What do the UK Vaccine Surveillance Reports tell us?

Source: American Thinker.

The reports show that the pandemic in the UK is a pandemic of the vaccinated, according to the writer. For the three time periods examined:

  • Vaccinated deaths were about four times greater than unvaccinated deaths.
  • Vaccinated hospitalizations were about two times greater than unvaccinated hospitalizations.

For two of the three time periods examined, vaccinated cases (breakthrough infections) were greater than unvaccinated cases.

I note there are several ways to account for this result pattern. Patient age and vaccination rates by age cohort may be significant factors, for example. In other words, you can’t use the result pattern to say that Covid vaccination is ineffective.

You can, however, use the result pattern to say there is no “pandemic of the unvaccinated” in the UK at the present time.

26 thoughts on “What do the UK Vaccine Surveillance Reports tell us?

  1. This is a STUPID line of reasoning that has been debunked countless times. Here is why. Try to follow along.

    If the vaccine is less than 100% effective, then SOME vaccinated people are going to get sick. As the number of vaccinated people increases there will be an increase in the number of vaccinated people who get ill. At some point there will be more illness among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated. When 100% of the people have been vaccinated then 100% of the illness will be among the vaccinated.

    What matters is the comparative rate of infection vaccinated versus unvaccinated. On that the evidence is clear. The unvaccinated are far more likely to fall ill (and have a serious outcome) than the vaccinated.

    You keep looking for evidence to support your decision to remain unvaccinated. You are not going to find any. Remaining unvaccinated when vaccination is safe, effective and free is just not a good idea.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I would argue that rate of infection is less important than rate of hospitalization.

      But yes, this report falls victim to self-selection and the UK has a high vaccination rate. Further, comparisons between pre and post Omicron don’t really mean much.

      The important thing now is that we shift focus from immunity to therapeutics, as the immunity race is one we cannot win in the long run with a mutating virus

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “The important thing now is that we shift focus from immunity to therapeutics, as the immunity race is one we cannot win in the long run with a mutating virus.”

        Exactly right. The statistical snapshot the writer presents makes a good argument for strengthening the therapeutic response to the pandemic as a matter of public health policy. Moreover, if old age is the main factor affecting health outcomes, then, logically, rationing of therapeutic medicines should by done by age.

        Like

        1. Not really.

          All the fighting we have done over the vaccines for the last year might come to nothing if you are high risk and get infected with Omicron before Paxlovid is available locally.

          Think of the vaccines as buying time while finding cures.

          Like

          1. My age 79 father tested positive last Friday. I talked with him yesterday and he is much better. He had both shots and then his booster. He believes wholeheartedly that if he had not taken the vaccine, he would have been hospitalized (or worse.)

            Like

          2. Thank you.

            We are not sure of which mutation he had, but it is more than likely Omicron.

            Remember he lives in the NY Metro and was in town at an event where all in attendance had to be tested prior to entry, vaccinations were also required of those in attendance. Omicron, while less severe, is more transmissible.

            This also brings up another question: If you think you may have contracted COVID and you take a home test to determine if you have or not, how is that reported? Do you know, because that question was raised in my mind after talking to him last Saturday.

            Like

    2. RE: “If the vaccine is less than 100% effective, then SOME vaccinated people are going to get sick. As the number of vaccinated people increases there will be an increase in the number of vaccinated people who get ill.”

      I actually pointed this out in my post.

      RE: “What matters is the comparative rate of infection vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

      As stated: “For two of the three time periods examined, vaccinated cases (breakthrough infections) were greater than unvaccinated cases.”

      You are attacking straw men.

      Like

  2. This line of reasoning is repeated weekly by the right wing. It has as much veracity as tourists at the Capitol, the Big Lie, Gates’ microchips, yada, yada, yada.

    But, as has been demonstrated throughout history, repeating lies often enough provides the aura of truth to the vulnerable and insecure.

    Unfortunately, there is a significant minority that are willing to be duped. Like the shell game, a few shills can sucker enough folks to make a profit.

    Ignorance is the catalyst for a failing democracy.

    IMHANEO of course.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Your assertion that the vaccinated are hospitalized and dying at greater rates without the comparative reasoning is misleading propaganda designed to disparage the vaccines.

        Right wing fake news.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “Your assertion that the vaccinated are hospitalized and dying at greater rates…”

          That assertion is factually true based on the data examined.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If the vast majority are vaccinated, then even a few breakthroughs will be more than the unvaccinated.

            If everyone is unvaccinated, then all cases are the unvaccinated. And vice versa.

            If everyone wears seatbelts, then all fatalities will among the wearers. So does that prove that seatbelts are deadly?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “If everyone wears seatbelts, then all fatalities will among the wearers. So does that prove that seatbelts are deadly?”

            Of course not. But then neither the post nor the source argue that vaccines are deadly.

            If most actual infections, hospitalizations and deaths are among the vaccinated, then something other than vaccination is needed to deal with the pandemic.

            Like

      2. You were clearly duped by this bogus analysis, gleefully spread its dishonest message and now are not man enough to simply admit it.

        Further, the idea that there is some sort of trade-off to be made between vaccinations and therapeutics is a false dilemma. BOTH should be pushed hard as a matter of public policy. But if resources are a limiting factor, then vaccinations should get priority. ONE avoidable hospitalization costs more than dozens, if not hundreds, of vaccinations.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “What is bogus about the analysis?”
            Uh, I explained that in my first response.

            You clearly still fail to understand the obvious point. In your response to Len, you have confused “numbers” with “rates” AGAIN. Even after it was explained for you.

            I will try again. In a highly vaccinated country – like the UK – there may well be more illness among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Those are the “numbers.” But the “rate” of illness for the unvaccinated remains much higher than the “rate” for the vaccinated. And it is the “rate” you should be looking at if you are thinking of not getting vaccinated.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “In a highly vaccinated country – like the UK – there may well be more illness among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.”

            That’s irrelevant to the post and the source. The UK data presents vaccinated/unvacinated numbers for three distinct populations: the dead, the hospitalized and the infected. As stated in the post, you can’t use the result pattern to say that Covid vaccination is ineffective, but you can say there is no “pandemic of the unvaccinated” in the UK at the present time.

            The latter point is true based on case numbers and doesn’t need to be stated in terms of case rates (that is by using a comparison ratio such as cases per 100,000 population). Why? Because no one is arguing that the data reveal anything about vaccine effectiveness.

            Like

          3. I give up.

            You are twisting logic into pretzels to attack vaccination and will twist any evidence to fit your sorry convictions. There is NOTHING in these UK findings that supports ANYTHING you want to believe. You are playing with words to convey the LIE that vaccinations are not important.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “That I am attacking vaccination is a figment of your imagination.”

            My overactive imagination is your go to bullshit when you cannot simply admit your stupidity, gullibility, and/or dishonesty when you get caught.

            You ARE attacking vaccinations. You have linked to a piece that uses the debunked bogus logic described above to reach this conclusion. . .

            “Thanks to the UK Vaccine Surveillance Weekly reports, though, we can learn that the Covid-19 vaccines do not do what they were advertised.”

            That is FALSE. Vaccinations are “advertised” to reduce the chance and/or the severity of Covid infections. That is EXACTLY what they do. The UK Vaccine Surveillance reports confirm that such is the case, but your dishonest author rejects those rate findings for bogus reasons. He writes. . .

            “Each report contains more than just “raw data.” Thus, they have various types of analysis, such as “Unadjusted rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and death in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.” However, I always believe that the “raw data” is much more telling than those analyses, which are likely influenced by analysts’ biases.”

            These so-called “biased” rate analyses are nothing more than simple math. And they are the ONLY meaningful data in the report if you want to know if vaccines perform as “advertised.”

            Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Vaccinations are ‘advertised’ to reduce the chance and/or the severity of Covid infections.”

          How convenient. Once breakthrough infections became common, the messaging changed.

          RE: “The UK Vaccine Surveillance reports confirm that such is the case…”

          No, they don’t. I was quite specific on this point. As I said to Mr. Rothman, “If most actual infections, hospitalizations and deaths are among the vaccinated, then something other than vaccination is needed to deal with the pandemic.”

          You keep trying to mount an argument against positions never taken.

          Like

        2. “How convenient. Once breakthrough infections became common, the messaging changed.”

          Bullshit. There has been no change in “messaging.” The vaccinations were NEVER advertised to be 100% certain. The fight against the virus has always been multi-faceted – vaccines, treatments, testing, masking, social distancing.

          There is ZERO reason to ease up on the push for vaccinations. None. Especially in our country where less than 35% of those eligible have had the full course of inoculations available. The arguments to do so in this article are bogus.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “There is ZERO reason to ease up on the push for vaccinations.”

            If you say so. No one said there was a reason, but if you need to pontificate on this point, the superfluousness is all yours.

            What the UK Vaccine Surveillance Reports tell us is that infection, hospitalization and death are (recently, at least) a problem among the vaccinated in the UK. Nothing you have said refutes this objective reality.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s