So here’s some more data out of the UK (I wonder why we here in the US don’t publish this kind of data…) showing that maybe what you “know” about the vaccine isn’t what actually is. Let’s take a look:
As you can see, after the age of 30 (when the majority of people are vaxxed) we see an increasingly disproportionate amount of cases in the fully vaxxed than in the completely unvaxxed. How do you explain that? Here’s how the Brits and the “experts” over here explain it (my caps): “1 In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a LARGE PROPORTION OF CASES, hospitalisations [sic] and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a LARGER PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION ARE VACCINATED than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective.” First, bullocks! Second, again I apologize, but I must point out it is “larger proportion” of the population "IS", not "ARE” Sorry, can’t help it. But look at the numbers. About two-thirds of the UK is vaxxed, so even if the vaccine did NOTHING in the way of protection, the vaxxed cases should be about 2:1 to the unvaxxed.
Let’s look at it this way: Say you live in a country called Sheepland, pronounced Sheeplend, not SHEEP-LAND (shout out Frozen) with 900,000 people where everyone wears the same blue t-shirt all the time (representing no vaccines). Then an evil virus invaded your nation, and that virus had an infection “rate” of 3 per 100,000 (we’ll get to this in a moment) that would mean 27 “cases” in the country (3 x 9 = 27) over a particular time period (here let’s say 27 cases per week). Now a tiny man carrying prayer candles with his own picture on them as well as his very own bobble-head doll shows up and hands out red t-shirts (representing vaccines) to two-thirds of the population telling them the red t-shirt will protect them from the evil virus. If the red t-shirts provided NO protection at all, one would expect that out of every three cases, two would be in red shirts and one in a blue shirt. That would be the expected random distribution; a 2:1 ratio. But that’s not what we see here. If you break out the old fingers and toes you see that by age 30 that ratio is 3:1 not the expected 2:1 (that's if the red t-shirts did NOTHING). If in fact the red t-shirts actually offered some protection, that ratio should be below 2:1, say 1:1 or even lower. But by age 40 that ratio has ballooned up to 8:1, by 50 it’s 14:1, by 60 it’s 23:1, at 70 it’s 34:1, and after age 80 it’s 22:1. How do you explain that? Not only do the red t-shirts provide no protection, they seem to actually make the wearer more susceptible to catching the virus. What’s up with that? Please don’t parrot the “the vaccine wears off after several months” nonsense because if that were the true reason, those red shirts would return to their natural risk percentage which would be two out of every three cases; 2:1 (although it is true the vax wears off after perhaps as little as three months). But we’re seeing ratios much higher than that so the vaccine must actually be doing something to those people to make them more susceptible.
Now of course the answer is that the red t-shirts were not handed out randomly but in fact were given to the “vulnerable” – the old, the overweight, the sickly; as well as the weak of mind who had been scared by the magical t-shirt fairy into believing they were actually in danger. So one would naturally expect a higher incidence of infection in the red t-shirt group than the blue t-shirt group which is largely comprised of the young, healthy and those too stupid to understand they were in danger. But hold on, those who got red t-shirts are much more likely to be taking other mitigation strategies (mask wearing, social distancing, hiding under their beds) than the blue team so that calculus must also be included in infection risk as well, which should additionally make for a LOWER infection count in the red shirts (they're vaxxed, they still mask up and stay away from "others" for fear of catching the virus...for which they are already vaccinated). But the infection count is higher, much higher. So even if you ignore the “benefits” of other mitigations, even in a more “vulnerable” population in the red t-shirts, one should still see SOME “protection” from the red shirt, but you don’t. You’re looking at infection ratios of 8:1 all the way up to 34:1. And the red t-shirt should never have been sold as “protection against infection”; anyone can get infected – they should have been sold as protection against serious illness, which is what we’re being told now. “The vaccine won’t protect you from getting infected or SPREADING the virus, but it will protect you from getting really sick or dead.” We’ll look at that next time.
But a “natural” infection ratio of red shirts to blue shirts should be 2:1 if the red shirt does nothing. If the red shirt worked the ratio should be less than 2:1. The fact that the people in red shirts are “more susceptible” shouldn’t affect the infection ratio as your health status shouldn’t affect whether you get “infected” (get the virus in you) or not. We’re all breathing the same air. It should only affect whether you get sick or dead. But again, we see a grossly disproportionate amount of (presumably symptomatic) infections in the fully vaxxed vs. the non-vaxxed. What possible mechanism could be allowing for the fully vaxxed to get infected so much more often? The truth is there are all kinds of possibilities, but none are provable. So we go with the data we got.
By the way, one of the ways the “experts” try to explain these numbers away is to say “Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation [sic] or death due to NON-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised [sic] or die WITH COVID-19 rather than BECAUSE OF COVID-19.” Hey, remember when we had a whole dustup about the “with” vs “from” argument when people like me were called all kinds of names because we tried to point out that a great many, in fact most people who were counted as COVID deaths died “with” COVID and not “from” COVID, like the 15,000 violent deaths the CDC counts as COVID deaths? Now they’re using it as an excuse to try to obfuscate the actual numbers and weakness of the vaccine. Good times.
Just so you know, the actual number of hospitalizations and deaths are likewise higher in the fully vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated. Strange how in this country we’re told just the opposite with no actual data produced. Maybe the Brits have a different understanding of data than we do. Or of hospitalization, or of death...or of honesty. Oh well, moving on…Next time we'll look at hospitalizations, deaths, and more importantly "rates" of each. And finally most importantly the actual "benefit" to getting vaccinated. See you tomorrow.