Dear Mr Jones,
You regularly write articles, where unadjusted data from reports (for example the weekly vaccine surveillance report) is used to give the impression of poor vaccine effectiveness.
If you have read the reports that you reference, you will have been advised against direct use of this unadjusted data to derive effectiveness. Nevertheless you normally go on to do just that and mislead your readers. They are ill-equipped to notice the trick you are playing on them
Secondly, your articles never discuss the actual conclusions of these reports, where vaccine effectiveness is calculated. The actual calculated effectiveness is overwhelmingly good and is corroborated by many other similar reports, but you always offer a different impression.
So the questions.
1. Do you actually believe from reading the vaccine surveillance report, that vaccines are not highly effective against hospitalisation and death?
2. Why do you prey on the ignorance of you readership to give a false impression?
Dear Mr Jones,
You regularly write articles, where unadjusted data from reports (for example the weekly vaccine surveillance report) is used to give the impression of poor vaccine effectiveness.
If you have read the reports that you reference, you will have been advised against direct use of this unadjusted data to derive effectiveness. Nevertheless you normally go on to do just that and mislead your readers. They are ill-equipped to notice the trick you are playing on them
Secondly, your articles never discuss the actual conclusions of these reports, where vaccine effectiveness is calculated. The actual calculated effectiveness is overwhelmingly good and is corroborated by many other similar reports, but you always offer a different impression.
So the questions.
1. Do you actually believe from reading the vaccine surveillance report, that vaccines are not highly effective against hospitalisation and death?
2. Why do you prey on the ignorance of you readership to give a false impression?
No answer forthcoming. probably because there is no justification for his approach.
..but more interestingly why did you write this twaddle?
I was just reading the Danish and Finnish reports. Which also show the precipitous fall off in efficacy in the 60D to 90D interval. Just like on those log Y scale charts shown at the Pfizer launch press conference in fact.
There were no effective HCOV vaccines pre 2020. None. There were no successfully approved mRNA vaccines pre 2020. None. And just one minor adenovirus one. SARs CoV 2 is typical highly mutagenic HCOV. And none of the current SARs CoV 2 vaccines provide sterilizing immunity. So no effect on spread and little on the clinical pathology.
So guess what. They dont work. Any positive boost in relevant titres wears off in a very short period of time. After 60 to 90 days. Just enough time in fact for the next major variant to establish itself as community spread in the general population.
So as a public health measure they are little more than very dangerous placebos. Because the net effect is just hasten the population dominance of the next major variant. I think the technical term is like p*ssing into a hurricane.
Yes we know you are against Covid vaccines.
Something of a diversion from the questions posed.
Like mr. Jones, you also fail to address the actual evidence of good efficacy against hospitalisation and death.
@rational
But there is no evinced. Statically for this "efficacy". As the SARs CoV 2 vaccines fails as a traditional public health vaccine they have invented purely arbitrary criteria very easily manipulated to show it has "succeeded".
Hospitalization rates completely depend on hospital admittance procedures. Can be increased or reduced purely by changes in admission policy. This has happened in a whole bunch of countries the last two years. Well given that "COVID" now has a historically unprecedented and unique status since March 2020 on UK death certificates basically all WITH mortality numbers have little validity and the FROM ones often suspect.
Everything can be made a "success" if the people in control change the traditional medical and statistical criteria to fit their political needs.
It seems you dont know very much about how this works in the real works.
I'm not the only one who notices the Jones' methodology.
Look at this article.
@rational
So you are now quoting some left wing loony crank "musician" as a reputable source of counter argument.
I just checked this guys "success" as a musician. I have good friends in that genre. Quite successful too. The guy has not even reached the failed cafe musician level yet. Just some guy with a guitar pretending to be a musician.
His piece on face masks is just as stupid. If he had read any of the relevant literature surrounding OSHA 29 CFR etc facemasks / respirators he would have discovered that the study he trashed was completely consistent with about 40 years of published literature. A study at HKU Med came to the same conclusions about 20 years ago.
Do you have any relevant background in maths, statistics or the hard sciences? Because if you did you should would have recognized that this Danny guy is a typical crank. Little evidence of any meaningful understanding of the subjects he writes about.
The fact that you don't like this musician is not relevant. Focus on content properly and with evidence.
Notice you don't actually address the points on partial reporting to deceive.
SO if you back Jones' address the specific points about his articles.
Old and frail people die first. Then a vaccine comes. Less people are hospitalised and die because there are fewer old and frail remaining. The vaccines are claimed to have caused this. How can it be proved? The populations before and after are different.
yes one can rest medicines by designing trials to avoid confounding factors.if this were not possible there would be no medicines,
SO if you want to develop this line of reasoning, ask ..
how many sell vulnerable people after early stages?
How many have got older in the meantime
What impact would this have on future hospitalisation?
The you can calculate the potential contribution this confounding factor may have on apparent efficacy.
Without this, you just have "pub quality" reasoning.
@1953blokegmail-com a) Most older people were not exposed to the virus in the first phase so there were plenty left in danger b) More vulnerable people are more likely to get vaccinated, improving cover c) Unvaccinated people have been shown to be disproportionately infected, and disproportionately more sick when they are.
