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.
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.