Page 23 of this report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034383/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-46.pdf
The current data given a 3 week period appears to show that the ages 30-80 that have been double jabbed are signficiantly more likely to get a positive covid-19 result than those who are not vaccinated. Also please note that the data presented is per 100,000, meaning that it has taken into account the proportion size of the fully vaccinated and the people that are unvaccinated.
Little confused here I thought that the whole reason the UK were mandating that the NHS and care home workers get this covid-19 vaccine was so that it would help stop the spread of this virus and yet this data seems to show that for ages 30-80 the vaccinated are more likely to actually get this virus. So little lost as to the Governments reasoning behind this is? I would say that money is behind the motive, but I don’t think the Government would swoop that low?
Before you all call be an anti-vaxxer I am proud to announce that I am doing my part in helping prevent the spread of the virus in the process saving lives because I am a good person that cares for the wellbeing of others and have received a covid-19 vaccine and so therefore am indeed vaccinated against this virus which has killed millions of people (even though this data I have presented here shows that 30-80 year olds are more likely to get this virus and maybe suggests that the fully vaccinated are more likely to transmit the virus…)
But yeah I would love to hear all your thoughts on this data that the UK Government have released here. Also currently reading this book “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and he presents a lot of really good information in this book which I think may be of interest to the readers here.
Mods please don’t ban for being anti-vax I am 100% for vaccination even if data shows that it may increase transmisibility of a virus.
1Comparing 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 summarised on pages 5 to 8 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 and there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 population groups. For example:
• people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace)
• many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues
• people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19
• people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks
Yes there are some flaws with this data as there is with all data. But to touch on the good point that you mention here.
Ok if this is in fact the case why doesn’t this report actually compare the number of vaccinated people in proportion to the number of unvaccinated people who get tested for this virus. I kinda feel like this is a red hering because the fact of the matter is if you are experiencing covid like symptoms regardless if you are vaccinated or unvaccinated then you will get a test for yourself… If you are not experiencing covid like symptoms then why do you feel the need to get tested?
Is they Government saying that the unvaccinated are less likely to get a covid-19 test even if they have symptoms? If so do they have any evidance to actually support this at all? And is significant enough to actually affect the outcome of the data presented here?
Not really sure what this is getting at to be completely honest? Almost all ages have had this vaccination and I don’t see how the timing of when you have had the vaccine would affect this data.
Ok yes the unvaccinated are very likely to have caught COVID prior to the date at which this report got the data. However the truth of the matter is - is that we really don’t know how many of the unvaccinated have actually had COVID in the past and if so if their R number is any different to that of the vaccinated. On the face of it - this data seems to suggest that the people that are fully vaccinated are more likely to receive a positive COVID test.
In all honesty I don’t really think that the differences in behaviour of those that are vaccinated and those that are not is really that significant as to actually make much of a difference in the data.
However with things such as vaccine passports needed for night clubs and other events in Wales and Scotland - there is an argument that the vaccinated are spreading the virus more than the unvaccinated because of things like that - we just don’t know…
But this three week period is a sample size of the cases of COVID in the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Of this sample size the vaccinated appear to be signifcantly more likely to have this virus in this three week period.
Happy to have a further discussion about the points that you mentioned here. But I feel that these points don’t really justify this massive difference in the vaccinated that are getting COVID. But I appreciate your input here.
As a reminder I am not anti-vax (mods please don’t ban me for misinformation or for being anti-vax)
I mean, even if you’re somehow more likely to get covid if vaccinated, you’re still more likely to likely to die without vaccination according to this data.
Yes I agree with your assessment of the data in this report that you are more likely to die without vaccination according to the data.
But my basic argument was that well if vaccination actually makes it more likely that you have covid-19 and theremore more likely to spread it to others then why are the UK making covid-19 vaccinations mandatory for the NHS and care homes citing concerns of patient safety? Its a really interesting issue and to be honest the more I look into this the more I realize just how hard it is to draw definitive conclusions about issues such as this. Hence why I wanted to receive some input regarding this data to see if my assessments of this data were correct and from the very little dicussion on this post it seems that nobody has actually debunked this data drawing me towards the idea that the vaccianted are actually more likely to spread the virus than the unvaccinated.
Facts don’t care about your feelings. Ask a doctor. Not a bunch of techies on the internet.
Interesting point… How do we define what a “fact” is? Who makes that judgement and by what rationale is this judgement based on? I argue here that we define facts based on how we feel because I believe that we are emotional creatures - not rationale ones.
Regardless you seemed to have missed by entire argument and not said anything about the points I raised suggesting that you can’t actually argue against them and so have resorted to how I have worded a sentence - not the points and arguments I actually made.
Regardless the post will likely be censored soon by mods even though I have said multiple times on this post and comments that I am in no way anti-vax and have myself gone ahead and received my vaccination for covid-19 in the hopes that it will save many people’s lives from this deadly virus (virtue signaling)