Every Week It Gets Worse: The Latest PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Every Week It Gets Worse: The Latest PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report

Even Public Health England knows the infection numbers are bad.

eugyppius.substack.com

The Public Health England vaccine surveillance report for week 43 has dropped. Here’s the breakdown of official infections by vaccination status for the four weeks from 27 Sept. to 18 Oct.:

I had to make the graph myself, because they’re not publishing it anymore. Instead, we just get the tables, which they’ve festooned with hilarious disclaimers pleading that these numbers are “unadjusted,” by which they mean “inconvenient.”

On p. 20, they protest further:

Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described on pages 4 to 7 in this report. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated. For example:
• people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19
• people who are fully vaccinated may engage in more social interactions because of their vaccination status, and therefore may have greater exposure to circulating COVID-19 infection
• people who are unvaccinated may have had past COVID-19 infection prior to the 4-week reporting period in the tables above, thereby artificially reducing the COVID-19 case rate in this population group, and making comparisons between the 2 groups less valid

It’s almost embarrassing to address these revealing, isolated demands for rigour:
1) The “different sources” which “formally estimate” efficacy “on pages 4 [actually, it’s 5] to 7 in this report” were all written months ago. So.
2) They really, really don’t want to argue that “people who are fully vaccinated” are “more health conscious.” That would suggest prior differences in the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which would in turn suggest that worse outcomes in the unvaccinated are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding.
3) It is obvious to everyone that self-isolating Corona recluses are going to be found primarily on the vaccinated side of these breakdowns.
4) Yes, some of you have also postulated that higher rates of natural immunity among the unvaccinated are a major factor. What an embarrassment for the vaccinators, who are left to muse that populations with a partial rate of natural immunity are vastly more protected from infection than populations which have been fully vaccinated.

 

[Hack-Hook]

maybe this explain

your problem is that you don't understand data , if you want to make a real population based comparison you must consider that the percentage of unvaccinated is actually 1/4th of the vaccinated ones and consider it in your charts
maybe this explain

your problem is that you don't understand data , if you want to make a real population based comparison you must consider that the percentage of unvaccinated is actually 1/4th of the vaccinated ones and consider it in your charts

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

maybe this explain

your problem is that you don't understand data , if you want to make a real population based comparison you must consider that the percentage of unvaccinated is actually 1/4th of the vaccinated ones and consider it in your charts
maybe this explain

your problem is that you don't understand data , if you want to make a real population based comparison you must consider that the percentage of unvaccinated is actually 1/4th of the vaccinated ones and consider it in your charts

It only works for a few months.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It only works for a few months.

the more you get vaccinated it last more and that is beside the point , the article miss represented the data to prove some fake and wrong idea

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

the more you get vaccinated it last more

No. The more frequently you do it, the less effective it is. This is called vaccine blunting. This is true of flu shots. I assume it is also true of covid shots. I quote:


For pregnant women who had received the flu vaccine the year before their pregnancy, then, would their babies end up with less protection? That’s what Christian and fellow researchers wanted to find out.


They measured the titers—the amount of antibodies against influenza in the blood—in 141 pregnant women just before they received the seasonal flu shot. Most of the women worked at Ohio State University and OSU Wexner Medical Center, where employees are required to get vaccinated against the flu.


Fifty of the women had not received the flu vaccine the previous year, and the other 91 women had. Unsurprisingly, the women who had gotten the flu shot the previous year had higher titers against all four strains of the flu than the other 50 women.


A month after the women received the vaccine for the current year, the researchers measured their titers again. A person should show peak antibody levels 30 days after an inactivated flu vaccination. In line with previous studies, women who had received the vaccine a year earlier had considerably reduced rates of seroconversion, or a full immune response to the vaccine. For example, for the H1N1 strain of the vaccine, only 16% of the women with prior vaccinations seroconverted, compared to 78% of women who had not gotten the shot the year before. The disparities in rates were similar for the other three flu strains in the vaccine.

source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/taraha...-even-the-second-time-around/?sh=4b472ffa3294

 

[Hack-Hook]

No. The more frequently you do it, the less effective it is. This is called vaccine blunting. This is true of flu shots. I assume it is also true of covid shots. I quote:


For pregnant women who had received the flu vaccine the year before their pregnancy, then, would their babies end up with less protection? That’s what Christian and fellow researchers wanted to find out.


They measured the titers—the amount of antibodies against influenza in the blood—in 141 pregnant women just before they received the seasonal flu shot. Most of the women worked at Ohio State University and OSU Wexner Medical Center, where employees are required to get vaccinated against the flu.


Fifty of the women had not received the flu vaccine the previous year, and the other 91 women had. Unsurprisingly, the women who had gotten the flu shot the previous year had higher titers against all four strains of the flu than the other 50 women.


A month after the women received the vaccine for the current year, the researchers measured their titers again. A person should show peak antibody levels 30 days after an inactivated flu vaccination. In line with previous studies, women who had received the vaccine a year earlier had considerably reduced rates of seroconversion, or a full immune response to the vaccine. For example, for the H1N1 strain of the vaccine, only 16% of the women with prior vaccinations seroconverted, compared to 78% of women who had not gotten the shot the year before. The disparities in rates were similar for the other three flu strains in the vaccine.

source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/taraha...-even-the-second-time-around/?sh=4b472ffa3294

so you assume, but the research shows third dose make the body to produce 5 time more antibodies

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

so you assume, but the research shows third dose make the body to produce 5 time more antibodies

Antibodies are only one part of immune system. It does not prevent infection but can prevent hospitalization. Edward Jenner's smallpox vax was so effective you take it once and you will never get smallpox in your lifetime. Modern vax are garbage compared to Edward Jenner's vax.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Antibodies are only one part of immune system. It does not prevent infection but can prevent hospitalization. Edward Jenner's smallpox vax was so effective you take it once and you will never get smallpox in your lifetime. Modern vax are garbage compared to Edward Jenner's vax.

Love seeing Edvard gener try to make a vaccine for covid.

By the way if you knew about complication from his vaccine you would have eaten him alive.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Love seeing Edvard gener try to make a vaccine for covid.

By the way if you knew about complication from his vaccine you would have eaten him alive.

Edward Jenner used live virus vaccine which is best. Modern vax are crap. These are for profit companies. They don't cure. They sell ineffective vax at large quantities to make more money. They are evil. Flu shots don't work. Covid shots don't work.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Edward Jenner used live virus vaccine which is best. Modern vax are crap. These are for profit companies. They don't cure. They sell ineffective vax at large quantities to make more money. They are evil. Flu shots don't work. Covid shots don't work.

Edvard even didn't used a pox virus itself he was lucky to hear from a dairy maid that she won't get infected because she previously got cow pox

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Edvard even didn't used a pox virus itself he was lucky to hear from a dairy maid that she won't get infected because she previously got cow pox

My point is live virus vaccine works. Other kinds of vax don't work. Only for money. Not for curing.

 

[Hack-Hook]

My point is live virus vaccine works. Other kinds of vax don't work. Only for money. Not for curing.

and again 90% of vaccine you received as a child were not live vaccine
and as a matter of fact live vaccines have the problem of dead virus vaccine , they target all the antigen so the immune system response is not that strong .
pox virus don't do mutation that's why the immunity last

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

pox virus don't do mutation that's why the immunity last

Pox virus has powerful immune suppression genes. It is large complex DNA virus.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Pox virus has powerful immune suppression genes. It is large complex DNA virus.

well DNA is a lot more stable than RNA
Influenza is part of Orthomyxoviridae which are negative-sense RNA viruses and well Covid-19 is a coronavirus, well they are also RNA viruses
by the way you didn't become tired of posting wrong information