UKHSA Vaccine Efficacy Statistics: Week 3
It is also important to note that the boosted have very low rates because of the statistical malpractice of not counting them as such until two weeks after the shot. (El Gato Malo among others has some posts on it.)
On one foot, what happens is that a boosted individual gets sick before the 2 week mark, he is counted as "unboosted", skewing the results - making vaxxed, but not boosted looking worse, and those who are boosted better. This is especially true with very high infection rates, when a large proportion of people gets sick within those 2 weeks.
[Actually, I just saw a similar comment already made, but still keeping this one]
Begs the question that with each successive booster plus five to eight months of time, if the outcome for those immune systems gets even worse. In other words, will the people currently with three shots be in even worse shape than the two shots gang six months from now.
El Gato Malo has done good work on this recently in regard to bayesian fallacies. Short version: triple vaxxed is shot +2 weeks and the shots increase susceptibility in those 2 weeks, so the most recent shot is going to hide its negative efficiency in the previous cohort.
It's no wonder they're hiding 2 shot data, their own rigged statistics sacrifice 2 dose efficiency in the name of boosters. Not that 2 shot is very efficient to begin with
Like I said before, previously infected show high levels of N, M and S antibodies. If you hyper-train your immune system to only react to S (especially the old, wildtype one) then you're going to have an inefficient response compared to a more general immune response of naive subjects.
They're going to keep these statistics in the public spotlight for years even as this thing is endemic, so people remain on edge and always leaning towards daddy government for assurances. They never did for Spanish flu, Asian flu or hk flu. People shrugged. Life went on. They can't let that happen anymore.
My my we really are in quite a pickle now.
I'm thinking about this from a New Zealand perspective. Where we have essentially no prior exposure to COVID due to our particularly large moat and a high 2 shot vaccination rate (92% of eligible population >11ys) .
From early on I was concerned that the shots would become a hamster wheel with extremely low durability that seems to halve after each shot. Ultimately now getting off the hamster wheel leaves you in a worse position than never getting on it in the first place. But the hamster wheel can't go on forever and getting off sooner rather than later is a hard but necessary discussion to be having.
Meanwhile here in the land of the hobbits our Govt is doubling down with a 5-11yr vaccination program kicked off this week and a big push on boosters. Many here having no exposure to the realities of this virus are still fully hypnotized a believe that we are in a good position for the arrival of omicron due to our high vaccination rate.
Inversely I believe we are sailing straight into a storm while simultaneously drilling holes in the bottom of the boat.
Awesome work! Pro bono publico and all that.
"This is plainly a pandemic of the vaccinated." Don't you think this should read:
"This is plainly a pandemic of the vaccine." instead?
Now, I'm not any kind of boffin regards to stuff like this, but it seems to my eyes that the claim that the "vaccines" are the cause of the disease is starting to sound plausible.
If that proves to be true...well. The fate of Ceaucescu comes to mind.
This is so incredibly troubling and sad to see.
Just a quick question: is the 3vaxx population anyone who got the third dose >14 days prior? Could some of the high case rates in the 2vaxx population be the result of contracting covid during the 14-day window post-booster?
Similar in Ontario. The categories are "unvaccinated," "partially vaccinated" (which means 1 dose of a two-dose series) and "fully vaccinated" (which means at least two doses but doesn't distinguish between 2,3,4....). I suspect this is because the efficacy of the two-dose series was undeniably plummeting in December. Lumping the boosted in with the unboosted has done a good job of disguising that fact.
Given this analysis, and the underlying (and obvious) data, it amazes me that anti-vaccination scapegoating has been sustained for as long as it has. However, believe me, in the U.S. it still rages, strong and hard. (Who needs data, when you have The Narrative™?)
so i'm double vaxxed and not boosted. Am I SOL? An argument could be made form this that whether I like it or not I should get on the booster treadmill. Any chance they could break this down if my odds get better the further I get away from my last shot?
Eugyppius, I came across this defense of the UKHSA data today: “The source data has rate per 100k. That means per 100k of that age group not per 100k vaxxed or per 100k unvaxxed.” Given UKHSA’s myriad of excuses around confounders while trying to disappear the awkward data I’m not inclined to believe this defense. But I can’t find evidence of UKHSA’s methodology. Are you able to shed any light on this?
There is absolutely no surprise in any of this. When you treat an experimental mRNA injection like it was the same as drinking kool-aid, you are going to get an endless cascade of various health issues and even deaths, as we are seeing. Without effective trials, longer term studies and proper assimilation of reliable data, there can never be any sound application for these injections or any drug for that matter.
We have allowed big pharma to just inject the world for their own profit and not to save any lives or improve the health of the world. This is beyond criminal and big pharma now needs to be thoroughly dismantled and those responsible thrown into prison for the rest of their lives...and be given the trashy drugs they market to us for profit.
No matter how you slice it, all government agencies involved in the Covid scam are cooking every statistic (when not inventing new ones) in the book.
It's scorched earth policy on all logical interpretations of the data as far as these crooks are concerned.
Wake me when we reach "peak corruption"- I think there's quite a bit more of the cover-up to come.
Eugyppius- why do you say the rates on the first graph are unadjusted? I thought they were adjusted per 100k… do you simply mean that you have low confidence in the estimates of the total number of unvaccinated and therefore low confidence in the adjusted rate or am I missing something obvious…