"Three-quarters less likely to be admitted to hospital after corona repeat vaccination", was the headline in the RIVMpress releasefollowing a report that we have alreadypreviously discussed. In imaging, vaccination should protect against getting sick. The report did not look at all hospital admissions but only at admissions with Covid, zooming in on the differences between vaccinated people with and vaccinated without an autumn repeat vaccination. I was curious about the general state of vaccination statuses. Are vaccinated people underrepresented in the Covid ward? In short: does being vaccinated help against getting sick? The perception versus the numbers.
The Imaging
If the autumn vaccination already offers extra protection to broadly vaccinated people who only did not get that last shot, how should the difference be with people who have not had a corona vaccination at all? We can look at that. In the report, the vaccination rate among covid patients is given. But to understand exactly what the RIVM headline says, we first looked at the latest vaccination coverage of the population. 12-39 years: 66.9%; 40-59 years: 82.8%; 60-79: 90.7% and 80+: 92.0% vaccinated. These are the blue bars in Chart 1. The red bars then represent the image of the press release: the vaccination coverage in the hospital in this graph is one third of that among the population. Vaccinated people are underrepresented, so vaccination works. At least that's the suggestion.
Promotional campaign 2023 identical to that of 2022
Maarten Keulemans criticizes this article on Twitter. He flirts with something about calculating VE (not applicable to this article) and he notes that the Volkskrant headline used as an illustration is from last year, not from this year. Unfortunately, Maarten doesn't have time for that. Quite stunning: the RIVM promotional campaign for this autumn booster is indeed identical to that of the UK in 2022*! How should we see that, has this 'vaccine' worn off after just one year? Or does the 3x smaller chance now apply to all autumn jabs – which also happens to consist mainly of people over 60? You'd be confused about it. Apart from the question of what happens to vaccinated people who have missed both repeat vaccinations... Or people who haven't had a jab at all. That's what we're going to look at now.
(Thanks to Maarten Keulemans for the correction.)
*60 is three-quarters of 80, leaving 20. Three times 20 is also 60. In both cases, the ratio is 20 to 60. Just in case anyone should get confused when doing the countermath.
The numbers
There is also a table in the report. It states the percentage of unvaccinated people by age group. 'Unvaccinated' also includes people who have had the first jab of the basic series, so be it. There is also a column 'vaccination status unknown' in the table. To pre-empt criticism, we have added them to 'unvaccinated'.
The figures provide the following picture of the vaccination coverage of the population compared to corona patients in hospital. A completely different picture:
Vaccination rates are almost the same, across all age groups. The small differences fall within the margins of uncertainty.
On average, vaccinated people do not have better corona protection than unvaccinated people. Nevertheless, the group of over-60s with an autumn vaccination would do three times better than the rest. As a result, the autumn vaccination has raised that average considerably. This means that vaccinated people without an autumn vaccination are doing worse, so also worse than unvaccinated people.
In other words: From these figures you can conclude that vaccinated people lack protection, which can be temporarily patched up with a booster. Presumably, that protection will last for a few weeks to months. It remains to be seen to what level they will drop back to after that.
Serious illness: ICU patients perhaps?
For a while, you could still get corona again and infect others with a vaccine. You had to take it anyway because it might not protect against disease, but it did protect against Serious illness. Maybe we'll see that reflected in the ICU patients? We separate the ICU patients. Those figures are also in the table.
There is hardly any difference if we take the IC staff out of the general group of ZHO. At the age of 12-39, there is a difference between blue and purple, but there are only 6 ICU patients in total, then you quickly have an outlier in a random patient more or less. The numbers are really far too small to be able to say anything about it.
Conclusion
The actual values ​​are about three times as high as what you should understand from the misleading newspaper head. Are there no strict laws regarding advertising for medicines? The RIVM not only appears to be modeling agency, but apparently also provides PR & Marketing.
The differences within each cohort are far too small to draw conclusions, especially with such low numbers. See also the review by Martijn de Jong, earlier this week.
In Covid patients, there is no observable effect of the vaccinations compared to the rest of the population.
Note 1: I noticed that if you reduce the red and purple bars to one-third of their current size, you get something like Graph 1. That could have been an escape. After all, it is said that roughly a third or even a quarter of hospital patients are actually there due to Covid. The others tested positive but ended up in the hospital for a different reason. In that situation, the headline would have been correct. However, that route is not taken. After all, those figures would make it clear that there is hardly any corona left in the hospital and with that the current excuse for excess mortality would lapse: that is still 'corona'. Such a high mortality rate from a disease without sick people in the hospital, that's a difficult story.
Policymakers apparently think they have two options:
- Failing vaccines and therefore explainable corona excess mortality
- effective vaccines and a huge unexplained excess mortality.
In this RIVM report, the choice is made to evade the subject, as is also done in ZonMW studies, by focusing on a detailed topic.
However, there is a third option: both failing and excess mortality-causing vaccines. Then everything is explained, the high vaccination rate in the hospitals, the high excess mortality... Only then we are left with unexplained policy. How on earth were these decisions possible, how could the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the Health Council of the Netherlands and the EMA have blundered so much? How can this be prevented in the future? Do institutes actually work? And their 'supervisors'? Hopefully, they will soon learn from the OMT tapes in Hilversum and The Hague how things could have gone so wrong. I'm not really curious about that myself (I also knew that Tijs had integrity) but it would be nice if something would start to dawn on me in the media and in the parliament.
Note 2: This RIVM report is only about Covid patients. You could assume that the majority of them still experience some protection against Covid from their vaccination history. What about admissions for other causes, against which the jab does not protect? The vaccination rate should be higher there... That would mean overrepresentation of vaccinated people in hospital.
Remark 3: "What a blunder again" was that with that Volkskrant headline from a year ago. As if you headline that Max Verstappen has become world champion and then there is a photo from 2022. That doesn't make the headline misleading. That is the case with the reporting of the RIVM and I bet that last year's report in the Volkskrant was the same. But I don't have time, sorry.
Figures used
For the general vaccination coverage per age group, the RIVM website refers to the Corona dashboard (Table 3; column 'basic series' is used for 'vaccinated'). The group sizes are listed, so they have been converted to the age cohorts as used in the report (Tables 1 and 2).
The conversion to the other age cohorts:
Actually, impossible, right. That for more than 3.5 years now, official government agencies such as RIVM, LAREB, CBS, and even ministries have been spreading outright disinformation and manipulated research results. Aided and propagated by politicians, the judiciary, civil society organizations and media (not to mention the few good guys).
Yes, incomprehensible and that's why I shared my story about my parent. Dying furious and screaming because of the realization that he had believed and trusted the wrong people. It makes me react sharply to people like Elisabeth under the previous article, too sharply perhaps. And fewer and fewer people ask questions because they prefer not to know or they still say "you're doing it for someone else" because that sounds very noble and that apparently feels good. My thoughts today are with the 93 year old parent(s) of Elisabeth and Florence.
Well, de Volkskrant...
About the EMA: have you seen this piece by Robin de Boer, Anton?
https://robindeboer.substack.com/p/het-europese-prikschandaal-wordt?publication_id=2043029&post_id=139583914&isFreemail=true&r=126uyo&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It seems that EMA has not been asleep, but that they have been forced to approve those jabs. Noël Wathion apparently resisted.
None of this surprises me anymore. Corruption all the way down.
And so it went according to this article in the US.
https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
So basically the same pattern everywhere. War was waged against an invisible enemy. How scary do you want to make it?
The officials involved had no scruples and the willingness to vaccinate had to be boosted at all costs.
Just got another super-blog from Cees van den Bos by:
https://bomenenbos.substack.com/p/het-falende-astrazeneca-vaccin
Not a trace of concern about the obvious serious side effects (including deaths) towards the people who had to be jabbed.
You can also see here that Lareb was abused, that TV channels were used as propaganda channels.
Virtuous types like Tijs vd Brink think that's all fine, because after all, a life-threatening (not), completely new virus (not) had to be fought.
The models (courtesy of Neil Ferguson) predicted it, didn't they? It provides insight into a technocracy that has gone off the rails.
Where did the control come from?
Thank you for the link to that organization – a treasure trove of valuable articles!
E.g. this: https://brownstone.org/articles/lockdowns-counterterrorism-not-public-health. In the Netherlands, the "NCTb" was also involved: https://www.nctv.nl/actueel/nieuwsbrieven/update-nationaal-kernteam-crisiscommunicatie-covid-19
It explains a lot of "anomalies".
That is the Substack of Cees van den Bos, member of the "WOB-Team" together with Wouter Aukema and Marc van der Vegt. Follow them on Twitter!
Good question, Cees. Control? Everything was aimed at making the injections mandatory... Why? First reason: money. Second reason: money. Third reason: money! Bill Gates has cashed in well again, with his shares of Moderna: bought cheaply before the pandemic (October 2019), recently sold earlier this year. [Question: How was he so sure that there would be a pandemic right after that?]. Profits run into the billions. In other words, a case of shameless self-enrichment (to use Wim Kok's words), at the cost of many human lives and disabled people. Can it get any more criminal? The scale of all this goes far beyond what happened in the 1930s and 1940s. When will the settlement come?
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/geheimzinnige-oversterfte-steeds-minder-mysterieus-aan-de-vaccins-lag-het-zeker-niet~b6cea7de/
Iceland suspended all Covid mRNA vaccinations at the end of November due to sharp rise in unexpected deaths. https://slaynews.com/news/iceland-bans-covid-mrna-shots-sudden-deaths-skyrocket/
Special and very interesting. Message to Wouter van Noort? Maybe there will be something in MSM.
Slaynews does give a very colored version. It's more nuanced. They're just going to continue with pfizer by the looks of it. For people over 60 and 'vulnerable'. A bit like the Netherlands. Moderna is apparently out of favor.
Clever example of putting people on the wrong track. It is common knowledge that the vaccine wears off after a while and nothing new for respiratory infections. The data you present here by including all vaccinated people in the vaccination rate are impossible to interpret as long as the proportion of recently vaccinated people is unknown, and are therefore completely irrelevant. If you want to show that vaccination makes no sense, the only correct vaccination rate is the percentage that had the last autumn shot. And of course, the calculation must be made in such a way that the group 'vaccination status unknown' is not included, instead of adding it to a random group.
Given the long-term (side) effects of the vaccines, the distinction between never jabbed and ever jabbed is indeed relevant, think of IgG4 shift, antigenic sin, etc. In any case, the vaccinated should not be worse off than the unvaccinated.
This is the case if 'ever pricked' shows no difference from 'never pricked', but the last shot does reduce the risk of hospitalization "by three-quarters". The vaccinated without a last repeat vaccination are therefore worse off than the unvaccinated. I don't know why that is not relevant.
Then subtract the Healthy Vaccinee Effect and any residual cross-immunity from the previous shots, and the picture becomes even worse.