Posted on 11/06/2021 7:26:08 AM PDT by ransomnote
Last week we told you how the Covid-19 vaccines were proving to have an average negative effectiveness in everyone over the age of 18 in the UK of minus-seventy-percent. Today we can reveal that the latest report available from the UK Health Security Agency, which has recently replaced Public Health England, shows that the Covid-19 vaccines are now proving to have an average negative effectiveness in everyone over the age of 18 in the UK of minus-seventy-three-percent, despite being weeks into a booster jab campaign.
Pfizer claim that there Covid-19 mRNA injection has a vaccine effectiveness of 95%. They were able to claim this because of the following –
During the ongoing clinical trial, 43,661 subjects were split evenly between the placebo and vaccine groups (about 21,830 subjects per group).
In the placebo group — the group that didn’t have the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine — 162 became infected with the coronavirus and showed symptoms.
Whilst in the vaccine group — the group that got the real vaccine — that number was only 8.
Therefore the percentage of placebo group who became infected equated to 0.74% (162 / 21830 x 100 = 0.74).
Whilst 0.04% of the vaccinate group became infected (8 / 21830 x 100 = 0.04)
In order to calculate the efficacy of their Covid-19 mRNA injection, Pfizer then performed the following calculation –
They first subtracted the percentage of infections in the vaccinated group from the percentage of infections in the placebo group.
0.74% – 0.04% = 0.7%
Then they divided that total by the percentage of infections in the placebo group, which equated to 95%.
0.7 / 0.74 = 95%.
Therefore, Pfizer were able to claim that their Covid-19 mRNA injection is 95% effective.
We don’t need to go into the fact that this calculation was extremely misleading and only measured relative effectiveness rather than absolute effectiveness. Neither do we need to go into the fact that Pfizer chose to ignore thousands of other suspected infections during the ongoing trial and not perform a PCR test to confirm the infection because it would have thrown efficacy below the required minimum of 50% to gain regulatory approval.
The reason we don’t need to go into it is because the general public are being told that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is 95% effective due to the calculation performed above. The same calculation was also used based on individual results to claim a vaccine efficacy of around 70% for AstraZeneca, and around 98% for Moderna.
Now, thanks to a wealth of data published by the new UK Health Security Agency we are able to use the same calculation that was used to calculate 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, to calculate the real world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines.
Table 5 of the UK Health Security Agency Vaccine Surveillance report, published October 28th 2021, shows the confirmed Covid-19 case rate among persons fully vaccinated, and rates among persons not vaccinated per 100,000 people.
Pfizer had an equal amount of people who had been vaccinated, and had not been vaccinated in the ongoing clinical trial in order to calculate the effectiveness of their vaccine, so in order to calculate the real-world effectiveness all we have to do is perform the same calculation using the rates per 100,000 numbers supplied by the UK Health Security Agency, which are as follows –
The effectiveness of all available vaccines combined is as low as minus-128% within the 40-49 age group, and as high as +13% in the 18-29 age group, which has dropped from an effectiveness of +21% in the previous weeks published data. This is the only age group other than under 18’s that the vaccines are currently showing to have a positive effectiveness.
This proves that the Covid-19 vaccines are making people more susceptible to catching Covid-19, rather than preventing cases of Covid-19 by the claimed 95%, and the fact the effectiveness of the vaccines has now surpassed the minus-100% barrier in everyone between the age of 40 and 69, suggests that it has completely decimated their immune systems, at least when it comes to infection from the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.
By combining the numbers provided for all age groups over the age of 18, we have been able to calculate an average vaccine effectiveness of minus-73%, and we’re definitely seeing this in the number of confirmed cases by vaccination status.
Between week 40 and week 43 of 2021 there were 76,219 confirmed Covid-19 cases in the unvaccinated over 18’s, 25,293 confirmed cases in the partly vaccinated over 18’s, and a frightening 438,972 confirmed cases in the fully vaccinated over 18’s.
The new UK Health Security Agency report proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Covid-19 vaccines do not work, and actually make the recipients worse… by the week.
PING
Pfffftttt! Brandon “guaranteed” us it was safe and effective. If you can’t believe brandon, who can you believe?
Spoke to a friend who decided to bet the ‘booster’ last week. They’re still very ill from the effects and swearing to never do it again. Why did they get it? The TV people told them it was a wonderful idea... and they were worried.
If you can’t believe brandon, who can you believe?
***********
The Main Stream Media. /sarc
These reports create a very false impression. You can’t use “unadjusted” values. More that 80% of people in the UK are vaccinated, far higher among adults. You HAVE to account for that 4-1 difference before calculating effectiveness rates.
Basically, this report is pure crap with the intent to deceive. It’s NOT helpful.
Basically, this report is pure crap with the intent to deceive. It’s NOT helpful.
Let's try to do this from the report and see what we get. First, vaccine rates aren't as high as you said. From the report:
Vaccine coverage tells us about the proportion of the population that have received 1 and 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines. By 31 October 2021, the overall vaccine uptake in England for dose 1 was 66.4% and for dose 2 was 60.9%. In line with the programme rollout, coverage is highest in the oldest age groups.
| SomeCallMeTim wrote: |
These reports create a very false impression. You can’t use “unadjusted” values. More that 80% of people in the UK are vaccinated, far higher among adults. You HAVE to account for that 4-1 difference before calculating effectiveness rates. Basically, this report is pure crap with the intent to deceive. It’s NOT helpful. |
These reports create a truly accurage impression and are valuable. You can use 'unadjusted values' to make a fair, apples-to-apples comparison with what Pfizer promised, versus what Pfizer delivered.
The FDA, CDC and pharma companies intentionally used deceptive calculations to falsely portray the 'vaccines' as being more effective than they ever were BEFORE they were administered. They used Relative Risk calculations. This author uses the FDA/CDC/Pharma calculation of choice to measure the performance of these same, fake 'vaccines' AFTER administration. Suddenly people want to switch to other calculations to make the 'shots' look more successful than they are.
These reports are excellent level-playing-field updates using the pharma companies own algorithms to measure performance. We don't have to choose which formula to use based on whatever makes the shots look better than they actually are.,
Posts like yours are innacurate and are an attempt to deceive the public into disregarding clear warning signs which is far from helpful. We're already battling the government and MSM to get data, more 'noise' and dismissals are NOT needed.
---------------------
Scale Up: It can be hard to see a vaccine’s impact in terms of percentages. Let’s answer the same questions as above after calculating what the infection risks indicated by Pfizer’s study would look like if applied to the entire population of the United States.
Answer the following questions (and fill in the corresponding table cells):
About 328 million (328,000,000) people live in the United States. Assume all of these people had the same infection risk as those in the placebo group during the months of this study. How many people in the country would you expect to contract the coronavirus? Hint: Multiply the U.S. population by the infection risk (before multiplying, write the infection risk as a decimal: 0.74% = 0.0074).
Assume the U.S. population had the same infection risk as the vaccine group. How many people would you expect to become infected?
Put these numbers in the appropriate places of the table’s final column.
--------------------
OK, so the article calculates the infection risk for the time period of the study for a potential vaccinated population and expects only 131,200 cases among the vaxed if the entire population were vaccinated vs 2,427,200 cases if the entire population weren't vaxed.
We obviously aren't seeing that kind of efficacy against infection, right? Something is wrong.
Although it is hard to find anywhere in the study what the denominator is, Worldometer lists the UK population at slightly less than 68 million. Let's use that.
Now assuming that 4 weeks is a sufficient study time frame, and using the New York Times "lesson" to understand just how wonderful the Pfizer vaccine's efficacy against injection is (95% vaccine effectiveness), let's do the math:
How many vaccinated people might have we expected to be infected if the vaccine efficacy against infection is 95%?
First, let's get the population of vaccinated people. I posted before that the vaccination rate is about 60.9% of the population. So 68,000,000 x .609 = 41,412,000 fully vaccinated people. Or there abouts anyway.
Second, let's apply the 95% vaccine effectiveness against infection to see how many vaccinated people we might have expected to have COVID19. So, 41,412,000 x .0004 = 16,565 cases among the vaccinted.
If the vaccine was 95% effective against infection for the 4 week period of the report, we would have expected 16,565 cases. But the report indicates 439,740 cases? Something doesn't add up.
Let's see if we can "scale up" the rate from the unvaccinated rate of .74. We will use the entire population for this calculation to see what we might have: 68,000,000 x .0074 = 503,200. That seems in the ball park, but low from the real numbers.
But regardless, what can't be denied is that the application of the New York Times "lesson" is complete garbage. The vaccine is not proving to be effective against infection AT ALL. I would have to agree with the article that if you are 18 or over it seems you are more likely to get COVID19 because of vaccination then not. This is crazy.
You have to suspend disbelief to believe the vodoo statistics of the giverment.
In the report, of the vaccinated, 2,447 deaths were reported. Of the unvaccinated and less than fully vaccinated, 623 deaths were reported. If we even take 80% of the population vaxed, the total of 2,447 deaths among a total of 3,070 deaths is 80%!!! 80% of the deaths are among the vaccinated. That would seem to be completely unaffected by the vaccine, 80% vaxed and 80% of the deaths would seem completely normalized among the population.
So I tried to look up what 95% effectiveness against death was. I found this at one place touting 94% effectiveness for Pfizer against death:
Post dose two the relative risk of death rate stabilises after 14 days to 0.04 i.e., the vaccine is 96% effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality risk relative to unvaccinated individuals.
It really looks like another fail, yes? Are the vaccinated doing much better than unvaccinated in the report regarding death from COVID19?
I would say this. What would SHINE in these statistics is immunity acquired by infection. That is probably why the rate of infection and death in these UK numbers seem so low compared to the vaccinated populations. A large portion of the population now have antibodies. The problem is that these antibodies are NOT ALL equal in providing protection from infection, that is obvious.
Consider this statement from the report that said the UK is now at 60.9% vaccinated: Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 98.0% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 18.7% that have antibodies from infection alone.
I can't make sense out of that really. I guess they are saying that 79.3% have antibodies from shots and/or infection, while 18.7% have antibodies from infection alone and 2% have no antibodies at all. That would explain why the unvaccinated are doing so well in comparison to the vaccinated in the report. In any case, is there, or should there be, any kind of pandemic where 98% of the adult population is showing antibodies against the virus?
Something is definitely stinking here.
How about we do it from different source? Here's what the BBC says.
So far, 50 million people have had a first vaccine dose - about 87% of over-12s. More than 45 million - about 79% of over-12s - have had both doses.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833
I was a little high.. yes. I was thinking about 'adults' already, not "All population". But, it's still a large % of the population. To be honest with an "effectiveness" calculation, you have to consider the population % of the two groups.
This study does that, comparing an Israeli and CDC study.
You can’t post that on the internet! Just ask Alex Berenson!
Even with assuming 80% vaccination, the infection numbers and the death numbers are still atrocious compared to the unvaxxed and partially vaxxed. What do you think regarding that? These numbers are alarming. At first I thought it can't be that bad, but the UK report clearly shows that the vaccinated are who is getting sick and dying, at least in the UK. It certainly wouldn't seem to support the idea that vaccines should be mandated.
Also, how is it there is still any kind of pandemic with 98% of adults showing antibodies in blood tests? The problem is that those who are vaxxed are the ones who are catching and dying of COVID19. At a minimum it shows that there isn't some kind of 95% effectiveness against infection and death.
Deaths in the UK are 90% LOWER now than they were during the spike in cases before the vaccines were rolled out. The data is VERY clear; vaccines lower the risk of serious illness or death. This is true in every country in the world. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is flat out lying.
When practically everyone is vaccinated, the % of people dying goes higher toward vaccinated. But the total number of people dying, vaxxed plus unvaxxed is MUCH lower.
I strongly oppose vaccine mandates. But I also oppose crap articles and scare tactics.
Who knows why the deaths are lower...could be everybody vulnerable has died and only those with the shots are spreading it around. You can’t be sure because all the data gets spewed depending on which side of the aisle you want to stand.
We know that less people are dying with COVID, and less people are being hospitalized with Covid. And, we know the changes started happening right after the vaxxes were given on a wide scale.
So, yea... we might have just got lucky. But, seems pretty unlikely.
Well our hospital has higher deaths and hospitalizations for covid now than it did last year.
I’m sorry, but that’s just NOT true... Death are way down.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.