Replies

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.

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.

Wow, you antivaxx jihadists are going far afield. Now you’re using Chinese “students” to advance your narrative. Interestingly enough, Mr Zhao got his undergraduate education at the University of Wuhan. You can’t make this stuff up. Maybe the Chinese influence is redirecting the jihad to also be anti-Trump?

https://www.andyzhao.xyz/about-me