1. It is actually complaining about the removal of misleading information, which DS has previously used to make false claims about negative effectiveness.
2. Falsely claims that the vaccine efficacy is negative.
3. Does not reference the report's actual conclusion that the efficacy remains good.
On these specific points. how do you respond?
The publication of such a misleading article strays far from "reporting the facts".
@thinksaboutit The report's claim that efficacy remains good is addressed here https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/27/pressure-mounts-on-the-ukhsa-to-stop-publishing-data-showing-infection-rates-higher-in-the-vaccinated/
@thinksaboutit The report's claim that efficacy remains good is addressed here https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/27/pressure-mounts-on-the-ukhsa-to-stop-publishing-data-showing-infection-rates-higher-in-the-vaccinated/
Not really.. it's just about the same unadjusted data as the other article.
@thinksaboutit
And if you read the report all claims as to (high) efficacy in the document refer to third party sources which most certainly do not show with any degree of mathematically certainty the claimed efficacy. Using the procures that have been the standard for calculating this value for many decades.
Given how low the community spread R0 value is it would take a minimum of 360 to 540 days to establish an accurate efficacy value. And if the were using an estimated value from historical efficacy curves for equivalent vaccines given that they used the log Y scale trick from the get go a very fast roll off of efficacy looks like a given. Just like the influenza vaccines in fact. So converge on zero measured in months.
Its very easy to have a negative efficacy. Group A get therapeutic treatment. Group B is the control. If Group A have more of the events of interest than Group B then that is negative efficacy. Which in the current situation is most likely to happen. Discussed here before in previous threads.
Higher risk people in Group A, lower risk in Group B. So even though Group A get the therapeutic treatment they still have a higher event frequency than Group B. And just forcing everyone in Group B to take the therapeutic treatment will not change the event frequency of the high risk individuals in the original Group A. Due to the basic physics of the infection spread process. Its essentially a (1 - (1/R0)) situation. Once the ratio of A to B gets above (1 - (1/R0)) (give or take) then self sustaining spread stops. Thats why its called the base vaccination rate. Assume the vaccines works that is. Which would be less than 40% for something like SARs 2. And if its mostly a HAI then < 20% is a more reasonable number.
The only valid reason to have a much higher vaccination rate is if the efficacy of the vaccine is actually very low with a very short protection period.
So either way your "authority" which argue from is lying. Either about efficacy and duration of protection or about how many people (and which age groups) need to be vaccinated.
So, lies all the way down.
Just your usual waffle.
You are well aware that vaccine efficacy is good, but can't accept the situation.
I guess it is hard to back down and accept you are wrong.
Moderator here. At Lockdown Sceptics we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our role as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy
Perhaps you could point out some of your articles in favour of vaccines, to substantiate the claim of neutrality.
The copious anti vaxx ones are quite easy to find, but not the positive ones.
You are well aware that vaccine efficacy is good, but can't accept the situation.
So how do you explain the need for more than two jabs? Or the very simple fact that all the regions that have a high vaccination uptake are doing considerably worse than those that don't?
Also, there is zero evidence that these vaccines are actually doing what a vaccine should do, at best create immunity and at least reduce symptoms.
The virus affects so few people that it was unnecessary to create a vaccine for it in the first place.
If people want to take it fine, if they don't, then that should also be fine, but that's not the case, is it?
You are well aware that vaccine efficacy is good, but can't accept the situation.
So how do you explain the need for more than two jabs? Or the very simple fact that all the regions that have a high vaccination uptake are doing considerably worse than those that don't?
Also, there is zero evidence that these vaccines are actually doing what a vaccine should do, at best create immunity and at least reduce symptoms.
The virus affects so few people that it was unnecessary to create a vaccine for it in the first place.
If people want to take it fine, if they don't, then that should also be fine, but that's not the case, is it?
It's just that everything you believe and say is wrong.
You would be advised to include at least a shred of truth to your posts.
@thinksaboutit
Do you think MSM and the head of the NHS should include a shred of truth in their statements?
Or are lies peddled by "experts" or "scientists" ok?
Sorry but everything you believe is wrong i'm afraid. Your masters fucked you over by getting caught out lying so blatantly.
No one should give credence to anything you say. Nor those proven capable of lying to keep people in a state of fear and control. Namely the vaunted NHS.
Two words thinksaboutnuffin.... Amanda Pritchard!
@onion My posts do contain the truth, which parts exactly are not truthful?
Unlike your opinion based drivel, I look at the facts, and the facts unfortunately don't fit your narrative, the one being peddled by the liars running this shit show.
I find it amusing that people like you attempt to discredit others, without a shred of proof. I have worked throughout this "pandemic" and know plenty of others that have, all "key workers" across several different job roles, including the NHS and police. Funny, they have the same attitude as me, why do you think that is?
If only the numbers didn't prove you wrong.
Be careful you don't fall off the edge of the flat earth.
@thinksaboutit
If the numbers are soooooo amazing why are the NHS lying about it on TV. What else are they lying about?
Looking at today's blog entry.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/25/vaccine-safety-update-19/
There is some preceding blurb, offered as cover to claim a neutral stance.
"By no means is this part of an effort to generate alarm about the vaccines or dissuade anyone from getting inoculated. It should be read in conjunction with the Daily Sceptic‘s other posts on vaccines, which include both encouraging and not so encouraging developments. At the Daily Sceptic we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine"
But it simply is not true, as evidenced by the long list of anti-vaxx references. This is purely an attempt to scare people, by repeatedly talking about adverse events in an alarmist fashion.
Also there is a clear statement that it backs the opinion that vaccines are not safe. It does so in the form of reporting someone else's words in the form of this letter, which is a massive misrepresentation of data.
http://medisolve.org/yellowcard_urgentprelimreport.pdf
Where are the articles on proven efficacy of vaccines?
Where are the articles on the real life experience that serious adverse reactions are actually very rare?
@willing-vaccinee
Where are the articles on proven efficacy of vaccines?
Good question, where are they? I've yet to see one that makes any sense, including the original trials.
Where are the articles on the real life experience that serious adverse reactions are actually very rare?
That depends on the definition used for "Very Rare". If we use previous examples of new medications that were withdrawn due to too many adverse reactions, and numbers of deaths, the current batch of experimental vaccines are orders of magnitude more dangerous than any previously withdrawn medical treatment.
This is purely an attempt to scare people, by repeatedly talking about adverse events in an alarmist fashion.
Of course, it's a fear porn site where dim people gather to wring their hands and lament, The End is Nigh.
