Australia and the vaccinations

...Protection from deaths continues dropping and seems to be going faster, although it is uneven. The red colored numbers are the changes in vaccine effectiveness for death protection. Vaccines still do have some protective effect when it comes to deaths.

Although protection is dropping every week, I actually expect this to reverse if boosters are given to enough people. This booster effect will be delayed for many reasons. I am also not sure how UKHSA will account for boosted people and whether they will introduce a separate boosted category.

Fact checkers are a unique phenomenon of the late post-truth world.

Paid by Big Pharma and nameless billionaire sponsored nonprofits, fact checking companies make money by hiring inexpensive journalism majors and other low budget persons to debunk esteemed scientists or organizations like the UKHSA. They pretend to be impartial, but of course they are partial to whoever pays their salary.

Because UKHSA data leads to such explosive conclusions, fact checkers hate this data and are paid to debunk it and those (like me) who make simple conclusions from it.

The typical example is here.

How the UK Health Security Agency’s misleading data fuelled a global vaccine myth

…

The trouble with PHE’s numbers was that, while they weren’t wrong exactly, they were seriously misleading—a problem we often encounter as fact checkers.

…

Essentially, in order to know how often vaccinated or unvaccinated people test positive for Covid, you need to know how many in each group test positive and how many there are in each group in total. We know how many people have been vaccinated, because we count them as the vaccinations happen. But we don’t know exactly how many unvaccinated people remain, because that depends on knowing what the whole population was to start with, which has to be estimated.

The article goes on and on, but it says that the data is “misleading”. The word misleading merits further explanation. In the fact checker universe, misleading means something that is true but that can “lead” someone to undesirable (for the sponsor of fact checkers) conclusions. For example, the fact that 82% of deaths are among the vaccinated, who are 68% of the UK population, may “mislead” someone into questioning whether vaccines are as effective as we were promised. So they call it misleading.

Going back to the substance of the debunking, it rests on the “bad denominator” argument. It essentially alleges that UKHSA incorrectly estimates the number of unvaccinated people in the country. While no count of millions of people can be perfectly accurate, the debunking is total bunk.

UKHSA uses NIMS data, which has a list of named individuals who are eligible for vaccination.

The fact checker falsely claims that “we don’t know exactly how many unvaccinated people remain, because that depends on knowing what the whole population was to start with, which has to be estimated”. Um, no my friend, NIMS data provides the list of not-yet-vaccinated persons. UKHSA did not subtract the vaccinated from total population. The quoted sentence is an outright lie.

UKHSA says: UKHSA uses NIMS throughout its COVID-19 surveillance reports including in the calculation rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and deaths by vaccination status because it is a dynamic database of named individuals, where the numerator and the denominator come from the same source and there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status. Additionally, NIMS contains key sociodemographic variables for those who are targeted and then receive the vaccine, providing a rich and consistently coded data source for evaluation of the vaccine programme.

Vaccination rates have flatlined in the last few months. They are not changing much, as there are not as many people any more who believe vaccinators, so few people become vaccinated. (see page 14 of the UKHSA report).

What happened recently is that infections shot sky high due to vaccines not working, while the counts of vaccinated and unvaccinated barely changed. It is the change in infection and death rates, that led to the disastrous results of vaccination in the UK.

When vaccines were working well, no one was complaining about denominators and incorrect counts of vaccinated people.

Sorry for being so verbose, but the fact checkers deserved some attention, in my opinion.

Casey Jones wrote:...Protection from deaths continues dropping and seems to be going faster, although it is uneven. The red colored numbers are the changes in vaccine effectiveness for death protection. Vaccines still do have some protective effect when it comes to deaths.

Although protection is dropping every week, I actually expect this to reverse if boosters are given to enough people. This booster effect will be delayed for many reasons. I am also not sure how UKHSA will account for boosted people and whether they will introduce a separate boosted category.

Fact checkers are a unique phenomenon of the late post-truth world.

Paid by Big Pharma and nameless billionaire sponsored nonprofits, fact checking companies make money by hiring inexpensive journalism majors and other low budget persons to debunk esteemed scientists or organizations like the UKHSA. They pretend to be impartial, but of course they are partial to whoever pays their salary.

Because UKHSA data leads to such explosive conclusions, fact checkers hate this data and are paid to debunk it and those (like me) who make simple conclusions from it.

The typical example is here.

   How the UK Health Security Agency’s misleading data fuelled a global vaccine myth

   …

   The trouble with PHE’s numbers was that, while they weren’t wrong exactly, they were seriously misleading—a problem we often encounter as fact checkers.

   …

   Essentially, in order to know how often vaccinated or unvaccinated people test positive for Covid, you need to know how many in each group test positive and how many there are in each group in total. We know how many people have been vaccinated, because we count them as the vaccinations happen. But we don’t know exactly how many unvaccinated people remain, because that depends on knowing what the whole population was to start with, which has to be estimated.

The article goes on and on, but it says that the data is “misleading”. The word misleading merits further explanation. In the fact checker universe, misleading means something that is true but that can “lead” someone to undesirable (for the sponsor of fact checkers) conclusions. For example, the fact that 82% of deaths are among the vaccinated, who are 68% of the UK population, may “mislead” someone into questioning whether vaccines are as effective as we were promised. So they call it misleading.

Going back to the substance of the debunking, it rests on the “bad denominator” argument. It essentially alleges that UKHSA incorrectly estimates the number of unvaccinated people in the country. While no count of millions of people can be perfectly accurate, the debunking is total bunk.

   UKHSA uses NIMS data, which has a list of named individuals who are eligible for vaccination.

   The fact checker falsely claims that “we don’t know exactly how many unvaccinated people remain, because that depends on knowing what the whole population was to start with, which has to be estimated”. Um, no my friend, NIMS data provides the list of not-yet-vaccinated persons. UKHSA did not subtract the vaccinated from total population. The quoted sentence is an outright lie.

   UKHSA says: UKHSA uses NIMS throughout its COVID-19 surveillance reports including in the calculation rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and deaths by vaccination status because it is a dynamic database of named individuals, where the numerator and the denominator come from the same source and there is a record of each individual’s vaccination status. Additionally, NIMS contains key sociodemographic variables for those who are targeted and then receive the vaccine, providing a rich and consistently coded data source for evaluation of the vaccine programme.

   Vaccination rates have flatlined in the last few months. They are not changing much, as there are not as many people any more who believe vaccinators, so few people become vaccinated. (see page 14 of the UKHSA report).

   What happened recently is that infections shot sky high due to vaccines not working, while the counts of vaccinated and unvaccinated barely changed. It is the change in infection and death rates, that led to the disastrous results of vaccination in the UK.

   When vaccines were working well, no one was complaining about denominators and incorrect counts of vaccinated people.

Sorry for being so verbose, but the fact checkers deserved some attention, in my opinion.

............ Between 2 January and 24 September 2021, the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals.

The weekly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving COVID-19 were consistently lower for people who had received two vaccinations compared with one or no vaccinations. ........

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

See, quote, reference.

Again , quote, refence

.......... In England, between 2 January and 2 July 2021, there were 51,281 deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19); 640 occurred in people who were fully vaccinated, which includes people who had been infected before they were vaccinated. .........

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021

............. Vaccination status Deaths involving
COVID-19 Non-COVID-19
deaths COVID-19 deaths
as percent of
all deaths
All deaths regardless of vaccination status 51,281 214,701 19.3
Unvaccinated 38,964 65,170 37.4
Deaths within 21 days of first dose 4,388 14,265 23.5
Deaths 21 days or more after first dose 7,289 66,533 9.9
Deaths within 21 days of second dose 182 11,470 1.6
Deaths 21 days or more after second dose 458 57,263 0.8
...................

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021

You can work out how the table works, clink on the LINK !!!!!!!!!!

Thom Paine wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:With no real name and no link I cannot check it.

-shrug-

maybe, in order to better understand what Mrs. P. said, you might do some quick research on ' cytokine storm'   ...

cuz'  no amount of fine wine, dinners, and roses will convince her to link you...
She only links me when she's in the mood for linking.  

fun in the sun to ya'

""no amount of fine wine, dinners, and roses will convince her to link you...""

That defines my sex life over the last few years lol

........ Three-quarters of adult COVID-19 inpatients aged under 50 are unvaccinated. 21% of COVID-19 inpatients
aged 50 and over are unvaccinated.
• Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are more than 5 times as likely to be admitted to hospital with
COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals.
• For adults under 50, whilst the numbers admitted to hospital are lower, an unvaccinated individual is over 15
times as likely to need hospitalisation from COVID-19.
Deaths
• Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are more than 5 times as likely to die. ..................

[url=Three-quarters of adult COVID-19 inpatients aged under 50 are unvaccinated. 21% of COVID-19 inpatients aged 50 and over are unvaccinated. • Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are more than 5 times as likely to be admitted to hospital with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals. • For adults under 50, whilst the numbers admitted to hospital are lower, an unvaccinated individual is over 15 times as likely to need hospitalisation from COVID-19. Deaths • Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are more than 5 times as likely to die. ]Three-quarters of adult COVID-19 inpatients aged under 50 are unvaccinated. 21% of COVID-19 inpatients aged 50 and over are unvaccinated. • Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are more than 5 times as likely to be admitted to hospital with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals. • For adults under 50, whilst the numbers admitted to hospital are lower, an unvaccinated individual is over 15 times as likely to need hospitalisation from COVID-19. Deaths • Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are more than 5 times as likely to die. [/url]

This is from Ireland. It tells the same story.

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Casey Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:
Here I am, trying to help you and I get NO reply.
I am disappointed.

@Elizabeth Theus
@2cent
@jirqoadai
@Calypso Jones  
@Daily Bread  
@Casey Jones
@JMWinPR

.

That is because you are reading misinformation

You might try posting under a new name "Miss Information" far more appropriate and accurate

JMWinPR wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Casey Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:
Here I am, trying to help you and I get NO reply.
I am disappointed.

@Elizabeth Theus
@2cent
@jirqoadai
@Calypso Jones  
@Daily Bread  
@Casey Jones
@JMWinPR

.

That is because you are reading misinformation

You might try posting under a new name "Miss Information" far more appropriate and accurate

I am quoting from various reputed medical organisations form all around the world. Giving all links.
What is happening is entirely in line with predictions and common sense.

I am not quoting from a 'Mrs P' who has no credentials and evidently does not even exist.

Everyone knows who Mrs P is, Sprint. It couldn't have been more obvious.

Red Lily wrote:Everyone knows who Mrs P is, Sprint.   It couldn't have been more obvious.

I have no idea.
I believe she does not exist.