epping blue wrote:C. Rombie-Coat wrote:CF11 Rondo wrote:C. Rombie-Coat wrote:The latest UK Health Security Agency report was released today.
A link to an analysis is below:
'It is clear from above that the vaccinated is being infected at far greater levels than the unvaccinated. Except < 18 years old.'
https://palexander.substack.com/p/uk-he ... irst-covidGood analysis of figures for Wales.
Difficult to hide the truth. More to come I think.
You’ve made the same mistake you made previously. Over 90% of adults have had a vaccination. It’s not a secret or a surprise that there’s more vaccinated people getting infected. Most soldiers that get shot are wearing helmets and most people in car crashes are wearing seat belts. That doesn’t mean helmets and seatbelts increase the risk of injuries.
Despite <10% of adults being unvaccinated, the unvaccinated make up 32% of cases in Wales. That’s using the numbers you’ve provided.
No. It’s you that is wrong-again. As Ealing explains above, the comparison is between groups.
Here is a summary of the report’s UK figures- is linked in the comments under the link I posted.
https://i.imgur.com/gYsbYey.jpgCould it be possible, as expert scientists and clinicians (the ones that you won’t see on the TV or in the press) have been saying since the outset that the impact of jabs on the immune system is not a good one? That one of the effects is to actually promote the formation/mutation of viruses and spread thereof?
As to the Welsh figures all those masks/social distancing/passports do seem to been a waste of time. The situation is far worse than in England. All those jabs and look where we are.
Alternatively of course the testing is a load of bollocks and a massive red herring.
Perhaps it’s not about public health.
Will you or Ealing like to show the rest of that table ? You know the columns that show the relative Hospitalisation and Death rates.
I did post the link to the actual report itself yesterday in fairness which has the full table in it for people to go and look at.
The table itself won't fit into a post in a readable format - but there are another 3 sections in that specific table, which as per your request I've put below.
If you want further information then you'll find the link to the report at the bottom of this post - the table referenced is on page 42.
Just to be clear, my argument has never been against vaccination. It has always been against
mandatory vaccination and increasingly it has also been against the manipulation of the narrative by the media/politicians which simply doesn't align with the reality presented by the data in many areas (which to my mind is fairly overt coercion and manipulation - but I am a sceptical old git).
I've consistently held this position since the beginning of the pandemic. My fear was we would slowly inch closer and closer to mandatory vaccination. Fast forward a few years and we are seeing exactly that in Europe now. However, here in the UK, we have a more deeply embedded respect for personal liberty both in our legal framework and societal cohesion so I don't think we will see something as overtly authoritarian as we are currently seeing in Austria/Germany/France.
I believe that mandatory vaccination would need a very compelling argument to be accepted here in the UK and the public would need to be swayed into supporting it with a persistent narrative built on two arguments.
The first would be if the vaccines stopped the spread of the virus. The second is of course to protect the NHS.
The section of the table from the report that I shared (having seen it first in the article Mr. Coat shared) certainly goes a long way to countering the first of those arguments. The data within the report certainly appears to show zero supporting evidence that the vaccinated population are less likely to be carriers and spreaders of the virus than the unvaccinated.
That leaves us with the protect the NHS argument, and frankly, given the fact that at the height of the pandemic pre-vaccine the NHS coped to the point that the Nightingale hospitals were never used for more than a few hundred people, I think as we move through the next few weeks of Omicron and it rips through the population that argument will be a busted flush also.
I do not for one second deny that there may be good arguments, especially for those within more vulnerable demographics to take a vaccine. My position is simply that they should assess the risk/reward ratio themselves and make their own choices, and base them on solid data rather than sensationalist hyperbole.
Certainly, I'll agree that this report outlines that in terms of emergency care and death, the older someone is the more likely they are to be at risk if they are unvaccinated.
On the flip side, it also shows that even when incorporating the over 80s within the data the chances of emergency care/death remain statistically very, very low. This is the type of data people should be weighing up and basing their decisions on. Not whether or not they will be able to go to a restaurant/football match/funeral etc.
If someone sees the benefit of a vaccine and makes their personal choice based on medical reasons, not social coercion then that is 100% down to them and the way things should be. The COVID vaccine, now data is becoming clearer on the dangers of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccines, should be the equivalent of the influenza vaccine. If you are vulnerable you should consider taking it. If you want that peace of mind and think there is no risk in the vaccine you should take it.
If you don't want/can't take it for whatever reason that is not the business of anyone other than yourself, your doctor and your maker.
Anyway, sorry for the long reply - the data you asked for is below.
Additional columns in the table:
Cases presenting to emergency care (within 28 days of a positive test) resulting in overnight inpatient admission, by specimen date between week 49 and week 52 2021Screenshot 2022-01-08 at 13.15.14.png
- Statistical likelihood of requiring emergency care for vaccinated - 0.12%
- Statistical likelihood of requiring emergency care for unvaccinated - 0.62%
Death within 28 days of positive COVID-19 test by date of death between week 49 and week 52 2021Screenshot 2022-01-08 at 13.15.22.png
- Statistical likelihood of dying within 28 days for vaccinated - 0.06%
- Statistical likelihood of dying within 28 days for unvaccinated - 0.33%
Death within 60 days of positive COVID-19 test by date of death between week 49 and week 52 2021Screenshot 2022-01-08 at 13.15.30.png
- Statistical likelihood of dying within 60 days for vaccinated - 0.08%
- Statistical likelihood of dying within 60 days for unvaccinated - 0.36%
All data is taken directly from the COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 1 which is available here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1_2022.pdfAs I say I encourage everyone to draw their own conclusions either way, but I just think people should do so based on the data rather than media headlines which is why I've made a point in a few posts on this thread lately that just share the data.