The real efficacy rates of the COVID vaccines

The Biden administration and the mainstream media have been pushing a mandate of the experimental COVID vaccines for the American people. Their talking point is that "COVID vaccines are effective and work against the pandemic." That's not true. I have been following the "U.K. vaccine surveillance report" since last September and have seen enough evidence about the real efficacy of the COVID vaccines to show that they're not as good as advertised.

My last essay revealed that more vaccinated people have been using the health care system in U.K. than unvaccinated people. Now I am going to talk about how the MSM and politicians use so-called "rates" to hide the truth and to misrepresent the actual data to further their narratives.

Here is an example of the "unadjusted rates" chart in the U.K. Vaccine Surveillance report, Week 51.

The chart is very easy to read. It shows the rate in each category of events, "COVID-19 cases by vaccination status," "COVID-19 cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive specimen) resulting in an overnight inpatient admission by vaccination status," and "COVID-19 deaths (a) within 28 days and (b) within 60 days of positive specimen or with COVID-19 reported on death certificate." Instead of showing actual numbers, which are the "raw data," it calculated the unadjusted rate per 100,000 people in the population, based on the vaccination status. All the rates in each category except the cases show that the vaccinated people are doing better than unvaccinated people.

On the surface, it appears that using that unadjusted rate per 100,000 people seems fair because it compares vaccinated and unvaccinated from the same base number. But that's a deception.

Each individual, either vaccinated or unvaccinated, are in different health conditions and live in different environments. An individual may not be infected with COVID in one area, but he could be in the other. That's why "real efficacy rate" should be used, especially for the comparisons of hospitalizations and deaths. The real efficacy rate is calculated based on the number of actual infected people, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. This can measure how many people would be preserved from hospitalization or even death after they were infected by the virus if they had been vaccinated.

Here is an example to show why the unadjusted rate per 100,000 is deceptive if it is used for comparisons. First, let's say in a large metropolitan area the population is 1 million people. There were 10,000 people admitted into hospitals due to COVID infections. The rate would be calculated as 100 per 100,000, or 1%. The second is in a less populous area with a 10,000 population, where 200 people were hospitalized. That is translated to a rate of 2,000 per 100,000, or 2%. So, by comparing those two rates, one would agree that the first rate is two times better than the second, blinded by the fact that 9,800 more people were in the hospitals in the first area!

The author created this spreadsheet based on the U.K. vaccine surveillance report series. He added two highlighted columns to show what the real efficacy rate of the COVID vaccines are, along with the rates for the unvaccinated. Actually, they look great at first glance! But here's his interpretation:

The real efficacy rate for hospitalization by vaccination status is calculated by the hospital admission number divided by the infection case number. For the Week 51 report, that's 1 - (4,027/268,654) = 0.98501, or 98.501%. That means that the COVID vaccines prevented more than 98 people being hospitalized out of 100 who were infected. The same can be said for the death rate, where only 1 person dies out of 100 people who were infected.

From the chart, we can also see that the unvaccinated were doing better, 99.152% and 99.796%, respectively, for Week 51, when omicron started to be dominant in the U.K. The same is true for Week 47 and Week 45, when the delta variant was dominant.

How can the unvaccinated do better than the vaccinated? In order to show the greatness of the COVID vaccines, they used the unadjusted rate per 100,000 people. There is a footnote under the above chart in the Week 51 report and every other report: "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." That is to say that "we deceived, so don't use those rates."

But most people are more concerned about the real effectiveness of those COVID vaccines in combatting the COVID pandemic, not artificial rates created for propaganda. By the way, many research reports have pointed out that the efficacy rate of the COVID vaccines is quickly reduced after being administered, even dropping to negative numbers in three months after getting the third shot!

It's therefore time to stop the vaccination mandate and all the nonsense about a "pandemic of the unvaccinated."

I no longer consider as worthy of perusal any numbers or statistics from any government source anywhere on any subject.

They have an agenda.

It is clear they have an agenda.

And they have shown they have no problem at all saying, writing, or distributing any information, no matter how unsound or fallacious to further their agenda.

I will at least consider non-governmental sources.

All we ever hear are percentages...which is about ‘Relative Risk Reduction’ - but as the starting point for most people is a 99.9+% chance of survival it’s misleading.

I want to know the ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction of the jab. From what I can tell, it improves your survival odds by 0.01%. At least some very small number. This is what we should be demanding a number on - because this is what jab mandates are being required over.

It’s madness.

It is clear that we have to abolish “official” reports and demand equal public time for various independent reports.

It is irrational and illogical to pretend that by appointing persons as the “official” experts of any kind that they are magically endowed with the most superior expertise in the world in any area. They are not.

It is also illogical to think that “official” government “experts” will produce “expert” results that will contest “official” policies in their area of expertise. They have always and will always get their messaging in sync and that cannot be separated from the politics of the policies.

Better for the public to have public officials that do no more than point the public to multiple independent expert resources and for public policy to be based not on any one in-house “official” “expert” source, but from a consensus opinion derived from the multiple outside independent sources.

I went to the linked site and had a couple of observations: setting aside safety considerations about the vaccines themselves, they seem to provide a reduction (percentage-wise) in serious outcomes. HOWEVER, when you look at total hospitalizations, the vaccinated comprise a majority (54%) of the cases (4,385 vs 3,693).

This seems completely at odds with the claim that we are experiencing "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" in which virtually all hospitalizations and deaths are of the vaccinated. Either the UK is experiencing a completely different situation, or we are being lied to.

The worst outcome - death - is even more skewed towards the vaccinated (2,144 vs 782), but of course this needs to be viewed in the context of the greater number of people vaccinated and the fact that the most vulnerable people are more likely to be vaccinated.

The data the author used, does not match the week 51 UK data he linked to. There were almost 3x as many vaccinated cases. This changes the data some.

In addition, given he is grouping all age groups together and if you are younger you are less likely to be harmed by Covid and are less likely to be vaccinated (Because of that) and vice versa. This is not a good apples to apples comparison.

In performing the same work but comparing age groups. The vaccine is clearly effective for older folks at > 60 definitely > 70.

“he is grouping all age groups together”

Whether out of ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead, he is using unadjusted data.

Other variables (like age), known to effect outcomes, are excluded from consideration.

The conclusions he presents would never pass peer review because of the obvious lack of control.

Studies that have passed peer review and regulatory approval processes around the world, overwhelmingly prove that vaccines do provide some varying degree of protective effect.

“When you look at total hospitalizations, the vaccinated comprise a majority (54%) of the cases (4,385 vs 3,693)”

More than 54% of the population there is vaccinated, and much more of the older population, who account for more of the hospitalized. There is also the issue of “for” or “with” COVID, where some number of hospitalizations for other reasons (like traffic accidents) happen to test positive for COVID.

Many, many studies have controlled for such known variables, and have consistently demonstrated protective vaccine effects.

“Studies that have passed peer review and regulatory approval processes around the world, overwhelmingly prove that vaccines do provide some varying degree of protective effect.”

We have chosen to decline this experimental medicine until we see hard data as exactly what the “varying degree of protective effect” is AND the risks associated with taking the stuff in the first place.

And I’ll quibble with these “approval processes”, too. Nothing available in the US has passed the usual approval processes to date. They’re all being given under emergency authorizations which is not the same thing.

I’m extremely uncomfortable being damn near forced to take a medication when the manufacturers are absolutely immune from being held liable for any damages they may cause.

“From Omicron?”

Yes. Somewhat less than other variants, and differing in the protection levels against infection (least), severe disease, hospitalization and death (most). Significant protection from hospitalization and death.

“For how long?”

TBD. Some vaccines wane in effectiveness more than others. Natural immunity also tends to wane over time in other coronaviruses (typically a few months to a few years).

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.