The latest report from UKSHA, the official Health Safety Institute of the United Kingdom, is causing quite a stir. The data have been known for FOUR MONTHS and published a few days ago. Why something like this can take four months if you still watch over health safety, that is beyond my comprehension. An alert science journalist should have been able to deliver this news as early as November.
These dates don't come out of the blue. Before they were presented on 25 October 2022, they have already signed off before. It contains tables for July 2022. In May 2022 (two months before that) the JVCI knew nothing about it:
"Last year's repeat vaccination programme provided excellent protection against severe Covid-19, including the Omikron variant."Professor Wei Shen Lim, the chair for Covid-19 vaccination at the JCVI. (source)
with which he casually ranks Omikron among the "serious Covid-19" causing viruses. As we know, Covid-19 syndrome no longer exists and the typical symptoms in Omikron are of a very different nature.
The dates were only presented to the members of the JCVI, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It wasn't big news. Did it stay in an academic British bubble of "I got your back, you got mine"?
In elk geval niet Brits; Een van de JVCI-leden is prof. dr. M.J. (Maarten) Postma, Hoogleraar Global Health Economics UMCG & RUG (Medische en Economie & Bedrijfskunde faculteiten). Of hij bij de presentatie was weet ik niet. Ik mag toch wel aannemen dat hij een Powerpoint of een handout toegestuurd heeft gekregen. Ik kon zelf geen minutes finding and leafing through the older minutes give statements like "Timeliness is more important than the type of vaccine" already an impression of how the flag hangs there.
Perhaps Professor Postma could give us a lecture on why you don't have to ring a bell for months when you have information that is vital to public health. It is always difficult to feel how hotemetoten think - excusez le mot.
Maurice de Hond posted yesterday an article in which he showed a striking table from that presentation.
It concerns the number of vaccinations that must be made to prevent one hospitalization in low-risk groups. That number rises to 210,400. That sounds like a lot.
NNV (also: NNTV) is often used as a number of vaccinations needed to make a prevent infection but these are hospitalizations. Those numbers are higher.
John Campbell is also amazed when he goes through the numbers. Now I am not so introduced to NNV and hospital admissions so I try to get some feeling for the figures by calculating them to Dutch figures and in particular calculated by mortality.
An impression of The Lancet about NNVs against hospitalization
To get a sense of how high an NNV of 43,600 actually is, a few pieces and a graph from a study in The Lancet, on the NNV against "cases" of Covid vaccines in the Pfizer trials:
"... a decrease of one quarter of the NNV (from 84 to 64)."
"... an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0-84% and the NNV 119 in the phase 3 study)."
Look at the blue values, those are the NNV observers. So we are talking about dozens of them, down to the low hundred. Actually, we are already done...
The Dutch situation
In the second half of 2022, the period in which children from the age of 12 were also allowed to be vaccinated in the Netherlands, we had 15,426 admissions.
Table 3C (above) runs roughly from 40,000 to 210,000. If you assume an NNV of 100,000, it would have taken 1,542,600,000 (more than one and a half billion) injections to keep such a number of people out of the hospital.
If you think of the 80,000 prevented admissions (rivm model...) you end up with just under 8 billion injections.
Now Kuipers was well on his way to that 8 billion, but he did not succeed. Without fooling around: this will probably be methodologically questionable. For example, vaccines have been more effective in a "naïve" population, but there seems to be something going on with the order of magnitudes.
According to Statistics Netherlands, 2,500 Dutch people with and because of Corona died in those 6 months. That's 17% of those 15,426 hospitalizations. Of course, those who died also include people who gave the ghost outside the hospital. Apparently, there are often circumstances that lead to no longer going to the hospital with Covid symptoms such as increasing respiratory distress, etc. If that's because they're all 90-year-olds, that should lead to a completely different kind of rethinking, but we'll take that fact into account as well. It is plausible that this 17% keeps pace with hospital admissions.
Exactly how the coding at CBS works, based on WHO instructions, is not transparent. Someone might think that "Covid-19" is checked if somewhere on the B form corona or covid is mentioned. At the beginning of the corona crisis, cbs figures were twice as high as those of rivm, now it is FIVE times as many covid deaths according to cbs. How that may have changed so much is not entirely clear.
For the "only due to corona" scenario, we hold the NICE foundation. Over that period, the covid mortality rate there is more than 7% of covid admissions. But there is a clear downward trend: January 2023 will be more than 6%. Governing is looking ahead, so with a view to the future we take 6%. We show two tables to indicate the range, the order of magnitude within which to think about these controversial mRNA vaccinations:
- With Corona
100/17 = 6, rounded. This means that in order to prevent one admission, we have to multiply the NNV by six to prevent one death, if we assume CBS figures ('with' corona). That's Table A.
- By Corona (based on NICE figures)
100/6.3 = 16. This means that in order to prevent one admission, we have to multiply NNV by 16 to prevent a death if we assume 'pllausibised' figures ('due to' corona, explanation in the box). That's Table B.
If anyone wants to take the trouble to work through these calculations per age group, please! I'm keeping the ballpark figures now. That yields the following two tables, choose the most likely one yourself and think about what that could differ per age group.
NNTV NL – Number of vaccinations needed to prevent 1 death in the Netherlands
|Basis: CBS figures|
Total corona mortality as 17%
of hospital admissions
|Low-risk group||Basic series||Booster (2+1)||Autumn booster '22|
|Basis: NICE figures|
Total "due to corona" mortality:
6% of hospital admissions
|Low-risk group||Basic series||Booster (2+1)||Autumn booster '22|
This is based on the premise that you can estimate the total mortality by taking 6% of all hospitalizations.
If you assume half, you have to double the NNTV – and vice versa.
6% chance of death from corona hospital admissions: this percentage is calculated on the basis of NICE Foundation. (January 2023 from Chart 1)
We then assume that the typical covid patient goes to the hospital. Reasons for not doing so may include other diseases or high vulnerability, often accompanied by old age. The question is then justified whether these people die a natural death or die too early from covid. A positive PCR test without fatal covid disease is also conceivable.
Lack of data on side effects leads to polls and research
Neither the original Pfizer papers, nor the counter-analyses, nor the earlier data show that vaccination mortality remains below these limits. After all, that is what is meant by the vague cry "The benefits outweigh the risks": it is best to kill people, as long as there are just a few fewer than those that the pharmaceutical company has effectively protected. That is different from "First do no harm". Only body bags are counted and pulled apart – you hope, because that doesn't happen openly either. Vaccination statuses are glossed over. The benefits/risks calculation also does not look at lost years of life, which would tip the balance. This is to indicate once again that the entire chain per age category should be looked at carefully.
Polls: Steve Kirsch finds confirmation in published paper
Papers and studies with frightening numbers are regularly published, for example these: The role of social circle COVID-19 disease and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the U.S. population, which calculates that, based on a survey of 2840 people in December 2021, 215,000 to 335,000 Americans died from covid injections in 2021 alone. The (in our eyes somewhat dubious) research comes from the economist Mark Skidmore, who holds a chair at Michigan State University. The handy twist he makes is that people at least HAVE THE IMPRESSION that there are hundreds of thousands of vaccination deaths. That is not good for vaccination readiness – and that is of course important!
The structure of this published paper is reminiscent of the polls of Steve Kirsch who feels quite confirmed because the results confirm each other. I am less enthusiastic about the harshness of this methodology. It is clear that this type of research leads to this kind of results.
How it should be done: representative research
Coincidentally, Maurice also posts today an article with a study on covid/vaccination perception. Steve Kirsch's polls were always criticized for the respondents coming from their own bubble. At Maurice we are talking about a REPRESENTATIVE sample, that is different cake.
With NNVs running into the millions, you really have to scratch your head. It will undoubtedly have been less bad, but that such a thing can only continue is metering.
First the dates on the table, at least in the Netherlands!
Are you looking at: https://www.maurice.nl/2023/01/29/wat-denkt-nl-over-de-oorzaken-van-oversterfte/
If you ask the citizens, who voted CDA-D66-Grlinks-VVD and PvdA, almost all think that the excess mortality can NOT be due to the vaccine.
Look in my surroundings, it's actually exactly the same. Vaccine is not partly / possibly the cause. So citizens with this opinion, are in the majority, how are you going to convince them??
I can't do it, in my own family, with these thoughts.
Doctrine and influencing citizens, government has worked well. 🙁