Update on the failure of the vaccines to protect against death
Last week I analysed data accidentally released by the UKHSA that appeared to show that two doses of vaccine rapidly fail to offer any protection whatsoever, in opposition to official statistics that continue to show that the vaccines, while offering no protection against infection, still offer protection against illness and death.
This week the UKHSA has updated their methodology, and they are no longer reporting on any statistics relating to two doses of vaccine only. I think it is time to update our analysis…
Thankfully, the UKHSA do release enough data to be able to estimate the impact of two doses only. The fact that the rate of infections is far higher in the vaccinated has now been shown for many months — indeed, the only people who continue to maintain that they have some residual protection against infection are government bodies...
So, today’s estimates of the protection of two doses only against hospitalisation and death are:
It appears that things have got somewhat worse since last week’s report, with the hospitalisation and death rates in the double vaccinated (not boosted) exceeding that seen in the unvaccinated for all aged over 70, and with a higher death rate in those aged over 60 as well.
What’s more, there now appears to be practically no benefit of vaccination with two doses of vaccine for those aged under 60, in terms of the remaining protection against hospitalisation and death.
You’d think that the UKHSA would be informing the public of the failure of the vaccines, to help people make informed choices, but instead they’re working hard to make it difficult to access these data; it is clear that the UKHSA is not working for the benefit of the population.
In addition, these data suggest that the idea of vaccine mandates and passports should now be dead; our governments cannot impose vaccine mandates when their performance is so very terrible and where they look as though they’re actually increasing risks. I note that the UK government only yesterday stated that they were removing the requirement for vaccine passports imminently — perhaps they got advance notice of these data from the UKHSA.
This looks to me like a direct reaction to the recently leaked legal advice to UK Government to the effect that the vaccine mandates are very vulnerable to judicial review. The mandates require double vaccination; UKSHA data showing sky high case rates in doubly vaccinated would be absolutely disastrous for judicial review purposes. So presentation of this data has to be stopped.
If this analysis is right, it amounts to major breach of civil service code & legal requirements- civil servants are not permitted to conceal data to serve political ends. I’d suggest useful step would be FOIs to UKSHA seeking all correspondence (including Teams discussions) & meeting minutes relating to decision to change approach- in particular who signed off on it, what consideration given to accessibility & any discussion of effect of change in context of of NHS mandates - and of course the figures for the doubly vaccinated. The civil service code is there for a reason. This sort of flagrant violation & politicisation of data presentation is immoral and dangerous.
I've also emailed the (UK) EHRC noting that as the figures show clearly that jabbing makes no difference to a person being infectious, any discrimination against the unjabbed is just that - discrimination, pure and simple...
To whom it may concern:
Given that we now know that the four new format experimental gene therapy treatments for Covid neither protect you from getting Covid or from then infecting others, any action against the unvaccinated is clear and obvious discrimination.
I urge you to take action against all public sector agencies threatening to implement vaccine mandates, and also against any such actions in the private sector.
Many thanks
(Jeremy Poynton)
Triple-Jabbed Over-30s Have Higher Infection Rates Than the Unvaccinated, UKHSA Data Show