We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Unboostered Brits infected and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated

In fact, the UKHSA have given us a great gift, in that they finally provide separate case and severe outcome statistics for the triple-vaccinated and the double vaccinated, allowing us to compare rates across all three groups. They don’t do that themselves, of course, but no matter. We can use the raw numbers and rates from last week’s report to derive the total number of double and triple vaccinated, and the rates in this week’s report to derive the triple vaccinated population. A little subtraction then gives us a decent estimate of how many double but not triple vaccinated people there are in each age bracket.

Eugyppius

I strongly recommend reading the entire article.

13 comments to Unboostered Brits infected and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated

  • Jim

    There is a good argument that the apparent poor performance of the double vaccinated is actually hiding the poor performance of the boosters – as you are not considered officially ‘jabbed’ until 14 days after your shot, any infections in that period get allocated to the category below. And studies show that something like 50% of all breakthrough infections happen in the first 2 weeks post jab. So anyone who gets Omicron within 14 days of their booster gets put down as a ‘double vaccinated’ infection. Whereas in reality one of the main reasons they got infected was because their immune system was depleted by the booster shot. Its entirely possible that the boosters are having no effect whatsoever except give lots of people infections within 14 days of their shot (thus upping the double vaccinated infection rate and reducing the boosted rate) and the breakthrough infection rate should be similar for double vaccinated and double + booster vaccinated.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Unboostered Brits infected and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated

    So the boosters are functioning exactly as intended.

  • Paul Marks

    The conclusion that the government would want drawn from this is “get boosted – as the unboosted are dying” But this rather leaves out that the problem that people who were vaccinated may (may) now be dying at a higher rate than those that were not vaccinated.

    This would seem (seem) to lead to the conclusion that the injections are not good for health in the long term – that may (may) be bad for health in the long term. Obviously one can keep being “boosted” – if long term damage is done each time.

  • John B

    ‘ There is a good argument that the apparent poor performance of the double vaccinated is actually hiding the poor performance of the booster…’

    And also boosting the infection rate by making the boosted more susceptible to the virus on the rampage.

    This is a well known feature – weakening of the immune system for a period afterwards – of vaccination which is why vaccination during an epidemic is contraindicated, being counterproductive.

    This was accepted medical wisdom and practice up until March 2020.

    Of course if the object is to sell more doses of vaccines it makes perfect sense, rocketing infection rate ‘boosts’ the hysteria level panicking more of the herd to get boosted. It certainly boosts profits. I expect that is why it is called a booster dose.

  • John B

    ‘ Unboostered Brits infected and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated

    So the boosters are functioning exactly as intended.’

    Well, as the saying goes, it’s complicated. You are not ‘boosted’ until 14 days afterwards, so if you die meanwhile you are double, not triple vaccinated. But also if you caught CoVid before your 14 days were up but didn’t die for 21 to 28 days later (average infection to death period) you are still counted as double vaccinated. So boosted but not counted.

    That’s how they bias the figures to show the booster reduces deaths. Tricky lot aren’t they?

  • Rudolph Hucker

    More for the “strongly recommended” stack:-

    Neil Oliver: World leaders think the unvaccinated are next door to idiots, racists and misogynists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpqC1cb-RmU

    British Medical Journal (BMJ) : Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now
    Data should be fully and immediately available for public scrutiny

    https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102

  • Rudolph Hucker

    To whet your appetites:-

    In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The majority of trials that underpinned regulatory approval and government stockpiling of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) were sponsored by the manufacturer; most were unpublished, those that were published were ghostwritten by writers paid by the manufacturer, the people listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied.

    The Tamiflu saga heralded a decade of unprecedented attention to the importance of sharing clinical trial data. Public battles for drug company data, transparency campaigns with thousands of signatures, strengthened journal data sharing requirements, explicit commitments from companies to share data, new data access website portals, and landmark transparency policies from medicines regulators1415 all promised a new era in data transparency.

    Progress was made, but clearly not enough. The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come. This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.

    More:-
    https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102

  • Paul Marks

    People are still missing the point – which is that original injections (long before the boosters) may (may) actually be harming health in the long term.

    Which is why (it is alleged) that people who are double vaccinated are dying at a higher rate than people who were never vaccinated at all.

    That is the claim that is being implied – that people who are double vaccinated are now dying at a higher rate than people who were never vaccinated at all. I have no idea whether that claim is true or not – but that is the claim the article is making. That the vaccines give a short term benefit – at the expense of long term harm.

    A bit like Keynesian economics – but the words of Lord Keynes (when asked about the long term) “in the long run, we are all dead” are especially dark in this context.

  • APL

    Paul Marks: “which is that original injections (long before the boosters) may (may) actually be harming health in the long term.”

    Bless you Paul, I concluded that months ago, not by my self, I admit. Much of this stuff is well above my ‘pay grade’.

    Here are some questions:

    Given that the original ‘vaccines’ required an EUA (emergency use authorization) to permitt them to be administered to the population at large.
    Given that the original ‘vaccines’ were of a specific formulation, and it was that specific formulation that got the EUA.

    Are the boosters the same formulation*?

    If not do the boosters ‘vaccines’ require their own seperate EUA? Have they received one?

    If the ‘boosters’ and original ‘vaccines’ are the same, and we suspect the original ‘vaccines’ are ineffective at best, and causing injury at worst, why would anyone think injecting yourself with the same ineffective and possibly injurious ‘vaccine’, would improve your medical condition at all?

    If the ‘boosters’ and the original ‘vaccines’ are not the same, then where is the EUA for the ‘boosters’ and it there isn’t one, have the government(s) been administering an unapproved ‘booster’ vaccine, with out EUA?

    *The CEO of both Pfizer and Moderna are in the press saying their ‘vaccine’ is losing efficacy against Omicron, but their booster will ‘do the trick’, that suggests to me that the booster is a different formulation. in wich case, where the EUA for the booster ?

    Or have we arrived at the situation where the regulators just don’t care any more, and are happy for big pharma to shoot any old shite into a patient?

  • APL

    APL “Given that the original ‘vaccines’ were of a specific formulation, and it was that specific formulation that got the EUA.”

    Much has been made of the fact that one of the manufacturers ( I think Pfizer ) has received approval for a formulation that doesn’t need an EUA. Problem is, as I understand it, without the EUA the blanket liability exception for the company goes out the window too.

    I’ve forgotten the name ( Comirnaty ) or somthing, but you can’t get it for love nor money.

    By the way, approval for one of the vaccines, invalidates EUA approval for all the others. Because the EUA is conditional on there being no other avaliable treatment. So technically ( and legally? ) Comirnaty, invalidated the EUA of Moderna, J&J et all anti COVID-19 vaccines.

    But they are still floggin’ them.

  • The paper I linked to in a post of two months ago looked at known (but under-publicised) cases of negative vaccine efficiency – and how the effect can be missed by statistical analyses that assume a minimum efficiency of zero. (Just linking for convenience of any readers who wanted to compare with this post’s case.)

  • Eric

    The most obvious mundane explanation might be people who are completely unvaccinated are more likely to be from demographics for whom covid isn’t much of a threat – healthy people under 35, and vaccine efficacy falls off over time.