She goes to the data sources and the relevant papers, and always justifies any statement or opinion.
Printable View
I didn't like her attitude. It's not a serious tone. I felt it was quite sneering and not appropriate for someone putting across serious points to a serious audience.
In the first minute or so she defined an anti-vaxxer as "people who spread disinformation about vaccines" and then her opening headline point is that "not everyone lives to old age" is apparently the first thing that anti-vaxxers are hiding from you.
What? Really?
You want me to watch this whole video? It's hard to take it seriously.
But I went on a little longer.
At 3 minutes in, she goes to the ONS data - coincidentally this is the same data source that the BBC Radio 4 programme guy Stuart MacDonald used.
This data as she explained uses the Census as a base and then links in to other data such as NIMS.
I did tell you I had contacted Mr McDonald and I did some follow up because his data suggests more than 90% vaccinated and his and your friends position lives or dies by this 90%+ figure.
In the UK we have an Office for Statistics Regulation.
The Director General on this matter got involved because there were discrepancies between ONS and UKHSA figures and it is important to know why.
People crunching the numbers were jumping on the data that best suited them.
In our view, although the number of people in each vaccination category is used in the (ONS) publication, it is only used to determine the age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) of each group. The number of people in each group is not and should not be used as a measure of vaccine uptake in the UK. This is because the sample in this publication is not random: as indicated above, those missing from the sampling frame are more likely to unvaccinated. We will look to ONS to make this distinction clearer.
Overall, then, our view is that the Deaths by Vaccination Status publication does not provide information on vaccine effectiveness or vaccine safety, and should not be used in this way. We would advise use of the weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, published by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), instead.
So this lady you like seems to me to fit in to one of two possible camps.
She either isn't aware of this and is making a mistake presenting that ONS data to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness
or
She does know and is a dishonest actor.
One thing ONS has done now is that it's reporting has gone from using the 2011 census as it's base to the 2021 census, so it will be closer to a representative dataset that it was 6 months ago, but the methodology is still the same.
I spent hours going through the BBC Radio 4 broadcast and I'm not going to spend a similar amount of time going through this lady's presentation which seems to be along similar lines.
It's out there for folk to read if interested.
I have one comment to end with.
The BBC 4 Programme really should have had someone opposite Stuart McDonald. There is an alternative view out there and conflicting data and it's only by having full and frank discussions that progress is made on contentious issues.
But it was simple numbers when it was decided to close the pubs, to work from home and to impose the lockdowns.
I get it; if the numbers support your view then it it's a case of 'following the data'. If they don't then it's a case of "It is not just simple numbers", or "Lies, damn lies and then statistics".
"Overall, then, our view is that the Deaths by Vaccination Status publication does not provide information on vaccine effectiveness or vaccine safety, and should not be used in this way. We would advise use of the weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, published by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), instead."
I have asked her to clarify!
Oh Gosh. What a plethora of data and varying interpretations.
I'm reminded of that old saying:
'Figures won't lie: but liars will figure' (and yes that could perhaps equally apply to all sides of any debate).
More recently, a potential side-affect of COVID vaccines was reported in Nature: "COVID vaccines linked to unexpected vaginal bleeding: A large cohort study measured how frequently women reported bleeding after receiving COVID-19 jabs".
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02996-6
So it's good that some monitoring/research is continuing. But as Dr Andrew Bamji wrote:
"One thing bothers me, and always has – with this and all other disputed items [the issues of Covid and climate change have become interweaved]. If the so-called vaccine deniers who have done careful analyses of available data like this are wrong, why are these analyses not properly and scientifically debunked? All we get is bluster, very occasionally quoting improperly conducted trials. There is of course a good reason they are not debunked, and that is because they are correct. Am I wrong?
This concern is especially important right now as there are official mutterings about the worry of a coronavirus resurgence and the need for booster vaccinations. But there are many unknowns. What is the real risk of post-Covid vaccination myocarditis? What are the potential risks of DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines? Could the introduction of plasmids cause short or long-term changes within cells that have substantial and perhaps frightening consequences?
The answer is, we don’t know. Maybe, but maybe not. The research has not been done (or if it has the results have not been revealed). Given the potential risk, particularly the long-term risk of incorporating foreign DNA into cell nuclei, would it not be wise to suspend vaccination programmes until we do know?"
Has he provided an interpretation from the different data, or just provided/advised the use of a different set of data?
As to Susan Oliver having a sneering attitude, that is of course subjective - I find her playfully jocular, yet serious at times - also subjective. By the way, have you seen her list of publications (gulp)? That does not make her right of course, but it is still impressive.
Not an interpretation but if you look at post #273 and read the quote you will see he recommends the UK HSA.
Problem is, the UK HSA stopped producing the figures in 2022, so the statistically best measure ended and now the only ongoing measures is the ONS one.
The ONS is the most up to date, some may say. However the ONS figure for "ever vaccinated" of 90%+ is still the same as it was a year ago when the UK HSA was 80%.
Here's another example of what happens. Remember back in 2022 the BBC Documentary "Unvaccinated"? Well they used ICM to put together some data for the programme.
Here's the ICM front page.
https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-wor...tions-for-stv/
2570 residents sampled.
1894 ever vaccinated
74%
Click on download, open the spreadsheet, Counts and Percents Tab, B16 and the 664 unvaccinated have all of a sudden been reduced to 207 and magically we have the vaccinated as 92%. Over 400 unvaccinated people have been shunted in to the vaccinated side of the equation.
Look at rows 24 and 25
"All unvaccinated and no further doses" which is essence means I haven't been and never will be.
Row 25 is the polling number
Row 24 is the weighted number.
Column B25 - the actual figure is 825
Column B24 - the weighted figureis 451 - adjusted to better reflect what exactly for the proposes of this analysis.
Look at the background tab, and you can see the explanation of the weighting which is linked back to the ONS Census derived data.
So why do the poll? Because they've done their poll and then weighted it to match precisely the data from the ONS.
ONS that our statistics regulator has already identified as weighted against the unvaccinated.
If weighting, why use the ONS and not the more accurate UK HSA and notice the poll more closely reflected the UK HSA figures so might well have been pretty much on the money.
Some call this weighting. I call it deception.
Continual gerrymandering of what is real until eventually the only figure out there is 92% and then all analysis flowing from that is worth diddly-squat, but it keeps everyone off the Governments, NHS, Sage, Pfizer and Modernas backs and gives 80% of the population reassurance.
When first you practice to deceive...
The UK's Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) 'Finally Admits it Failed to Test the Safety of Mass Manufactured Covid Vaccine Batches"...
'On December 8th 2020, June Raine, Head of the MHRA, assured us all that “no corners have been cut” when the Government gave Temporary Authorisation to the Pfizer Covid vaccine. Based on the evidence from FOIs to MHRA, it’s hard to see how that was an honest statement.'
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/28/...ccine-batches/
Raine actually wrote "Of course, no stone should be left unturned" which is not the same as "no corners have been cut".
I thought her piece was rather elegant but then I am fascinated by corporate discourse.
Of course, no stone should be left unturned. And that’s why it’s important that we don’t just rely on our own analysis. So, once we have reviewed the data, we seek advice from the Government’s independent advisory body, the Commission on Human Medicines. They critically assess the data too before advising the UK government on the safety, quality and effectiveness of any vaccine.
On 1 December we received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care asking us to authorise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine under Regulation 174, an EU provision introduced in national law that allows for the authorisation of a medicine in response to a public health need.
This means that, instead of having to go through the centralised licensing route of the European Medicines Agency (as most vaccines do until the end of the transition period), we were able to authorise the supply of the vaccine based on public health need, provided the batches meet specific conditions laid out by us. For those concerned about this, I can assure you without reservation that the standards we have worked to are equivalent to those around the world – no corners have been cut.
She actually did write and claim "For those concerned about this, I can assure you without reservation that the standards we have worked to are equivalent to those around the world – no corners have been cut." (emphasis added). See para 14 in the linked article.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/j...st-of-the-west
This is starting to read like one of Oracle's posts. Just saying.
For those of you who are time-short, here is the ICM front page, and below it the spreadsheet they invite you to download with the different unvaccinated figure.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...86cb314d_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6ea402c8_b.jpg
Double jabbed this evening.
Flu in the left arm and Covid in the right.
I had the the flu jab first which hurt like hell but I hardly felt the Covid. Perhaps I was distracted by my left arm hurting.
Hopefully there will be no adverse reaction and I'll be on the Breiddens start line for my showdown with Travs on Sunday! :rolleyes::D
Off to town for our double jabs in a minute, I feel a bit happier when it is done.
I'd never realised there were so many sheep.
I do wish we had like buttons for comments.
I've had a email saying I can get my flu and covid jabs.. will sort next week. I also had an email saying Ive reached the age where I'm allowed to have a test for Bowel cancer, I'll discuss this with my doc when i speak to them about my cholesterol levels.. good grief..!!! ;)
In this country Pharma aren't allowed to advertise. Only USA and New Zealand apparently hence in the US currently "brought to you by Pfizer" is a talking point :)
But noticed shingles vaccine adverts on TV recently as if it's a public information film by the NHS or something, but they have a Glaxo Smith Klyne logo and small print in the corner.
Shingrox is worth £2Billion a year. £170 per dose privately I believe.
The campaign is called "Shingles is Sleeping". It seems to me that the regulators are.
Woke up this morning with a thick head and very sore upper arms so took it easy today with just a 3 mile dog walk this afternoon.
However, this evening I had to take my son for a 2 hour appointment in Matlock so whilst waiting for him I went for a 6 mile flat road run to Matlock Bath and back at 7.30 mm pace. I felt fine.
This was the first time for many years that I have run in a town during darkness. I quite enjoyed the smells from different food outlets, dodging pedestrians and bloody cyclist's on the pavements. The time seems to pass more quickly as there is always something to focus on. Also, Matlock Bath Illuminations are on and there was a floodlit canoe club event on the Derwent. The only negative was the smell of weed in the air.
I shan't be making a habit of it though and look forward to tomorrows RATRun where the only light pollution will be from our headtorches.
Eligibility for the Shingles vaccine is a bit weird: those turning 65 and those turning 70 from about now - if you turned 65 in June you have to wait almost 5 years; if you turn 65 in November you can get it straight away. This is my interpretation - by all means correct me if I am wrong.
Why get a jab when you can have the real thing? I've boosted my immunity with a dose of genuine Nottingham University "freshers' flu", brought to me by my son's girlfriend (a student at the said institution). :rolleyes: Racing this Saturday is looking a bit doubtful.