Main Edition
US
FR
More vaccine uptake is needed Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty
Matt Hancock stood up in the Commons yesterday to congratulate himself and the Government on how well it had done recently. More than 2,000 cases of the new âIndianâ variant have been detected, nearly 500 of them in Bolton and Blackburn, but Hancock was pleased to tell everyone that he has sent thousands of vaccination and testing staff to the areas, and to Bedford, where thereâs another outbreak.
Itâs inconvenient timing, given that England has just relaxed restrictions, and the Health Secretary didnât seem overly keen to talk about the Government’s failure to impose restrictions on travel from India for several weeks after the new variant was known to be causing havoc in south Asia. But he made one interesting point: the majority of people in Bolton and Blackburn who are in hospital with the new variant are of an age who are eligible to have the vaccine, but who have chosen not to.Â
That is true. And apparently there are âgrowing concernsâ in Downing Street that even a small number of people refusing Covid vaccines could delay the final restrictions in June. Hancock didnât say it, but there does seem to be an attitude among some people, not just in Government, that vaccine-hesitant people have made their bed and now they need to lie in it. Theyâve been offered the jab, theyâve turned it down, and itâs now their own problem.
Thatâs understandable. After all, the most prominent vaccine sceptics are crankish academics and Jeremy Corbynâs brother, Piers â although Jeremy himself doesnât seem completely on board the vaccine train either.
But while the middle-class dinner-party sceptics get the most attention, vaccine hesitancy is actually highest in other demographic groups â notably, ethnic minorities and the most deprived. While more than 90% of Britons over 50 have had at least one jab â and the British are the least vaccine-sceptical nation in the world â coverage varies widely by ethnicity. By April, people of white British or Indian heritage had over 90% take up; but people of Pakistani origin had just 78%, and black African and black Caribbean groups were down at 71% and 67% respectively.
Thereâs a socioeconomic difference, as well, although itâs not so pronounced. Only 87% of people in the most deprived 20% of the population were vaccinated, compared to 95% of the richest 20%.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis article should come with a âGovernment propagandaâ warning.
Many people (Iâm sure the rate of uptake is being exaggerated) have weighed up the risks and benefits of having an experimental vaccine, and have made a conscious choice not to take it. To then blame restrictions not ending on these people is pretty disgusting in my opinion, when so many of these restrictions have made absolutely no logical sense, and are in many cases hugely contradictory.
In my group of acquaintances (friends, family, work) I do not know anyone who has had this disease, either during the never ending lockdowns or when there has been some return to normality. One could therefore conclude that maybe the spread isnât quite so far reaching as is being made out. So to force every single person in this country to take an experimental vaccine is bizarre at the least, and bordering on criminal at worst.
Also, nice try at trying to cause division, suspicion and anger at certain communities. If/when that backfires will be interesting to see.
Your highly subjective comment is itself summed up in your final paragraph.
Fennie, there is no real chance if logic argumentation with what Tom Chivers politely labelled as “scepticals”. I am not as nice as Tom, and can only hope that the next variants start killing faster. This way the world would get rid of non-vaccinated “scepticals” faster. Thus people that value their lives above pointless “opinion powerplay” would no longer be vulnerable to the real damage ignorance is enabling (virus variants). Sort of Darwinism to the rescue…
Wouldnât it be rather less psychopathic to hope that the 100,000+ variants discovered to date continue to become less virulent over time, than to hope that they start to become more virulent and kill people faster?
As a general note, the budget for de-programming those who have been mentally scarred by government fear-based behavioural modification programmes is clearly going to have to be quite large.
You are arguing with anti-human psychopaths. These are people who hate humanity and insist there are too many people in the world. They want more death. They want food supply disruptions. Fuel disruptions. Hospital disruptions. Isolated elderly whose care and protection aren’t monitored. This is the whole purpose of the fear campaign.
I love your compassion Andre…fair play to ya…
And I love the compassion of the anti-vaxxers whose stupidity is killing people as we speak. But I realise discussing that is pointless, as they clearly select what evidence they chose to believe. Of course all these dead body piles are just a hoax, right?
In the meantime the virus, that couldn’t care less about human stupidity, rages on and mutates…
You really are beyond stupid. You are dangerous. You would be one of the first to don the leather jackboots and round up dissidents. Sick individual.
Said by a well of “knowledge” as yourself, I’ll take your childish insults as a badge of honor.
The anti-vaxxers are the equivalent of drink drivers….
Actually, itâs the vaxxed people who are still able to transmit and catch the illness (yes, it actually happens… look up the new buzzword «breakthrough cases») who are going to become the asymptomatic superspreaders the mainstream has been blaming for the past 13+ months. How does it feel to have the mirror pointed right back at you?
1st, viruses mutate. Period. 2nd, if we are really going to open the Pandoraâs box of blame as to the « scariants », letâs not overlook the role half-vaxxed people are playing and have played in creating them.
Itâs kind of ironic how people who based their support for lockdown and all its trimmings on their supposed care and compassion for others, are now targeting the unvaccinated for the very fate that they were supposedly trying to save people from.
Because they are vectors of infection ?
Your argument assumes that infection in it of itself is bad. It’s not. What we care about is health. Vaccinated individuals do very well when reinfected. It’s unvaccinated individuals who may do poorly. But that was a choice that they made for themselves.
This is the problem when forming arguments around scary sounding words like “infection” rather than forming an argument from principles.
Fiona, does it occur to you that the “others” in your phrase are common folk, whereas the object of my outrage are the incredibly selfish anti-vaxxers that are ensuring the death toll increases?
We’re not discussing some “personal freedom” here Fiona – these are people’s lives. Everything they ever had. I guess some people only realise the folly once it kills people that they know. Otherwise they stick to the usual combination of selfishness and ignorance.
The trouble is that the government advice from the start has been contradictory. They , taking the advice of SAGE, wish to enforce isolation on most of the population-even employing the prison term ‘lockdown’.However at the same time they allowed millions of people, legally & illegally to enter. Like putting draught proofing on your windows but taking off the doors.
Sage? This Sage? https://archive.is/LnArR
Professor Ferguson said he wanted to follow example of the original city it came from & realized after seeing Italy that he could achieve partial lockdown
He admired Beijing Government .SAGE need stuffing for scaremongering ..his 5 models are Wrong..
No need, Baron. The anti-vaxx crowd already built it and we’re living in it out of their choice. That is the inequitable, hard truth about pandemics.
And your highly silly reply is sad.
I think todayâs Daily Wail front page falls nicely into the âhate speechâ bracket. Isnât hate speech about inciting hatred? If that was the intention theyâve cracked it, Iâd say.
A statement like yours deserves data, or it is just innuendo. What has the Mail printed that is “hateful”?
See Daily Mail website!
The closest to ‘hate speech’ I see on the site is some cop joining in with the anti-Israeli protests. Hopefully she’ll be fired.
DM is one of the few sites where people can leave comments freely-they often disagree with the article itself. Within the full on-line version the front page is constantly changing and updating through the day
If today’s article by the person married to a minister was meant to test the water , I would judge looking at the comments that the population is not convinced. Just as insulting people never made them your friend , showing you don’t know difference between viral & bacterial infection doesn’t instill confidence either.
I agree 100%. I find it absolutely mind-boggling that people seemed to have (temporarily?) switched-off their critical thinking capacity when it comes to these vaccines. Why anyone would unquestionably have this agent injected into their bodies, when there is so little known about the long-term consequences is a mystery to me. Plus, doesn’t anyone have at least a tiny little speck of scepticism about the fact that there is such an obvious lop-sided reporting due to massive censorship of critical voices? Again. Mind-boggling.
Yep, I’m puzzled by this continuous portrayal that it’s only ethnic minorities that are ‘vaccine hesitant’, thus giving some an apparent reason to turn this into a ‘race issue’. I’m aware of just as many white ‘vaccine hesitant’ people as those from ethnic minorities.
As 67% of afro caribbean have taken it and over 90% of Uk white people have taken it – please explain how that is not different in your view.
Don’t ask whackjobs for rational thought
But how is your universe of acquaintances divided between white and non-white? The article gives the stats for vaccine hesitancy in each group. It’s not only present in ethnic minorities but it is significantly more prevalent.
I wish they wouldnât call it hesitancy. It may be they have looked at the facts and understand the risks and things like absolute risk reduction. Maybe a little optimistic but can they deny early treatment with ivermectin or Fluvoxamine forever?
agree, re ivermectin(and doxycycline) plus a. r. r. versus relative r. r. Also seeing that people can still catch and transmit virus even after a jab, the unvaccinated are at more risk of bad outcomes catching it from a “vaccinated” person.
They donât work and have potentially serious side effects. This is science, not religion.
Yes, and that any opposing views to the official narrative apparently only come from “crankish academics”.
Frightening.
“crankish academics” (sic) – rather many well trained and experienced scientists who have held senior positions in the vaccine industry. The crankish academics seem to be the ones that populate ‘SAGE’ (a misnomer if every there wa one); one in particular has the most appalling record on previous epidemiological predictions.
I’m not sure if you’re backing up my observation or not.
Iâm puzzled by this continuous portrayal that itâs only ethnic minorities that are âvaccine hesitantâ
First, the article does not say that it is only ethnic minorities.
Second, ethnic minorities seem to form the bulk if refuseniks.
No you are not. The stats quoted show different.
Perhaps you’re aware of more ‘white’ people than ethnic minority folks.
or no i believe breakdown on 36.5Million take up is 69% white 31% Non-White …
The mainstream media shills are performing the job they were paid to do enthusiastically. Mr Chivers is a prime example. If we ever manage to have a Nuremburg version 2 I can only hope he and his fellow shills are near the top of the list for examination of the role they played in terrifying the population and splitting whole families and communities apart.
It also appears earlier pronouncements by leading figures saying there was no need for masks have been disappeared, though I havenât checked this is in fact the case.
There has been much information memory holed that doesn’t align with the official narrative. As someone else said, “1984 isn’t a novel, it’s an instruction manual”.
Because the long term consequences of long covid or death arenât very attractive?
What does that have to do with it? Have you looked for yourself at the death statistics since this pandemic started and tried to put them in any context? Same for âlong COVIDâ. I suggest spending a few hours of your time exploring the ONS website as well as euromomo. Try also looking at the official data (and I donât mean a newspaper) now on the death rate as a percentage – even the WHO publishes this somewhere – as itâs around the 0.1% mark.
Try also looking at the eudravigilance and UK yellow card numbers of reported adverse effects and deaths after the vaccines.
Finally, sorry, but death is a certainty for everyone.
«Long-haul covid» is better known as «post viral syndrome». Not new. Happens with after many viruses. Only now is it getting uber special attention. Gee… wonder why?
It is mind boggling. Sadly the lack of critical thinking skills is not temporary and didn’t arise with the vaccines. The early and continuing suppression and discrediting of top scientists should have rung alarm bells in every conscious person planet wide. I feel I am living in a very lonely place these days and have given up trying to suggest people in my circle listen to some different opinions. More often than not, I am met with rolling eyes. I don’t know what the truth is, but I need to live with confidence that at some point in the future, truth will see the light of day.
If you don’t know now what the truth is how can you be confident you’ll recognize it if and when it emerges blinking from its den.
Hi Gracie. You are not alone. Check out https://t.me/worldwidedemonstration and see all the people. Youâll need to get Telegram, the app, but it certainly is eye-opening, and as such, is getting some negative press, but these days thatâs more of an accolade. You have more friends than you know, and we are all having these feelings. Its taken decades to set the stage for this situation, but I truly believe that good will prevail. I just wish it would hurry up!
listening to John Lee, Mike Yeadon and the rest of the gang, on alternative media, its a necessary infusion of rational and expert knowledge. The BBC has left us in a scientific wasteland. No wonder we look elsewhere.
UKColumn.org is doing the job which the BBC is failing to do, but still demanding our money with menaces.
You are not the only one
“… should have rung alarm bells in every conscious person planet wide.’ And therein lies the rub. People are sleep, lulled to slumber by the media and the ‘bread and circuses’, kept in nightmarish fear of the bogeymen coming to get them; quelled only by the soothing and nurturing hand of ‘Nanny State’ administering doctors orders … ‘just a little p***k and all will be well…’
Sigh, I can’t even describe in words the sensation of the needle going in without it being starred out. Nanny, oh nanny, save me from the bogeymen!
You are right in your concerns. The shutting down of any contrary opinion and the lack of open, honest discussion is a cause for very great concern. As is the documented psychological warfare that has been deliberately waged to terrorise the population. These are facts. This is totalitarian.
Itâs an intelligence test and thatâs why they are confused that some communities have low uptake.
Ivermectin, that has been shown in numerous studies to cut hospitalisations and death rates by 80%+, is denied to the UK public by our honest, truthful, responsible, caring “goverment” that is attempting to ensure that everyone, including children, are jabbed time and again with experimental juices for which the long-term consequences are completely unknown.
Oh phooey, never mind all that, think of the dividends sir, the dividends! I must phone my stockbroker.
Like Claire, I trust you are also fully aware of the risks – short term and ‘long-term consequences’ if lucky enough to survive – of catching Covid and becoming seriously ill? Out of interest, are you also a vaccine denier in the case of others – MMR, polio, etc? Was Edward Jenner an 18th Cen version of Josef Mengele in your booK? It’s people like you that boggle my mind!
I am allergic to Albumin based vaccines,luckily Aztra Zeneca (grown on blood platelets?) i had No side effects x2 ..Vaccines have Eliminated Polio a curse in 1950s&1960s and varroa ..
The spread was pretty much everywhere, but it did hit certain groups a lot harder. Due to the nature of viruses/immune systems and very poor government, care homes and hosptials were badly hit.
Other groups had the unfortunate mix of poverty, high density living, non wfh jobs, multi generational households and ‘strong communities’ which is a euphemism for sticks together, distrusts wider society and it’s rules. I also suspect that many of these communities also have a larger % of younger people who won’t even have been offered the vaccine yet. If you add all these things together you’re going to get a much higher infection rate in these communities.
The one short term fix may well be to prioritise vaccinating younger people in these areas. It doesn’t have to be based on race, religion etc, just on the number of people in any defined region with anti bodies.
Vaccine wise the government has acted over issues with AZ. Nothing is risk free, and potential side effects need to be weighed against very real Covid side effects. Vaccines shouldn’t be forced on people, but spouting on about ‘experimental’ weakens your argument. In fact it’s one of the arguments that’s helping kill more people from poorer communities.
Nevertheless, it remains ‘experimental’ until 2023.
This is a damaging, divisive article in so many ways but sadly predictable as scapegoats are sought in the face of more government goalpost-moving.
Had the government given any useful advice to populations as to how they might protect themselves, ministers might enjoy a greater degree of trust among the people. It became apparent months ago that vitamin D deficiency was very much a marker for vulnerability to Covid 19, and so darker-skinned citizens could reduce their risks by supplementation. This received very little publicity – a pity since such vast sums were spent on media messaging. Only much later were (rather weak) vitamin D supplements provided to some groups.
Someone used the term ‘informed refusal’ to describe their situation; I would be proud to use this term for my own position. Mr Chivers can save his insults – I am indifferent to his opinion of me.
I am in the control group, so I’m not having it. DO feel free to join me.
Me too.
I have suffered from anaphylactic shock three times. I am not going to subject myself to the risk of a fourth time.
Being âelderlyâ , I do know three people who have had the COVID virus, one of whom has pretty much every comorbidity you can think of. They all suffered an unpleasant week or two, but only one has any long term effects (and they might be attributable to her other health issues.) What I donât understand is that all three were offered and took up the vaccine, because if you already have naturally acquired antibodies, why do you require artificial stimulus? And why did one of these people then have another bout, worse than the first, immediately after being vaccinated. It just doesnât quite stack up…..
I think what’s killing those in poorer communities has been the refusal to use proven medication to relieve symptoms in order to force through the emergency authorization of the injections (not vaccines)
Nobody is “spouting on” – they are experimental according to even the companies who manufacture them. Long term trials won’t be completed until 2023.
âI do not know anyone who has had this disease,â
I know 5 people directly, who have had it, one of them seriously and just managed to stay out of hospital. His doctor said, âIf you have to go into hospital, update your will before you goâŠâ This was a healthy man, late 50âs who did martial arts.
I know of others who have lost relatives.
I agree the lockdowns will have proven to be harsh, but remember the lockdown happened to provide spare capacity for the NHS. It wasnât there to stop the spread of COVID.
The alleged purpose of lockdowns has changed regularly, as successive versions have been busted. The only constant is that the Government really likes lockdowns.
I don’t think they do. Boris has been criticised consistently for not wanting to lockdown, and for not locking down quicker, harder and longer. His critics need to make up their minds if they want to claim the government didn’t lock down quicker because they ‘deliberately wanted to kill old people’ or locked down too quickly because they ‘deliberately wanted to destroy the economy’.
Boris’s agenda has changed by the week.
He is no cuddly libertarian.
He should have stuck to the original pandemic planning plan, as did Sweden.
Sweden is my favourite country now. The only one with common sense.
Also add Texas and Florida to your list.
This is true. The pyramid of power that has been built under the Covid star never wants to be dismantled. Many are delighted by their enhanced profile and have never experienced such ego and fame and power ‘saving the planet and punishing heretics’ and it is intoxicating and addictive. They and of course those who already seek a career of enforcing and enjoying authority over others get the same kick out of their latest authoritarian gig being enforced as their victims get from their own more easily understood thrill like driving fast or winning at bowls!
‘The pyramid of power under the Covid star’. Perfect description of the clamouring experts & media desperate for lockdown to continue indefinitely so they can maintain their new found relevance.
An excellent description. Mr Chivers fits nicely with the “Kens and Karens” who scream at people who aren’t wearing a mask or social distancing. They are people who’s previous lives were as meaningless nonentities barely noticed by the rest of this. The ability to virtue signal publicly has given them a sense of worth which they never deserved and never will. When this is over their self loathing will be magnified many times and they deserve all that is coming to them.
They changed from saving the NHS to R under 1 after 3 weeks.
The minute the public/frog accepted that, it was toast/boiled.
Not to speak of leavimg the NHS a Covid only service for the following 9 months, a stupidity/deliberate eugenics program not matched by any other country of the world.
Early treatment with ivermectin or Fluvoxamine is shown to be effective in trials in reducing hospitalisation and deaths. This could be over whenever the government decide regardless of whether healthy people get vaccinated.
If they ever had been serious about preventing that, they would have focused on investigating treatments.
We all know what happened in that regard and why.
isn’t that what the ‘Nightingale’ hospitals were for – spare capacity?
Well it didn’t do too well, NHS is under pressure every winter as Governments since 1997 have cut beds in hospitals….isolation hospitals were fazed out in 1970s a mistake…Nightingale hospitals at ÂŁ225million were hardly used………………..
Explain why hospitals are currently overwhelmed in the UK in May. And no, covid isn’t the answer. Purely coincidental that this happened at the same time as the vaccine rollout?
This is a seasonal respiratory illness that seriously affects those at end of life and those with serious comorbidities. These people should have been the focus of protection. They weren’t.
I agree I weighed up the risk of taking Vs the risk of governments restricting my movement if I don’t and decided to take it. As for covid of any variant I view the risk to me as similar to a lightening strike.
That’s exactly what Remainers said (and continue to say) about Brexiteers.
It’s a typical patronising liberal delusion. You just cannot conceive that some people might live their lives on different criteria, form different assessments of the same situation, make choices based on different priorities, so you just discredit them as ignorant and stupid.
They are for the most part primitive savages who don’t belong here at all.
Unless you’ve read a few of the 200,000+ scholarly papers published on covid19, your ‘weighing of the risks’ is a fine example of militant ignorance.
Weighing the risks means using your brain, your own judgement and your experience as a human being on this planet. It seems to me you belong to a timid and very regulated species. Get the vaccine at once and self isolate for the next 8 years is my advice.
Oh yes please! Vince and all the other Branch Covidians. I am looking forward to frequenting the places that will eventually ban people who wear masks or who are vaccinated.
I have read them all. The butler did it.
Just who is being forced to have the vaccine? I must have missed that directive – or perhaps that is just in your mind? As far as I am concerned the anti-vaxxers – of whatever colour or creed, although it is obvious by the locations the prevalence is in areas with an ethnic majority….are on a par with drink drivers, selfishly putting others at risk – and that is bordering on criminal.
We are not anti-vaxxers but hesitant about a vaccine that is neither a vaccine in the normal sense, has not been licensed (it has emergency approval only) and whose phase 3 clinical trials will not be completed until 2023. The real criminals are those who wish to shame perfectly healthy people into taking an experimental therapy which could, a few years down the line, injure or kill us. You, Susan Graham, to complete your analogy, are the one that serves a driver a ‘one for the road’ alcoholic drink and then blames them for the accident.
What utter fear crazed emotionally driven rubbish! The vaccines to date are experimental: therefore NO long term data on efficacy, safety and long term effects. The vaccines to date neither stop you getting the disease nor stop you passing it on, they are supposed to alleviate the symptoms if you get covid. So no amount of ”vaccinating” the population will stop the spread, though it may stop hospitalisations and/or deaths. Therefore it is of no consequence to person A (vaccinated) if persons B thru Z don’t get vaccinated. That is nothing like drinking and driving. It is not selfish to OTHERS to not want to take drugs that have no safety data. It is entirely selfish to expect people to take something that may harm them, either immediately (bells palsy, blood clots, heart failure, miscarriage, cytokine storm, allergic reaction…) or long term (the inserts for the vaccines state: no long term effects on fertility are known, as well as potential for adverse reactions to the wild virus and any other of a host of long term potential developments that will be unknown for some time to come, remember thalidomide, that was once perfecty safe?) And don’t forget that for the past year thousands of people have been having covid and developing their own ACTUAL immunity which will have a far more beneficial effect for the population as a whole.
Well said. Very well said.
I take it that you are aware that this terrible outbreak in the North west has resulted in all of four people in hospital (as of this morning) who have tested positive for Covid. There is no clear evidence that any have actually gone into hospital because of Covid.
Why do people believe government deceit, instead of looking these things up themselves?
If you are scared of getting covid because you are frail or have co-morbidities, please, take the ‘vaccine’. If you believe the ‘vaccines’ work, why would you feel angry that others aren’t having it? I have had covid, and was happy to get it. It was a mild infection, I was a bit floppy for a day or 2, but it didn’t stop me doing anything. I now have fully fledged natural immunity and I act as a strong defence against the spread to protect those who are frail and vulnerable. I believe that natural immunity is the best and strongest protection for this infection. I am not anti-vax. I believe vaccinating for serious disease is sensible and necessary. This is not a serious disease for the majority of the healthy population. If it was a serious disease the lock down measures we have had over the last year would have been useless. To prevent serious disease we would have had to have military enforced complete lockdown. lets hope we never have to deal with that.
At the moment being vaccinated isn’t compulsory, but attitudes like yours are coercive, discriminatory and ignorant.
Your post is also borderline racist. There is less take up in areas of BAME because they do not trust our government. Whatever the reasoning for this it should be considered and understood.
Please, get some balance. I won’t post links because it means I’ll get moderated, but good sources of information are (apart from the ONS and PHE England if you look in the right places) HART Health Advisory and Recovery Team; Collateral Global and LeftLockdownSceptics.
That magic word selfish again. I’m not having it because I am a carer for two members of my family. It is a balance between taking sensible precautions not to catch anything( which has worked so far) against an experimental vaccine whose possible side affects might put me out of action & then where will they be?
Are you drunk?
That’s silly and nasty. But what throughout this whole sorry period of our history has not been a relentless barrage of nastiness aimed at anyone who did not agree with the approved narrative. Its appalling. If the vaccine is any good those that have it will be ‘safe’. It is unbelievably selfish to demand people take something they do not want to take, just so you can feel safer. It goes against all pre-covid understanding of how vaccines work. Btw it is pure lunacy to believe the bug can be eradicated by vaccinating. We have far more serious health issues that we should be putting our minds and energies to work on. Fatty liver disease being one of them (affects 30% of the pop silently with nasty results once it makes its presence known and heading north, probably rapidly following lockdowns).
I don’t think restrictions should be based on it at all. Isn’t the idea that vaccinated = protected, unvaccinated = unprotected, so the risk of hospitalisation/death is predicated on the person choosing not to vaccinate – their risk/their choice. Cant see the problem myself.
I have had covid.. 4 of us got something..all different symptoms, within 2 weeks of each other and all tested positive. Nothing that couldnt be dealt with with a paracetamol or 2.. couple of days feeling a bit floppy for me, but didn’t stop me doing anything. Acted responsibly of course, although none of us were coughing, sneezing or anything like that. If I did indeed have covid, I have since tested negative..I am pleased to have fully blown natural immunity, effective against many parts of the virus, and most likely its variants, and not just immunity to one part of the infection. I do not want the vaccine. I do not believe this infection is anywhere near serious enough to warrant mass ‘vaccination’. I believe that those of us under 60 (and older if you choose) should be free to catch the infection and develop natural immunity. I cannot help but ponder that good that could have been done with the time, money and global co operation that this pandemic has engendered. We could have improved the lives of so many, made a huge difference to environmental issues, maybe even stopped wars, but instead we have made the rich richer, and condemned millions to untold suffering. It is utterly, gut wrenchingly disgustingly wrong. And I am one of the vilified selfish… arghhhh
And of course you are also one of the probably 20% of the population who might catch the virus (Diamond Princess). There are many who simply won’t, or have a natural immunity already.
Clearly you should write up your insights in a paper. I am sure Nature would love to publish it.
Dear waldo, I think it is generally accepted that up to 80% of papers on medicine are either of little or minor use to practical medicine or plain wrong… Individual experiences may actually bring more to medical thinking than many papers do, sadly. I tend to read papers regularly: they are often high quality research pieces ….. but rarely add something to medicine for the majority…
As a retired medical consultant who did research and reviewed publications, that is not generally accepted. It is thought that about 30% of original work may be either plain wrong or the effects not as generalisable to other patients. Individual experiences of doctors are highly fallable. Many doctors are biased by a sense of infallabiltiy, and this has led to some disastrous treatment being adopted. If something can be tested by a RCT, it should be, and until then. observational studies have the scientific status of gossip.
Lucky if you don’t know anybody in your circle of acquaintances who has had the disease. In mine, I count two deceased and at leat 10-12 who went through severe versions of Covid.
The “experimental” vaccines,as you name them, have been injected in tens of millions of humans for almost one year with almost no side effect (even if you count the ten-something with clots). But of course, this is propaganda and the thousands of deaths are pure governemental invention.
You’re so right but better put on your tin hat now!
MHRA UK 1000+ deaths
VAERS US 4000+ deaths
In contrast, nearly everyone I know seems to have had covid, me included, probably, although my experience was in the days just before testing came in – I haven’t caught it since, despite being exposed repeatedly (through work), so I clearly have some kind of immunity. As for the vaccines, I’m hesitant on several counts. One, many of the people I know who’ve had covid have had bad reactions to the vaccines. Two, I already react badly to any vaccine and it took me weeks to get over a simple tetanus jab a few years ago – the vaccine may be worse for me than the remote chance of catching covid again. Three, if you are one of the unfortunates who suffer vaccine damage, try proving it, especially if symptoms appear gradually afterwards, rather than a dramatic collapse at the time. In my experience with a family member, you hit a brick wall and are told to go away, die quietly and don’t be so ridiculous. Correlation is obviously not causation, but the experience left me very cynical indeed, wary of propaganda and immune to being told that I’m selfish for wanting to wait until I see more data.
A good number of people are ill for 2 days after the vaccine.
For the average under 65 age, covid vaccines change the average odds on illness, life and death very little or none at all. So if you take the vaccine the only thing you can be sure of is that you have a small chance of a side effect …..
I wish people wouldnât call results âside effectsâ. They are just results, exactly the same as the result you are working for. Itâs up to the user to evaluate whether effect A is worth Effect B or C. People do this all the time, many people I know who also suffer with arthritis do not take the prescription anti inflammatories unless they are in a desperate state, because of the parallel effects of the drugs. Effects, not side effects.
Claire – well said. I have had it. The symptoms were so mild that I only discovered the fact when I went for a blood test for something else.
Meanwhile, in my vaccination letter, I was informed that it was a drive-in facility, and that I could only drive – it was unsafe for pedestrians. In 2020, 300+ people my age or younger with no health conditions died with COVID; in 2019, 900+ died in road accidents. Setting aside the currently unquantified risks associated with the untested experimental vaccine, I was at a greater risk of death driving to be vaccinated than I was from the pathogen being vaccinated for.
I declined the invitation.
They have realized they are blaming the community who must not be upset , so the wife of Michael Gove can assert that the Indian variant did ‘not ( arrive) because of people returning from the sub-continent’. How did it get here then fly over land & oceans all by itself? She also claims that a vaccine still in its experimental stage until 2023 & whose manufacturers have been granted immunity from prosecution ‘most of us are fine with it…certainly more fine than if we caught covid’.Is she willing to bet the farm on that ascertion?
Just one question: in your opinion, when does a vaccine lose your clearly pejorative use of the term ‘experimental’?
Some missing information to all this ‘the vaccine is a panacea’ mindset that the article forgot to add.
As of May 6th 2021, there were 622,176 reported reactions to the experimental drug with 756 deaths (this is just the Astra Zeneca vax alone), and this from 167,141 total reports, meaning multiple adverse reactions had been had per person. And these are the reported ones, no doubt there have been many more unreported.
But donât take my word for it – check it out for yourself.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/986033/DAP_AstraZeneca_050521.pdf
127 thousand coffins in the Uk say you may be wrong.
More variant fear porn.
âHe who has overcome his fears will truly be freeâ.*
(* Aristotle.)
The truth will set you free.
Jesus.
Ah, Mr Stanhope! I replied fully (as fully as one can in the Comments) to the points made by your Mr Smith in the “The EUâs latest immigration crisis.” I found his and your comment a couple of days after being posted and I guess people move on after 24 hours to the next topic so my response has probably been missed. But check it out if you really want to know the reality.
Many thanks, and after a bit of archaeology I found it.
I fully concur with everything you say, and off course well remember the controversy that surrounded Mrs Tâs demand for a rebate.
As with everything to with Brexit, passions still run high, even with a young American such as Jeremy Smith.
However given your depth of experience at the very centre of the furnace, I think you have earned the âVictorâs Palmâ.
Incidentally I agree this present comments procedure is awful, particularly in comparison to the former Disqus one. Now itâs all Fire & Forget, with little or no opportunity for any real discussion, but câest la vie!
I work in a CT lab (non-scientific role, but my degree is in Biology).
In all years before 2020 vaccine trials took several years before approval for use.
The results of the current trials for the Oxford/AZ and the Pfizer/BNT are due to be published in January and February 2023 respectively.
Pointing this out now usually results in being called an “Anti-Vaxxer”
Prior to 2020, pointing out vaccine trials took years to complete was general knowledge and uncontroversial.
I will wait until ALL the trials have been completed, read the information published and then I will make an informed opinion based on the results of the trials.
But that makes me an “Anti-Vaxxer”. Chivers is already suggesting that if I don’t get vaxxed now I will be putting lives in danger.
F*** You Tom
Can you confirm, please, that you are not putting my life in danger?
You have been vaccinated presumably and you are a risk-averse individual who will avoid people you don’t know (and even those you do), so who is putting your life in danger? You have the freedom to be vaccinated. Others have the freedom to wait and see, like Mr Clarke. And like me. I have no wish to be a guinea pig in a scientific trial so have declined the vaccine for now. If I lived in an area where the epidemic was raging and people were falling like ninepins, I might have a different attitude. The risks of the vaccine might be lower than the risks from the epidemic. But I don’t. Covid19 is as rare as hen’s teeth in my region so I prefer to wait and see first what problems emerge from the vaccination programme. I can then make an informed choice.
BTW, very few people die of Covid19. Your life is more in danger from cancer and heart disease (and old age) but everybody seems very happy to see the death rates from those two diseases shoot up. Have you complained to the NHS and your MP that their policies are putting your life in greater danger?
Logically, then, you will be what I think is now termed âstaying in your bubbleâ, I assume? How big is the âregionâ, and how long (2023?) will you be waiting there until youâre secure in your faith, sorry, âinformed choiceâ?
I think you are in fact acting exactly as a âguinea pig in a scientific trialâ would, but are choosing to be part of the control group. Well done, and thank you.
Sounds like paradise! Are dogs allowed?
Certainly NOT a scientific trial, more a large commercial trial.
I agree that the policies have caused a lot of collateral damage, though also significant % of this was caused by the pandemic, not the policies. This is the similar to how much social distancing wasn’t due to government policy either.
Vaccination should remain a matter of personal choice, and certainly no internal ID cards.
My reckoning was quite simple, I’m currently too young and healthy to be at much risk from Covid but:
A new French study establishes the cure was worse than the disease.
In France, NPIs saved 500,000 years of life, NPIs caused 1,200,000 years of life lost.
Can you prove your immune system will better deal with the virus after a vaccination and that will make you less “dangerous” to anyone else? No you can’t.
er, yes. These ‘vaccines’ are not vaccines in the traditional sense. A traditional vaccine is a dose of the inactivated disease. It illicits a fully blown immune response as if you had actually been exposed to the disease. This is desirable in diseases with serious outcomes like polio, measles, TB. The mRNA and DNA medicines only activate a part immune response. For mild disease (like Covid 19 for the majority of healthy individuals) your natural immunity will always be better than these new medicines, and give better protection against similar virus’ http://www.hartgroup.org/natural-vs-vaccine-immunity/
Yes, he is not putting your life in danger. If you believe that your life is in danger, from this virus or any other virus that exists or may exist as yet undetected or unidentified, protect yourself as you see fit , whether that be by being vaccinated or by avoiding contact with any other human being for as long as you feel necessary, or by wearing a useless cloth over your face, or any other means you desire. As above for any other perceived risk to your health.
i have not had the vaccine. I have not known anyone who has had Covid. I have tested negative on the odd occasion I have used a test. How can I put your life in danger?
I’ve upvoted you because I suspect this is meant to be a joke. If I’m wrong please mentally convert my upvote into a couple of hundred downvotes.
Actually, it’s not entirely a joke (it’s what my granny used to call “half fun and whole earnest”.)
I had the vaccine partly because I want to reduce the effect of the virus if I am exposed to it (I understand it is only 95% effective) but also because I do not want to be an inadvertent source of infection. Perhaps this is an inaccurate view, but I would rather live in an area where infection rates are low and vaccination rates are high (which I do) that in an area where infection rates are high because it is spreading like wildfire among the unvaccinated. 95% effectiveness in a low infection rate population is, in my unenlightened view, better than 95% in a high rate area – so I won’t be going to Rochdale etc any time soon. I do feel that the proudly unvaccinated are risking a greater spread in their immediate vicinity, and that must give higher risk to others there.
I thought that Andrew Clarke’s original comment implied that he didn’t give a f*** whether his behaviour might affect others. That means he is free to wonder round possibly spreading a virus which kills people, while taking the view that if they are worried about the risks, they should curtail their freedons.
Well, f*** you, Andrew
I explained my position quite clearly, using common knowledge.
That you totally misunderstand is more to do with a fearful mindset inculcated in to your thinking by behavioural psychologists and a media that dozens of times on a daily basis reinforces the message of the behavioural psychologists. Every day of every week of every month since March 2020.
The pharmaceutical industry has rapidly developed a gene therapy. The usual vaccine model, based on a Live Attenuated Vaccine (LAV) is not possible as a live virus has yet to be isolated. The mRNA gene therapy is previously untested in humans and in ongoing trials as I write. This really is not a vaccine in the usual sense. It is a medical intervention using a method never before used in humans.
This means that no-one knows exactly what the outcomes will be from humans being injected with this gene therapy, no matter which or how often “experts” tell you otherwise, which is why I cannot in all conscience take “the jab”.
You do understand that your body now has a foreign body it cannot remove. You have this strand of mRNA forever. Do you, or anyone else, know what will happen?
And it doesn’t stop you contracting the virus, it doesn’t stop you spreading the virus to others.
So Freddy, me old fruit bat, who you gonna call when you get ill next winter? Surely that “vaccine” is gonna protect you, right? Are you sure?
How do you know? Because an “expert” told you?
Or because the data collected, analysed and presented and published over the several years of the trial suggests that is so?
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that there will be a lot of “buyers remorse” after this next winter.
Stay safe, eh!
I cannot disagree with your analysis, but I am not comfortable with your conclusions, if only in my own circumstances. I know that the vaccine might not stop me contracting the virus, but I am gambling – yes, gambling – that if I do, the symptoms will be less severe. I have a compromised immune system, so I would not expect a good outcome if I were to get the virus (and I know a couple of people, both younger and healthier than me, who got it, and died.) Yes, it scares me.
I take your point about the mRNA, but again, if it does have an adverse effect I am willing to gamble that it should take time (years, not months) to manifest -and at my age I might not have that long anyway. If I were to get Covid, the timescale would much shorter, and it is a very nasty way to go.
“as a live virus has yet to be isolated.”
Isolated and cultured many times see :
“Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient” March 2020 There hasn’t been much effort directed at this particular type of technology probably because Coronaviruses, in particular, are prone to genetic recombination, so using a live attenuated coronavirus in a vaccine would run the risk of a vaccinated individual becoming infectious again + the cold storage problem.
“It is a medical intervention using a method never before used in humans.”
Nope. mRNA therapies have been trialled in humans for rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus, and Zika and in a range of cancers, including acute myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, glioblastoma, melanoma, prostate cancer, and also in heart failure therapy.
As a therapeutic it is begining to sound like Aspirin.
“it doesnât stop you spreading the virus to others.”
Well here are 2 papers that show that vaccination does reduce transmission :
“Impact of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 cases in the community: a population-based study using the UKâs COVID-19 Infection Survey”
and
“Impact of vaccination on household transmission of SARS-COV-2 in England”
All good news. Enjoy
âYou do understand that your body now has a foreign body it cannot remove. You have this strand of mRNA forever.â
What do you think RNase enzymes do, then? More importantly, why do you and the other ranters about MSMs and gene therapies expect anyone to pay attention to you when you are clearly just making stuff up?
Any cuckoos in Dounreay yet?
Of course he isn’t, not from this virus which has only infected a tiny minority of the population anyway, and which is serious only for a tiny minority of those who catch it, and kills only a tiny minority of those for whom it is serious.
Get serious.
Sorry, I hadn’t realised that Covid was such a minor ailment. (This not a serious comment).
We don’t know yet whether you have put your own life in danger and it maybe be sometime before we do. Though I doubt whether research that will test the dominant narrative will ever be allowed.
I guess every time I drive my car I increase the risk of putting some life in danger.
Oh , please.
Definitions are being changed for all sorts of things eg Pandemic and herd immunity.
The dishonesty is dreadful.
and ‘vaccine’
and “case”
Maybe one of the good things to come out of this whole sorry saga is that there will be more thought given to speeding up drug trials. Speaking as a relatively uninformed outsider, I wonder if more weight is placed on minimising side effects from vaccines and other drugs than on getting the best balance of outcomes for all, including getting effective treatments to patients faster. The nature of covid changed the balance in this specific case, but it’s at least worth thinking about the approach more generally.
There have been cheap alternatives which have efficacy but, because the vaccines needed emergency approval, they had to demonstrate that they were the only kid on the block. So Vit D, Ivermectin and generally taking good care of your own health got swept off the table and under the rug
Dexamethasone – cheap as chips and unlike Ivermectin and Vitamin D actually tested to destruction in a properly conducted trial last year (the RECOVERY trial).
Vitamin D may well be helpful in bolstering someone’s general health before they get sick but has not been shown to be a useful therapeutic once you do become ill with Covid
Ivermectin – well the jury may still be out on that one but again I haven’t seen a decent trial or a convincing systematic review of small studies – if you know of one then please post the citation.
“The nature of covid changed the balance in this specific case”
Not really; it was the headless chicken panicked response that ‘changed the balance’.
I can only upvote you once, unfortunately.
Tom Chivers is always scolding and shaming people into thinking this experimental jab must be injected into every living human. Where is informed consent? Oh wait, he doesn’t care. He has moral superiority.
Excellent and informed comment, thank you. I too would like to wait until full trials are over. Meanwhile I object to being called names because I choose to err on the side of caution for my health and well being.
I do wonder whether those who resort to name calling (“idiots” being a recent gem from an unnamed govt source) realise the extent to which that undermines their argument and how badly it reflects on them. It’s also, hang on, oh yes, bullying. Not a good look.
I see the media is now pushing the “refusenik” moniker for those of us erring on the side of caution.
See also the Drosten affair: the suspiciously fast approval of the obviously flawed PCR test to act as the primary determinant.
excellently put. World’s gone insane but the most important thing is not to give in. I can also tell you that there is a financial agenda running alongside this. Never in history have we heard Central Bankers hinge economic recovery on the vaccination rate. It is clear that there is a MASSIVE push to get as many injected as possible. From the financial angle this is a precursor to digital currency (not digital cash) which wil given Central Banks absolute power on consumer expenditure. On the agricultural front there is a push to break supply chains and push shipping costs to near breaking point. The aim here is re-direct demand from agricultural goods (traditional farming) and into GMO (several funded companies have spoken about this). My point is, there is A LOT going on and they are slowly converging. However nothing can be achieved until people are given their digital platforms and the vaccine is the precursor to this.
This assumes there is a general conspiracy among politicians and corporate heads to achieve a common goal. But these people would knife each other in the back if there were some short term gain to be made, so cannot see they would have the mutual trust to work towards the goal you describe – a goal which would actually be bad for some of them,
You should be compassionate, you are a Scientist,Tom is a Journalist.
You have a rational brain, he a butterfly brain.
As âthey â say, âwhen the battle over is they (journalists) come down from the hills and bayonet the woundedâ.
One wonders if the mathematical epidemiologist cited in this piece has taken the trouble, along with the author and perhaps even HM Government, to step back and look at the overall death toll that covid has taken on the world’s population?
Not least in terms of diseases like AIDS or the Black Death, the latter of which rather effectively managed to take out an estimated 40% of the entire world’s hapless bods by the end of its furious Middle Age rampage.
Covid, thus far, has killed around 0.04% of the global population, with just under 0.2% of the UK’s population to date.
Not only that, but even at its height in April 2020, in terms of UK excess deaths, this month doesn’t even rank in the top 10 of this country’s worst months for excess deaths in the last 50 years.
Whilst most of its similar predecessors were somewhat less discriminate in terms of who they killed when it came to age ranges, genders and general health outlooks covid has, arguably rather decently, in relative terms, been rather benign, instead focusing by far the greatest attention of its deadly scythe on males, those over 65, and predominantly those with already known, potentially life-threatening health preconditions.
Given this context, the so obviously hugely deleterious, extensive steps taken and still being taken by our government to ‘battle covid’ seem to me to be more than a little drastic, perhaps even putting me in the loony, chattering Corbyns’ camp, but clearly the author of this piece would continue to argue otherwise.
Agreed except for the so called AIDS epidemic. The latest edition of Virus Mania gives a very interesting analysis on this and other viruses all supported by references to published data/studies etc
I think you are missing something. All of the resources of the NHS over the past 50 years, all of the government health plans around the world, all of evidence presented about better health, has focussed on life expectancy, on prolonging lives. Last week on UnHerd, an article purported to demonstrate that ethnic minorities were ‘poorer’ because they had shorter life expectancies, So now, about 25% of our population are over-60, and almost all of those are fat and unfit for life.
Within this context, you can’t logically dismiss Covid by saying that it only attacks old, fat people and therefore it is not serious. To be logically consistent, you would put all of your effort into protecting old people so that life expectancies continue too increase.
So you must come up with another set of logical principles:
1) People get faster health service if they don’t smoke, have a BMI of less than 25, etc. Set up a points scheme to give the best service to those who deserve it.
2) Aim lower for life expectancy – stop all operations on people over 75.
3) Pick special people to push to limits of fitness as examples of all that is good about life.
4) Take ethnic minorities with poor health records and segregate them from the rest of the people.
Hm. Sounds familiar.
Not sure if I understand your comment correctly?
My comment wasn’t meant to dismiss covid or be blasĂ© about the deaths to date, merely to give it some much needed, wider context.
You’ve seemingly not only just redefined the context there, you’ve significantly narrowed it, basically framing it in terms of saving lives at any cost, even to the very obvious long-term economic, social and, arguably, healthcare detriment of by far the vast majority of the population.
Facts are, not that many people have died from covid, not that many will and yet governments the world over have taken highly questionable, hugely damaging, far reaching, disproportionate legal, economic, social and healthcare measures in order to tackle it under that very simplistic, apparently unquestionable premise of ‘saving lives’.
What are you on about? “So now, about 25% of our population are over-60, and almost all of those are fat and unfit for life.” Is that a fact? No, just some prejudice you have given voice to.
Life expectancy is the wrong target. Quality of life is ignored.
Your point 1 just highlights the nonsense of a “free” NHS where there is little incentive for people to take responsibility for the result of their own lifestyle choices, but the costs must be imposed on others.
Your point 2. Your juxtaposed points are non-sequiturs. I am all in favour – if we are to have an inefficient health service with second class performance – of the over 75s not getting operations, as long as they are told this when young and they are allowed tax-deductible payments for an over 75 health insurance plan.
The NHS was never “free” . You pay up front through the tax system (assuming you work for a living) whether you use the service or not. Its a rubbish system which is why no other country has copied .. except perhaps Venezuela
It’s “free” at the point of treatment. Of course it’s paid for via taxes (on everything, income, goods, services, even when you die). And yes, it’s an awful system for providing healthcare – but then it is modelled on the communist system of which Attlee’s Labour Government was so enamoured.
Most western countries, except the USA, have some form of nationalised healthcare, which reduces the stresses at point of service, which is overall a good thing, and allows for medical services to not be restricted to the wealthiest.
The problem with our many nationalised healthcare systems is they are now in truth owned (policy wise) by the medical-industrial complex, and the focus has shifted from acute care services to chronic care services (geriatrics and incurable illnesses). Nationalised healthcare could never pay for that, so in the end, services end up being skewed once more.
For our nationalised healthcare policies to function healthily once more, we need a return to acute care policies, and HEALTH prevention, rather than lifelong “treatments”. And our policy makers need to stop obsessing over life extension. We menopause at 50, that tells us something about the Homo sapiens (Latin binomial for humans, flagged???) natural life expectancy…
It’s also worth remembering that in 2019 the average age of death in the UK was 81.3 years. Last time I checked, the average age of death “with” Covid was 82.4.
I’m coming up to 76. Never been in hospital (fingers crossed) am the same weight as I was 30 years ago, that’s just under 11stone. If I had something seriously wrong with me and was refused treatment I would scream blue bloody murder. Maybe wait till your 75 and see how you feel then.
It’s not the same people pushing both narratives, so your point is moot. Death is normal, and the obsession with life extension in western society is ludicrous, and impossible to pay for. This is why medical-industrial complex now own us, because idiots are addicted to the delusional Fountain of Youth.
Indeed. ONS data shows the 2020 all-cause death rate was lower than it used to be every single year prior to 2008 i.e. for over 80% of many people’s lives.
I would have been considerably more persuaded if any of those now driven by their hysteria to the fainting couch could produce the slightest scrap of evidence from their papers or diaries from that period expressing their horror at the death rate and their determination to battle it.
Precisely.
So therefore, why has the nation turned into a bunch of terrified spastics in a mere twelve years?
Good question. Safetyism. Infantilisation. Social media. In 1969, 4 million died of flu. We landed on the moon. 3 million have died of COVID and weâre injecting our children with experimental gene therapies.
No.
See : Counting deaths involving coronavirus: a year in review Sarah Caul ONS January 12 2021
Bearing in mind that all the figures she quotes are still provisional because of the delay in coronerâs courts at the moment.
Or you can look at all cause excess mortality graphs on EUROMOM or Our World in Data or on John Burn-Murdoch’s twitter feed if you prefer pretty pictures.
Agreed
You are only going on reported deaths, which is universally acknowledged as being lamentably short of the actual figure. Who knows at this stage what the final death toll will be.
To date, two people of my acquaintance, in previous good health, have died suddenly within two weeks of their second dose of the experimental vaccine. Another fit and healthy woman friend was struck blind (irreversible vascular damage in both eyes). In none of these cases does their family seem to want to make a link with the injection, so the deaths/injuries have not been reported via the MHRA yellow card system. These are the deaths that are massively under-reported (about 1300 post-vaccine deaths so far officially reported according to MHRA latest figures). Whereas the rule that anyone who dies, of whatever cause, within 28 days of a positive Covid test must be counted as a “Covid death” makes it more likely the number of so-called Covid deaths is substantially exaggerated.
Universally acknowledged that many deaths had nothing to do with Covid.
we know currently that it is much lower than reported. Unfortunately the intentional fog surrounding numbers of actual deaths FROM COVID will take years to decipher.
its unlikely to be above 0.3% globally. Based on extrapolation of real world data collected from the Diamond Princess. Most of these deaths will be in life limited individuals, and over time the excess mortality will level out, as the virus becomes endemic. although the vaccine roll-out may well interfere with the natural course of herd immunity, unfortunately.
I wish it would be universally acknowledged that the number of deaths is a totally misleading statistic. Why not years of life lost? Or even better, years of quality life lost? That would put things into perspective!
“You are only going on reported deaths, which is universally acknowledged as being lamentably short of the actual figure.”
What happens to all the ‘unreported’ dead bodies? Is there a mass grave somewhere?
By âuniversally acknowledgedâ, I presume you are excluding evidence that UK figures have been over-reported by up to 25%? And, since for two years in a row, the excess death rate has fallen back below the 5 year average, it doesnât require an advanced degree in mathematics to estimate the final death toll – some considerable way short of the 4 million who died of flu the year we landed on the moon.
I agree with the principle, but not your maths. Assuming 130,000 deaths and 67m population, Covid has killed 0.002 (rounded) of the UK population, or 0.2% – still a very small proportion, but not quite as small as you calculated
130,000 is higher than the figure now being admitted to. They struck off a huge number (about 25%), taking it down to below 100,000 for England, and even with the other three parts of the nation included, we’re nowhere near your figure. And that’s by ONS admission.
Wasnât it a 33% correction?
You may be right, it may be more than I’d thought.
When ? and where is this indicated on the ONS website ?
aaaahhhh but there is so much money to be made… I am not being cinical sadly…
‘…and if you live in one where lots of people donât trust the British establishment for whatever reason,’
But they all want to live here…
To be fair, I don’t trust the British establishment either, but I still got the jab because I’m sick of lock down and want this hell to end.
And why will you, or any number of people getting the vaccine, make the Govt end the restrictions? It is clear they will always find an excuse to keep the restrictions: vaccine refusers, variants, international travel, virtue signalling etc.
Any particular reason why the government should wish to prolong the lockdown. Perhaps all those party contributions from hedge fund managers shorting the economy might be the answer.
Exactly so, follow the money.
Of course I wasn’t actually being serious but I have never actually seen an Unherd BTL comment that gave serious reasons as to why the Government should want to keep restrictions any longer than necessary.
Because the powerful always want more power. This is not something new, we see it every single time there’s any excuse for additional power grabs. Governments have grown to bigger behemoths than they were ever supposed to be.
The claims that Covid-19 was created for the vaccines and not the other way round become more plausible by the day. On the principle of following the money for the perpetual / annual benefit of big Pharma, Fauci, Vallance, van Tam etc are all connected to either the vaccine manufacturers and/or in some cases to the âgain of functionâ experiments that were taking place in Wuhan prior to this whole sh*tshow kicking off (being rolled out?). The authorâs one-sided, patronising and borderline racially divisive article is state-sponsored cheerleading of the worst kind.
Fund managers shorting the economy? What planet are you on? Have you looked at the global stock market indices for the last year?
Conversely, I suspect that those people getting vaccinated who are not at any risk of suffering with Covid-19 are actually prolonging this hell. (Almost everybody under about 50). The endgame for the Gov (Gove!) is to introduce the ID passport at which point all our freedoms and civil liberties will be imperilled.
trouble is, if we comply we are just condemning ourselves to constant interference. Like the fiasco at the airports with shoes and liquids we will have to mess about with masks and hand sanitisers (which are useless) and go through vaccinations and vaccine status checks for everything, ad infinitum. For a disease that is mild in the majority of healthy folk. Don’t give in!
They all want to live here and they all want to change things here more to their own liking.
It’s not about “cause” but about which genetic subpopulations have the most historical exposure to coronaviruses, and which don’t. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Asian populations have much more experience with coronaviruses and are therefore the least affected, Caucasians are more affected, and first nations bloodlines in the Americas are most affected, it’s all about genetics.
Chiver’s thinking will always remain clouded for as long as he confuses “hesitancy” with “informed refusal”.
In have written to my Health Board inviting them to explain why, in their “vaccination letter” inviting me to participate in the trial of a novel, highly experimental gene-based medicinal product with no completed safety trial or track record of administration in humans, they failed to note that the pathogenic agent for which an “emergency use” justification was procured presents a lower risk to me than many routine hazards, including driving; that the experimental medicinal product is being administered under a temporary licensing arrangement under which the normal insistence on long term safety demonstration has been set aside; and that my normal right of recourse to damages via civil prosecution has been removed from me in a recent Act of Parliament targetting this unlicensed experimental medicinal product. I’ve further asked them to explain how they think they have met their legal duties under Supreme Court Judgement Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board setting out their duties to warn me of these factors, and their ethical duties under Nuremberg Code (1947) to ensure I am sufficiently informed so as to be able to give informed consent to their proposed medical trial.
It turns out the hesitant party is the Health Board. I have proof of delivery of the letter. I have no reply.
An excellent response!
I suspect they put it in the out tray marked “pompous know-it-all ass”.
I think it can be safely assumed which category you fall into. That was a very sensible and constructive post compared to yours.
You must be truly terrified….
Terrified of what? If you mean being stuck in a lift or even worse finding myself seated next to him at a dinner, then you are damn right, I would be terrified. The sheer pomposity of the whole letter in response to a perfectly reasonable and government sanctioned invitation to have a vaccine is breathtaking. “It turns out the hesitant party is the Health Board”. I bet they are (not!) and most likely the letter ended quite rightly being used as a paper airplane winging its tedious way to the nearest waste paper basket.
Then you clearly understand little about how vaccines work: if youâve had yours, what are you so afraid of?
A âperfectly reasonable and government sanctioned invitationâ? The latter part is true, but what is so perfectly reasonable about injecting billions of perfectly healthy people with an experimental vaccine rolled out under emergency use authorisation? With vaccines that have not yet completed Phase III trials and whose manufacturers do not even know themselves what they do to prevent infection or transmission, let alone side-effects and mortality – because there is not yet adequate data to analyse. These same manufacturers who have âgovernment sanctionedâ indemnity against prosecution or litigation in the event things turn out badly?
If you know the answer to any of these rather fundamental questions, do share your wisdom with us. If none of them have occurred to you, then you are either credulous to a dangerous degree or donât care to think critically for yourself.
We should all be asking the questions Richard has listed and many more.
When I suggested you were terrified, what I meant is that the governmentâs propaganda and media hysteria has clearly worked on you.
Only if their definition of pomposity includes asking questions of supposed ‘experts’.
Thatâs entirely possible, Philip. After all, rather than spending last summer recruiting and training ICU staff to prepare for an entirely foreseeable rise in winter respiratory infection, this is the Health Board that had us stand in our back gardens and bang on saucepans with wooden spoons. Dismissing a letter enquiring about their compliance with the law and international ethical conventions would not be inconsistent.
There is currently no data supporting the idea that these covid vaccines stop the spread of infections.
Think otherwise? Take this challenge:
Good luck.
Exactly, while few in the MSM and Govt. like to mention this this, the vaccine is never going to stop spread of infection nor could it, The vaccine is designed to be support for the immune system in responding to the virus when caught, not as something that stops it spreading. It’s as if some see the vaccine as creating a star-trek like force field around the body that stops it getting in. It will always get in and be spread, what matters is how our immune systems respond, either naturally or via support from a vaccine when it does enter our body. The vaccine does not nor will ever prevent transmission nor is it designed to.
Except there is such data
Yes. They show the opposite!
No there isn’t from a bona fida entity — unfortunately its all a bit of an uphill battle since all medical schools are now sponsored by pharma companies and have been since 1995..wake up its all a scam
I have just seen an article with such graphs. They assume that from the date at which vaccines were introduced that future deaths with no vaccine could be predicted by plotting a trend. This is a big assumption.
The reporting system for deaths, certainly in the UK and USA seems to have been corrupted and determined by an unreliable Covid test in the previous days before death.