PING
Thanks for the details. The media don’t like to give us the details.
And the 5th wasn’t “fully vaccinated”.
...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people.
Regardless if we like the vax or not, I’m not sure data based on percentages is useful. I’m interested in understanding the increase/decrease benefit of the shot in terms of Absolute Risk Reduction - as the starting point for unvaxed is (for most) 99.9+%. It seems that even if the vax initially improves this it is only by 0.01% (or so)...which isn’t worth the adverse effects, especially if the net result is a negative efficacy over time - as some are reporting.
Is there a reliable study that focuses on ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction?
Awesome report. Thanks for posting it.
Thanks for posting that link that shows how great the vaccinations are!
It’s pretty clear by now that the jabs don’t work.
So, why the insistence on Gubmint control freaks to jab the entire population and “save” us from Covid?
Why?
Don’t worry the people who constantly overlook all the issues with these awful vaccines have plenty of excuses to explain this. It’s called cognitive dissonance.
I predicted months ago that once they are hopping onto the Cov_xyz vaxxxxx treadmill, that they with have a hard time getting off. They just can’t get enough of them yummy spike proteins. So the sheeple are now in line for twice yearly booster shots.
Could the creator of the vaccines be reached for comment?
The Vaccine Efficacy (VE) against Omicron after the second dose is statistically equal to zero for AstraZeneca. Further, the average rate of infection for those getting a second shot of AstraZeneca at the 20+ week point is HIGHER than that for the unvaxxed., i.e. Negative VE.
The Omicron VE picture for Pfizer and Moderna is slightly better, though VE is negative after 20 weeks beyond the second shot.
Insofsr as approval was granted on the basis of these shots' PREVENTIVE capacity (at least that was the basis in the US), the approval should be reconsidered at a minimum, if not outright yanked.
If these numbers are correct, then the vaccinated are overwhelmingly more protected than the unvaccinated, and it isn't even close. These numbers are even stronger than one might have expected given the amount of time that has passed since the first doses and the fact later variants would have been more dominant in this time period. 54% of hospitalizations from a pool of 80% vaccinated vs. 46% of hospitalizations from a pool of 20% unvaccinated is an extraordinary difference in the protection for the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. When you consider the fact most of the unvaccinated are the younger and more healthy portions of the population, the difference is even more staggering.
75.8% of the population of UK is double or triple vaccinated.
80% of deaths are in the vaccinated population.
It sounds like the vaccines increase the risk of death.
If it doesn’t keep you from getting the disease and dying, why do they continue to call it a “vaccine”?
That corresponds to over 70% of the population being vaxxed, but it does not make sense if the vaccine is as effective as promoted.