Please, virus gods, make the bad numbers go away.
The UKHSA appreciates your work, as we do, and decided to fit the colours in the table to the diagrams you are producing.
Thanks for keeping the data-purveyors honest—or if that’s not possible, as is evidently the case, alerting us to the continued manipulations.
“vaccinated and unvaccinated women have essentially identical rates of stillbirth, low birthweight births, and premature births”—oh yeah? What do they make of these reports, then?
The data is fading out, like a dystopian novel. What have they got to hide? Except objective data, of course.
They will have to pray long and hard and hope the gods listen. In the meanwhile, the French speaking Belgian press states 'more infections in the heaviest vaccinated communities'. Not a question mark. They finally put their glasses on. I hope the rest of the country wakes up. 88% of population vaxxed yet the highest infection rates and ALL the patients on the ICU vaxxed in Antwerp last week. People MUST start to see that! That local station is heavily watched, by about a million people, a tenth of the population ! I read an article that in Ireland, heavily vaxxed too, more women have stillbirths. They were going to look into it. I hope they have their glasses on.
Herr Eugyppius, a question: The "bad numbers" you refer to are the higher case-rate numbers
found among the vaccinated than those found among the unvaccinated for age 30-79. Why are these case-rate numbers so significant? To interpret them meaningfully we'd have to know what proportion of each group, vaccinated and unvaccinated, is getting tested. The case-rate numbers are "bad" only if the proportion of the vaccinated population getting tested is roughly comparable to the proportion of the unvaccinated population getting tested. That may be so, but it's an assumption, and unless I have missed it in reading your weekly presentations of these data, you haven't said why that assumption is a reasonable one to make.
UKHSA addresses this issue in its footnote by saying, "people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19." If instead of "more health conscious" we say "more afraid of being infected with the Sars-Cov-2 virus" the UKHSA statement doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me, since they (the vaccinated) have already demonstrated that fear by choosing to get jabbed in the first place.
You respond, however, in your post of October 29, that "They [UKHSA] really, really don’t want to argue that 'people who are fully vaccinated' are 'more health conscious.' That would suggest prior differences in the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which would in turn suggest that worse outcomes in the unvaccinated are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding." But "health conscious" doesn't necessarily mean "healthier in general," especially if it is amended as I suggested to mean simply more afraid of getting this disease.
It seems to me that the "worse outcomes in the unvaccinated" you refer to are more important than the case-rate numbers you have been focusing on in these weekly UKHSA reports. I've looked at the numbers in each of the reports you have linked in your archive and for all of them, in all age groups, outcomes among the unvaccinated are worse than those among the vaccinated by a ratio of at least 3:1, often 4:1 or more. The outcome being measured here, as defined in the tables, is "Cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive test) resulting in overnight inpatient admission"--that is, hospitalization. According to the UKHSA data, then, the risk of an illness serious enough to require hospitalization is much greater in the unvaccinated (by a factor of at least 3x-4x) than it is in the vaccinated. Isn't that more important than case-rate numbers of unknown significance? This benefit of the vaccine is clearly borne out by the last two graphs you present in your post, regarding death rates. Death is ultimate "worse outcome," which is why all reasonable commentators, yourself included, have always been in favor of vaccinations targeted at those most at risk.
So, to be clear, I am not making an argument for the vaccinate-everyone-from-now-to-the-end-of-time insanity you have so ably dissected and refuted from the start. I think it's quite likely that mass vaccination has injured and killed many more people than otherwise would have been injured and killed by Sars-Cov-2. Certainly it's sheer idiocy to try beat a quickly evolving virus with the kind of vaccines we have. It is now plain for all to see that the more we vaccinate the worse things get, period.
My comment is directed narrowly to the reasonable interpretation the UKHSA weekly reports. If I've gone off the rails on that question, please let me know how.
Please, virus gods, make the bad propagandists go away.
I noticed that greying too. It’s only a matter of time now. And the Pregnancy section? I suggest this materialised as a result of the Scottish spike, which I’ve delved into a bit further here: https://truthsleuth.substack.com/p/ukhsa-adds-pregnancy-and-immunosuppressed
German Alexa tells me in the one minute news that it’s not clear how effective the vaccine is against the Botswana variant.
I am again being optimistic but I think this might be the way in which governments begin to shut down the vaccine program in favour of a magic pill. That uk cardiologist on GB news yesterday He confirmed that he and colleagues are in agreement with that cardio paper by Grundy which confirms increased rates of heart issues post vaccination. The ‘new’ variant is governments plausible opt out.
Just clarification...are those covid associated death rates or all cause death rates?
Many thanks. Isn't it actually very reassuring though that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the vaccine causing adverse effects for pregnant women / their babies? I have seen many concerns raised about this - this would appear to refute those concerns?
Sorry, I’m a bit dense today. Can someone explain the last two graphs and why they’re so different between the data and the raw data? I don’t have the context here to understand what’s going on. Thanks.
I read this real cute response to the Belgian decision to lock down etc. again, and urge the people to vaxx. (En die 10% niet-gevaccineerden, zijn die aan het rond gaan om de schoolkinderen, de kindjes in de crèche en alle mensen te besmetten? Alle maatregelen, vaccins en volgzaam gedrag heeft dus niets uitgehaald? Wanneer gaan de virologen en beleidsmensen daarover eens eerlijk zijn? En nu op naar de volgende variant!) And these 10 percent of unvaccinated, are they supposed to go round in the schools to infect our children, the babies in the daycares, and all other people? All vaccines, all masks, all lockdowns, have done nothing? When are the government people and virologists be honest about all that? Now up to the next variant !
I thought she hit the nail on the head. And all reactions I could get on the screen said about the same in other words. Belgians are waking up by the numbers.
Same story here in Ontario,Canada. The health agency just released a report showing the exact same thing. High cases in hospital or fatalities in group 60+ regardless of vaccine status. Every time there is a public address they only talk about people below 60, completely ignoring the most impacted group as that wouldn't meet their agenda. In the mean time we started to vaccinate kids for no reason at all, but people have been scared senseless that that they line up to put the useless and maybe dangerous vaccine into kids.
There is an easy solution for their obvious conundrum: just label all with two shots unvaccinated. Voila. Problem gone.
slightly off topic, but still relevant to this discussion are the writings of Ethical Skeptic. I was reading the lenghty article most recently posted on his/her (?) website last night about the origins of the virus which ES posits goes back to March 2018 in China. It provides an explanation for the apparent immunity in Asia and Africa and how we should expect mutliple waves lasting upto 32 months due to the slow progression of this type of virus, which ES also posits is mostly spread feacaly; which explains infections in animal polpulations due to spreading of sewage waste on farmland. There's so much to unpack over as ES (also on Twitter); I have been following the writer for the best part of the year; super interesting, although I know that I don't have the intellect to grasp a lot of what's written there.
The latest out of England is that they are doing better because of Astra Zeneca because it creates long lasting T cells. (Sigh....) The reality is of course that they had lots of infections in 2020 before the vaccine circus started. Same for Sweden, which is doing very well compared to is neighbors (both Nordic and of more so central Europe) despite earlier seasonal onset of cold weather. Anrell predicted in ca. May 2020 that the neighbors would catch up when he was getting heat from abroad about not doing lockdowns. This is of course playing out now.