Zoe's data are heavily adjusted, they have not disclosed the details but they mention it here: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-estimates-updated-vaccine where you can see in mid July the adjustments roughly doubled the estimated incidence, so not a small change. It would be interesting to see the unadjusted data. Until they explain in more detail what they are doing it's difficult to take them seriously as a data source.
Meanwhile Tim Spector who formerly was rational, balanced and impartial has gone all out covid hysteria the last few weeks.
Posting links to a March 2020 observational study, riddled with flaws and torn apart at the time with "wear a mask on a plane".
Also complaining UK is falling behind on vaccinating (its not -we've finished!).
Then lately a direct response to someone asking if hes better protected as a covid recoveree than a double vaxed with "NO".
That simply isnt the case looking at any of the recent data.
Between his 180 degree conversion into a true cult of covid supporter and Zoe's ever changing, not disclosed methodology changes i really don't put much stock into their figures or conclusions any more.
I now have serious doubts over their neutrality.
It's not that vaccines don't work. The data does indeed suggest that they do reduce the risk of severe covid. BUT, the question remains about the long term safety data. There is no long term safety data! None! It doesn't exist yet.
There is a reason why so many younger people (especially) have avoided getting the jab. The trade-off is illogical. Taking a jab for a virus that (according to the data) is on par with flu, whilst the jab has no long term safety data doesn't make sense. In essence you're hedging against a low risk known pathogen, against unknown potential issues from taking this 'vaccine' in the long term. I would rather take my chances knowing the data vis a vis taking a vaccine which doesn't have long term data.
That said, there are already a number of examples of young people falling dead after taking this vaccine. No thanks.
Gaia Young. She died of a brain tumour in August this year I believe. She took the vaccines in Spring. Now I am not saying she definitely died due to the vaccine, but young healthy people don't just die like that without any clear conditions. There are too many unknowns right now when you peel back the government and media propaganda campaign. The question is just how long it might take for any side effects to play out.
I'm not an 'anti-vaxxer'. I'm just skeptical of these vaccinations given the information I currently have. I feel that is the position of many others. Irrespective of whether the vaccine 'works' at reducing COVID or not. That is not the matter at stake here.
@geo870 Well done. Very much in line with my communication when I declined the offer some months ago.
The real risk at present is the crass lying about the efficacy of it, and political intervention in private health issues, for no good reason. No organisation should be allowed access to private records on the pretext of public health. After all, there is no evidence that the “vaccines” on offer actually reduce the risk of transmission of the said virus to third parties at all. The NHS did not promise that on the paperwork, though, it is just the outright lies from politicians at present.
@geo870 Well done. Very much in line with my communication when I declined the offer some months ago.
The real risk at present is the crass lying about the efficacy of it, and political intervention in private health issues, for no good reason. No organisation should be allowed access to private records on the pretext of public health. After all, there is no evidence that the “vaccines” on offer actually reduce the risk of transmission of the said virus to third parties at all. The NHS did not promise that on the paperwork, though, it is just the outright lies from politicians at present.
There is lots of evidence on efficacy and transmission reduction. Go and read the reports.
@geo870 well said. As I have said before being "anti" vaccine means you won't have them irrespective of what the balance of evidence for them shows.
Trying to reach a fully informed position on risk vs benefit is not being "anti" anything it is actually the most logical, reasonable and in a generic way scientific approach there is.
@geo870 well said. As I have said before being "anti" vaccine means you won't have them irrespective of what the balance of evidence for them shows.
Trying to reach a fully informed position on risk vs benefit is not being "anti" anything it is actually the most logical, reasonable and in a generic way scientific approach there is.
Unless you pretend the benefits don't exist and overblow the risks.
I'd still venture *nobody* has hit the criteria for informed consent with covid vaccines.
The consent forms and so on are so lacking in detail they'd be thrown out by any ethics committee for any other clinical trial or emergency use novel medication.
@splattt I agree. That said, it's something of a moot point once (so many) people have voluntarily subjugated themselves to being jabbed knowingly in order to remain in society i.e. not for medical reasons at all.
I don't even know who could be on the hook, although moving off the point slightly, as a general principle of law the employer's vicarious liability is engaged for torts committed by employees which could conceivably include NHS being responsible for torts occasioned by staff administering jabs.
As a further principle, trying to exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence is invalid at least in a contractual relationship, but I doubt the jabber/jabee relationship would be viewed as such.
I would be very interested in seeing how the first case against the NHS employee/NHS Trust/Sec of State is framed. I am sure there will be a few even if the chances of outright success are limited.
Incidentally, have you got/seen a copy of the consent wording? Any chance you could upload it?
Got any data comparing samples taken from people under 70
a) who look after their immune systems and
b) who don't,
crossed with whether they are
p) vaccinated or
q) unvaccinated,
and recording any later incidence of severe symptoms caused by
x) SARSCoV2 or
y) vaccination?
Seriously what senior medic would get brownie points for suggesting that he might even consider conducting such obvious research?
