Decline the jab

[Witton Park]

What criteria are you using?

UK HSA Noel that gave weekly surveillance reports and broke down the figures by vaccination status. I used to do my own weekly analysis taking out the figures from around November 2021 when the boosters had started through to March 2022.
The figures showed positive tests, presenting to emergency care and death.
For around 6 weeks over Xmas 21/22 the data tilted in the favour of the vaccinated and showed the booster had some benefit.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ember-2022.pdf
In some age categories they calculated that even vaccinating the whole population would not save a hospitalisation - not death - just hospitalisation.

UK Govt figures.

Note the date - Oct 22 so plenty of time to evaluate being 20 months post vaccine roll out.

On your meta analysis, the dates look a bit suspect. August 2020, so 4-5 months before the start of the vaccination programme and to October 2021, when some hadn't yet received the 2nd jab.

[Feet In The Cloughs]

On your meta analysis, the dates look a bit suspect. August 2020, so 4-5 months before the start of the vaccination programme and to October 2021, when some hadn't yet received the 2nd jab.

The August 2020 date refers to the search point start for this meta analysis (of global studies) and includes phase III clinical trials prior to mass public vaccination and these were not included in the work but some were used to compare vaccine effectiveness given in trials with ‘real world’ vaccine delivery.
The final two paragraphs of the paper are instructive:
‘Studies in the real-world setting around the world have shown that the approved vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2; therefore, the aim should be full vaccination according to the standard schedule to achieve maximum VE. It is worth noting that vaccination cannot eliminate the risk of infection (Brosh-Nissimov et al., 2021), and preventive and control measures should be taken seriously, especially for high-risk groups.
In conclusion, consistent with the results of phase III clinical trials, the authorized vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2 in real-world settings. Furthermore, the actual VE depends not only on the effectiveness of the vaccine itself but also on the vaccinated population and status. Preventive measures remain essential’ (Zheng et al. 2022).

Zheng C, Shao W, Chen X, Zhang B, Wang G, Zhang W. Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Jan;114:252-260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.009. Epub 2021 Nov 17. PMID: 34800687; PMCID: PMC8595975.

[Witton Park]

The August 2020 date refers to the search point start for this meta analysis (of global studies) and includes phase III clinical trials prior to mass public vaccination and these were not included in the work but some were used to compare vaccine effectiveness given in trials with ‘real world’ vaccine delivery.
The final two paragraphs of the paper are instructive:
‘Studies in the real-world setting around the world have shown that the approved vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2; therefore, the aim should be full vaccination according to the standard schedule to achieve maximum VE. It is worth noting that vaccination cannot eliminate the risk of infection (Brosh-Nissimov et al., 2021), and preventive and control measures should be taken seriously, especially for high-risk groups.
In conclusion, consistent with the results of phase III clinical trials, the authorized vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2 in real-world settings. Furthermore, the actual VE depends not only on the effectiveness of the vaccine itself but also on the vaccinated population and status. Preventive measures remain essential’ (Zheng et al. 2022).

Zheng C, Shao W, Chen X, Zhang B, Wang G, Zhang W. Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Jan;114:252-260. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.009. Epub 2021 Nov 17. PMID: 34800687; PMCID: PMC8595975.

and it's Chinese, and it refers to "approved vaccines" - the vaccines referred to never completed the approval process.

[Fellbeast]

I think someone’s been watching too much GB News

[Witton Park]

I think someone’s been watching too much GB News

Where do you get your news from Brian?

[Fellbeast]

Mostly from the Guardian, Sky News, The Times (even though they are fast trying to emulate the Telegraph) and, oh, Keith on Twitter for the Barclay Marathons

[Witton Park]

I tend to use independent sources, rarely watch news on TV now and avoid the extreme end like James Delingpole who I have sympathies with on Climate but he goes OTT on other issues including covid.
I like PBD Podcast, Andrew Gold, Triggernometry, Unherd, Spiked.

Particularly PBD and Triggernometry have a range of people on.

I think you need to venture outside of your bubble a tad Brian. Sky and the Guardian are like twins and I hear you on the Times, but that's probably only because of your other two sources. I'm not saying ditch them, I'm saying venture out a bit.
The Telegraph is poor. I didn't renew last time.

[Witton Park]

Families across the UK were treated in the NHS and thousands died and many others have had their lives shattered.

For those still alive, many aspects of their lives are changed forever. Transplants pending or done, cancer risks heightened and constant monitoring required.

"This disaster was not an accident"

"People put their faith in Doctors and in the Government to keep them safe, and their trust was betrayed."

"The NHS and successive Governments compounded the agony by refusing to accept that wrong had been done"

Claims made by people in authority were untrue.

Just a few quotes and findings announced yesterday by Sir Brian Langstaff. It was about the blood scandal of course.

But I was struck by parallels that I see with the management of Covid.