Let me tell you something, I have master's +++ so don't tell me I don't have the ability to anything, because your stupidly wrong! I am still waiting for what science you disagreed with or can't you tell what is the difference between facts and science???? I stated facts from Pfizer, so sorry you don't agree, that is fine, but don't call what I wrote as science. You want a go at science, ok! You wear a mask?
Sorry for the intrusive question. I'm not attempting an ad hominem attack. I'm just trying to understand how you received a "master's +++" degree without basic grammar and punctuation.
If the letter you showed is correct, then 97% of those over 75 are triple-vaccinated, and the average age of the hospitalized is above that. So the RATE of hospitalization in the at-risk demographic may still be higher than among the unvaccinated. We won't know unless you do an age-stratified analysis, which is what is needed. That is what the final chart shows for cases, but as Eugyypius has shown (he makes these charts routinely), the age-stratified risk of hospitalization or death is still significantly lower for the vaccinated in the UK data.
This is mathematical idiocy. One also has to wonder why we're focusing on one hospital in the UK, when we have thousands of hospitals in the United States showing the opposite of this single "data" point. Not to mention many of those triple vaxxed people may be severely immune compromised as is. Get brains, and stop trying to be edgy contrarians.
No.. every hospital has been releasing these figures for a year now. This is the first place that shows vaccinated people with high relative admit rates, so idiots are trying to cherry pick while disavowing all other data. This stupid tactic fools no one.
Waning effectiveness can happen when a virus is still mutating. And waning effectiveness isn't zero effectiveness. There's no debate among the intelligent. It's not a fair fight because one side possesses all the brains. Data for vax has shown them to be effective since day 1. A year later, the same formula is still holding strong. That's the difference between high achieving scientists that produce quality product that's saved 100s of thousands of lives, and the low achieving bums who trying to knock their work while contributing zero to society.
I just read this, the data now shows that the covid vaccinated people have a 300% increased risk of covid-19 infection as of January 2022. Pfizer's own 6 month data shows that the vaccine's? DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD!! So the question remains when are they pulling this killer shot OFF THE MARKET!!! I wonder when the reports that have to be released by the FDA on Pfizer vaccine, will spill all the lying crap, I am HOPING!!!
Sharon, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Science wasn't your strong suit in school was it. What grades did you get in the sciences while in college? Inquiring minds want to know.
DV, really, I did outstanding in science in school all the way, even in nursing school and college. So what science do you not believe??? That data on Pfizer is from Pfizer. There isn't any science involved here these are FACTS!!!
Nurses aren't doctors. It's clear the difference in education when you speak to a doctor vs a Nurse. Most of the people mixing up covid science are nurses and less educated healthcare workers, not doctors or researchers. Nurses should understand why they're not given the right to diagnose. You're an example of why..
Hi Steve. I need your skills to help me find out if Novovax is safe. My amazing, intelligent daughter is studying for her PHD in psychology and is facing a mandatory vaccine to complete her studies at university. She’s so conflicted and is almost decided that Novovax will be the best option at this juncture if she can’t circumvent the mandate. I’d really appreciate any advice.
People who get COVID have nasty lingering effects, heart damage, etc. Haven't heard any intelligent doctor (or person) claim it's better to take a risk contracting a novel virus with nasty and proven long term effects vs a vaccine that as yet has no proven long term effects.
COVID survivors are walking advertisements for why the vaccine is preferred to unvaxxed contraction of COVID. The data on long term damage to survivors speaks for itself.
I wish your daughter the very best and hope she isn't forced to do something that is against the Federal laws. Any drug or mask termed EUA cannot by law be mandated. There really is a Federal Statute out there.
Hi Sharon. I really appreciate your advice. We live in Australia and unfortunately our country is being run by state Premiers who are all acting independently under emergency powers granted to them by our governing Federal Parliament. These premiers are drunk with power and perfect tyrants to inflict as many draconian and inhumane restrictions as possible upon us. I’m praying for a miraculous intervention so she won’t have to make a choice. Thanks once again.
So true, that is why they started calling it the Pandemic of the Vaccinated. The CDC has actually called the labs and told them to stop counting the vaccinated in the data. So much for honesty from CDC!!!!
We know that of 182 patients, 130 (71%) are triple vaccinated, but only 45% of the *overall population* are triple vaccinated.
From this we know *at minimum* that the jabs do nothing to help prevent positive Covid-19 tests.
Further, in this instance, 30.1% of the total population is unvaccinated. However, the 13 unvaccinated individuals in hospital represent only 7.14% of the 182 hospitalized people who tested positive for Covid-19 (symptoms, ages, comorbidities unknown; it's fine to admit this; the whole shebang has been a case-demic from day one).
Your most brain-damaged associates should be able to see that at least in Blackpool, UK, vaccinations are:
1. Not effectively preventing a positive Covid-19 test (regardless of reason for hospitalization)
2. Not better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis, as boosted individuals represent 71% of 182 persons hospitalized, but only 44.9% of the population.
Granted, other regions may show other results, but for Blackpool the data show vaccine programme failure.
I haven't looked at this particular dataset but to your second point; this depends on who is boosted. The vast majority of severe illness and death occurs in a small portion of the population, the elderly. By your logic, if we only vaccinated people who are under 50 years old then we would have evidence that vaccinations are "better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis."
I am not saying your wrong conclusion is wrong, as I don't know. I am making the point that single variable analysis are not compelling and may be used by people who disagree with your conclusions to dismiss you as "brain-damaged".
Not when I acknowledge confounders and point out that it is the responsibility of public health officials to stratify by age, sex, comorbidities, etc.
Also, I did NOT say that "vaccinations are better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis"! I said that the datasets from Blackpool do nothing to support a conclusion of an efficacious vaccine programme; in fact, without delineation of confounders, the data are damning.
If you acknowledge the confounders then you should acknowledge that nothing can be interpreted from this dataset including "...vaccinations are ... Not better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis, as boosted individuals represent 71% of 182 persons hospitalized, but only 44.9% of the population.". Your logic is higher proportion per capita vaccinated in hospital than unvaccinated therefore vaccinations are not better at preventing positive cases on a dose response basis. This logic does not work due to the confounders you "acknowledge"
I'm seriously trying to determine whether or not you are a troll. Are you?
I *acknowledge* that there may be confounders. I *assert* that you don't know they would sway the interpretation from the data that boosters are useless at limiting cases, and further assert that confounders would be unlikely to cover the spread between percentage of boosted persons testing positive and percentage of boosted in the general population.
If your position is that primarily very aged persons with comorbidities are boosted, thus swaying the outcome, prove it.
As you can see, the age groups representing >90% of severe outcomes are >90% vaccinated. This alone could easily explain an even bigger spread than the "spread between percentage of boosted persons testing positive and percentage of boosted in the general population". The difference between boosted and unboosted groups makes it clear that NO conclusions can be made from this low resolution dataset. This includes your assertion that vaccinations are "not better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis" as well as any conclusions stating they do prevent positive cases. It does not allow for an apples to apples comparison.
I am not trying to troll. I just believe that making claims based on weak data hurts the movement to bring attention to the real risks and efficacy of vaccines. It is very easy for a lay person with no formal training to see that the logic you used to make your conclusions is not sound. When someone who is interested in learning more about the "anit-vax" perspective looks into it and they come across single variable analysis, like yours, it makes it very easy for them to dismiss the whole group as quacks. By making claims without doing your due diligence you are hurting the cause.
One last note while I'm thinking of it. We don't know how symptomatic the "cases" are or how many are testing positive because of they seek attention due to vaccine AEs. We will never know the latter but it should at least be mentioned here.
As stated before, we can make no conclusions from this dataset regarding vaccine programme efficacy. I agree with you and do not believe the programs are effective but, again, your simple analysis does not provide any conclusions and when you say it does you harm the movement to educate people about vaccination risks. We need to be VERY careful about making ACCURATE claims or we have no chance.
I'm not very good at statistics, this is something I've been wondering about. I've seen arguments against stats like these because "there are way more people vaccinated than not, so it makes sense to see higher cases/hospitalizations/deaths due to the size of the population."
Do these numbers/charts account for the proportion of the population that is vaccinated vs. not? If the latter graph shows "case rate per 100k population" does that cover this discrepancy?
We are passing your information on to friends. Had several double jabbed say NO to more jabbing after reading your stuff. Had a 30 ish man in our CPA office that was considering getting a jab and now he has run the other way. I don't harp on it. I just pass on the info and let them decide.
We need to know what percent of each age group are vaccinated and what percent are in the waiting period.
Funny how the authorities aren't giving us this info.
Let me tell you something, I have master's +++ so don't tell me I don't have the ability to anything, because your stupidly wrong! I am still waiting for what science you disagreed with or can't you tell what is the difference between facts and science???? I stated facts from Pfizer, so sorry you don't agree, that is fine, but don't call what I wrote as science. You want a go at science, ok! You wear a mask?
Is English your first language?
Sorry for the intrusive question. I'm not attempting an ad hominem attack. I'm just trying to understand how you received a "master's +++" degree without basic grammar and punctuation.
Only people who don't understand physics wear masks.
If the letter you showed is correct, then 97% of those over 75 are triple-vaccinated, and the average age of the hospitalized is above that. So the RATE of hospitalization in the at-risk demographic may still be higher than among the unvaccinated. We won't know unless you do an age-stratified analysis, which is what is needed. That is what the final chart shows for cases, but as Eugyypius has shown (he makes these charts routinely), the age-stratified risk of hospitalization or death is still significantly lower for the vaccinated in the UK data.
Thank you Sharon, as will I 🙏🏽
This is mathematical idiocy. One also has to wonder why we're focusing on one hospital in the UK, when we have thousands of hospitals in the United States showing the opposite of this single "data" point. Not to mention many of those triple vaxxed people may be severely immune compromised as is. Get brains, and stop trying to be edgy contrarians.
Right, only 1 hospital in the entire world is releasing figures. You people are all the same: really stupid.
No.. every hospital has been releasing these figures for a year now. This is the first place that shows vaccinated people with high relative admit rates, so idiots are trying to cherry pick while disavowing all other data. This stupid tactic fools no one.
Waning effectiveness can happen when a virus is still mutating. And waning effectiveness isn't zero effectiveness. There's no debate among the intelligent. It's not a fair fight because one side possesses all the brains. Data for vax has shown them to be effective since day 1. A year later, the same formula is still holding strong. That's the difference between high achieving scientists that produce quality product that's saved 100s of thousands of lives, and the low achieving bums who trying to knock their work while contributing zero to society.
I just read this, the data now shows that the covid vaccinated people have a 300% increased risk of covid-19 infection as of January 2022. Pfizer's own 6 month data shows that the vaccine's? DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD!! So the question remains when are they pulling this killer shot OFF THE MARKET!!! I wonder when the reports that have to be released by the FDA on Pfizer vaccine, will spill all the lying crap, I am HOPING!!!
Sharon, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Science wasn't your strong suit in school was it. What grades did you get in the sciences while in college? Inquiring minds want to know.
DV, really, I did outstanding in science in school all the way, even in nursing school and college. So what science do you not believe??? That data on Pfizer is from Pfizer. There isn't any science involved here these are FACTS!!!
Nurses aren't doctors. It's clear the difference in education when you speak to a doctor vs a Nurse. Most of the people mixing up covid science are nurses and less educated healthcare workers, not doctors or researchers. Nurses should understand why they're not given the right to diagnose. You're an example of why..
Negative efficacy is a given at this point. Denmark data confirms it too. Only question is if cause is OAS, ADE, or some other factor?
The only thing with negative efficacy is your/this blog's attempts at statistics. What a joke, and you wonder why the world ignores you.
Hi Steve. I need your skills to help me find out if Novovax is safe. My amazing, intelligent daughter is studying for her PHD in psychology and is facing a mandatory vaccine to complete her studies at university. She’s so conflicted and is almost decided that Novovax will be the best option at this juncture if she can’t circumvent the mandate. I’d really appreciate any advice.
Thanks for your prolific hard work.
Kind regards,
Marcy
Please advise her not to get vaccinated.
The whole issue with these agents is you’re risking your life with a medical intervention for which we have zero long term safety data.
People who get COVID have nasty lingering effects, heart damage, etc. Haven't heard any intelligent doctor (or person) claim it's better to take a risk contracting a novel virus with nasty and proven long term effects vs a vaccine that as yet has no proven long term effects.
COVID survivors are walking advertisements for why the vaccine is preferred to unvaxxed contraction of COVID. The data on long term damage to survivors speaks for itself.
Thank you for taking the time Dr Mike. I’ll definitely pass this onto to her. All the best.
Kind Regards,
Marcy
I wish your daughter the very best and hope she isn't forced to do something that is against the Federal laws. Any drug or mask termed EUA cannot by law be mandated. There really is a Federal Statute out there.
Hi Sharon. I really appreciate your advice. We live in Australia and unfortunately our country is being run by state Premiers who are all acting independently under emergency powers granted to them by our governing Federal Parliament. These premiers are drunk with power and perfect tyrants to inflict as many draconian and inhumane restrictions as possible upon us. I’m praying for a miraculous intervention so she won’t have to make a choice. Thanks once again.
I shall continue to pray for this nonsense to end. Stay well.
80% of serious COVID cases are fully vaccinated' says Ichilov hospital director
Vaccine has "no significance regarding severe illness," says Prof. Yaakov Jerris.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674
https://twitter.com/maryannedemasi/status/1489763837637435395
So true, that is why they started calling it the Pandemic of the Vaccinated. The CDC has actually called the labs and told them to stop counting the vaccinated in the data. So much for honesty from CDC!!!!
Looks like an impaired immune response among the vaccinated.
For those who wish to argue further:
As it sits, we know the FOI request is real -- https://t.co/7av0gwFw1e
We know that of 182 patients, 130 (71%) are triple vaccinated, but only 45% of the *overall population* are triple vaccinated.
From this we know *at minimum* that the jabs do nothing to help prevent positive Covid-19 tests.
Further, in this instance, 30.1% of the total population is unvaccinated. However, the 13 unvaccinated individuals in hospital represent only 7.14% of the 182 hospitalized people who tested positive for Covid-19 (symptoms, ages, comorbidities unknown; it's fine to admit this; the whole shebang has been a case-demic from day one).
Your most brain-damaged associates should be able to see that at least in Blackpool, UK, vaccinations are:
1. Not effectively preventing a positive Covid-19 test (regardless of reason for hospitalization)
2. Not better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis, as boosted individuals represent 71% of 182 persons hospitalized, but only 44.9% of the population.
Granted, other regions may show other results, but for Blackpool the data show vaccine programme failure.
The end (of mandates in UK).
I haven't looked at this particular dataset but to your second point; this depends on who is boosted. The vast majority of severe illness and death occurs in a small portion of the population, the elderly. By your logic, if we only vaccinated people who are under 50 years old then we would have evidence that vaccinations are "better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis."
I am not saying your wrong conclusion is wrong, as I don't know. I am making the point that single variable analysis are not compelling and may be used by people who disagree with your conclusions to dismiss you as "brain-damaged".
Not when I acknowledge confounders and point out that it is the responsibility of public health officials to stratify by age, sex, comorbidities, etc.
Also, I did NOT say that "vaccinations are better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis"! I said that the datasets from Blackpool do nothing to support a conclusion of an efficacious vaccine programme; in fact, without delineation of confounders, the data are damning.
If you acknowledge the confounders then you should acknowledge that nothing can be interpreted from this dataset including "...vaccinations are ... Not better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis, as boosted individuals represent 71% of 182 persons hospitalized, but only 44.9% of the population.". Your logic is higher proportion per capita vaccinated in hospital than unvaccinated therefore vaccinations are not better at preventing positive cases on a dose response basis. This logic does not work due to the confounders you "acknowledge"
I'm seriously trying to determine whether or not you are a troll. Are you?
I *acknowledge* that there may be confounders. I *assert* that you don't know they would sway the interpretation from the data that boosters are useless at limiting cases, and further assert that confounders would be unlikely to cover the spread between percentage of boosted persons testing positive and percentage of boosted in the general population.
If your position is that primarily very aged persons with comorbidities are boosted, thus swaying the outcome, prove it.
Take a look at the data from England on Page 5: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/02/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-03-February-2022.pdf
As you can see, the age groups representing >90% of severe outcomes are >90% vaccinated. This alone could easily explain an even bigger spread than the "spread between percentage of boosted persons testing positive and percentage of boosted in the general population". The difference between boosted and unboosted groups makes it clear that NO conclusions can be made from this low resolution dataset. This includes your assertion that vaccinations are "not better at preventing positive cases on a dose-response basis" as well as any conclusions stating they do prevent positive cases. It does not allow for an apples to apples comparison.
I am not trying to troll. I just believe that making claims based on weak data hurts the movement to bring attention to the real risks and efficacy of vaccines. It is very easy for a lay person with no formal training to see that the logic you used to make your conclusions is not sound. When someone who is interested in learning more about the "anit-vax" perspective looks into it and they come across single variable analysis, like yours, it makes it very easy for them to dismiss the whole group as quacks. By making claims without doing your due diligence you are hurting the cause.
One last note while I'm thinking of it. We don't know how symptomatic the "cases" are or how many are testing positive because of they seek attention due to vaccine AEs. We will never know the latter but it should at least be mentioned here.
As stated before, we can make no conclusions from this dataset regarding vaccine programme efficacy. I agree with you and do not believe the programs are effective but, again, your simple analysis does not provide any conclusions and when you say it does you harm the movement to educate people about vaccination risks. We need to be VERY careful about making ACCURATE claims or we have no chance.
Odd - Date on the letter is March 2 - 2022
3rd February 22, we do D/M/Y vs US M/D/Y
makes sense!
When we have proof that this is happening in the US.
I'm not very good at statistics, this is something I've been wondering about. I've seen arguments against stats like these because "there are way more people vaccinated than not, so it makes sense to see higher cases/hospitalizations/deaths due to the size of the population."
Do these numbers/charts account for the proportion of the population that is vaccinated vs. not? If the latter graph shows "case rate per 100k population" does that cover this discrepancy?
Also, what is the last column labeled "18+"?
Please see my comment elsewhere with breakdown by overall population.
We are passing your information on to friends. Had several double jabbed say NO to more jabbing after reading your stuff. Had a 30 ish man in our CPA office that was considering getting a jab and now he has run the other way. I don't harp on it. I just pass on the info and let them decide.
Ontario, Canada, too. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data