COVID: Vaccine Data is Telling an Interesting Story...

With most developed countries now well into the process of mass vaccination of its citizens, we’re long beyond the question of whether the majority of people would accept the COVID vaccines or decline them.

As far as can be ascertained from official statements and figures, the critical mass of people have accepted the vaccine or are waiting to be vaccinated: those still refusing or declining any COVID vaccine are – at least according to general statements and perceptions – a stubborn or misguided minority.

Whether these statements or figures are reliable or not is another issue: I’m not sure how high the numbers are, in most developed countries, of people refusing or resisting vaccination. One thing I’ve definitely noticed is that the *apparent* widespread nature online of people who claim to be refusing the vaccines doesn’t seem to match up with the mainstream idea that the overwhelming majority of people are pro vaccine or are vaccine compliant.

Go to most online comments sections or forums and invariably 90% of people will be saying they’re refusing the vaccine or are unwilling to comply with the programme: however, ask most people in the real world and they’ll say they’ve been vaccinated or that they’re waiting for the second dose or whatever.

There’s definitely a disparity there. But I’m not sure what it implies.

This could be a case of people online being much more full of bravado and apparent rebelliousness than they are in the real world: in other words, that a lot of people who claim to be non-vaccinated and non-compliant online are actually fully vaccinated in reality and are just trying to save face or appear ‘red pilled’ (sorry to use the common online meme) for the sake of their online personalities or perceived credibility.

I don’t know. Pretty much everyone I know in the real world has been vaccinated (myself not included). The only people I know who say they haven’t been vaccinated are online.

Maybe that’s a mystery for another time.

What we should really focus on is very interesting UKHSA data – that appears to suggest infection rates are higher in the fully vaccinated than in the non vaccinated.

Which, if true, runs completely counter to mainstream propaganda that we’ve been subjected to for over a year.

The recent report by the UKHSA (UK Health Security Agency) upset a lot of people and has drawn scathing criticism from various journalists and outlets, with the main argument appearing to be that the UKHSA was being irresponsible by publishing its data.

While the argument that some of this type of data should be taken with a pinch of salt is fine, a lot of this criticism moved more towards apparently advocating for censorship of data that is contrary to the prevailing narratives.

For example, Cambridge-based statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter was apparently furious, saying ‘Completely unacceptable that UKHSA put out absurd statistics showing case-rates higher in vaxxed than non-vaxxed. Feeding conspiracy theorists worldwide…‘

ITV’s Robert Peston also published findings, based on Public Health England data, suggesting that the vast majority of new COVID infections are of the fully vaccinated and not of the unvaccinated.

An article at The Conversation says: ‘On the face of it, the case numbers appear concerning. Of the 554,896 new COVID cases recorded in adults… over half (50.6%) were in people who had already had two vaccine doses. In comparison, just one in five cases were in adults who haven’t yet had a single jab.‘

The Conversation piece, perhaps predictably, goes on to take a cautious and/or sceptical approach to Peston’s report: at times, trying a little too hard to avoid agreeing with the apparent data.

For example, it argues that one reason we can’t trust these findings is because ‘we don’t know how many people are in England’.

Which seems a bit desperate. While I agree that gaging what the numbers are of people who’ve refused the vaccine is difficult, it can’t be so difficult as to render the apparent data worthless, can it?

And we apparently do know how many people *have* been vaccinated (the government seems to be boasting about those figures whenever it can) – so, other than tying us up in wordplay and complicated statistics, I’m not sure why they’re struggling to accept the findings that a lot of the double-vaccinated are still being infected with COVID… and that the unvaccinated, as far as can be gleaned from the same data, are *not* being infected as much.

I fully acknowledge that data and statistics aren’t always reliable: and that the statistics can be interpreted in different ways and, more importantly, the data – and its implications – can change from month to month.

For all we know, this data in question could be misleading: but it’s telling that there are so-called responsible and high-minded voices essentially calling for censorship of medical data because it apparently contradicts their narratives: yet were not even remotely critical or cautious back when the data and findings were being heavily skewed and manipulated to support their narratives.

Some of the same people now who are upset about some of these findings being published were perfectly happy to accept and promote highly questionable COVID statistics and highly manipulative COVID classification methods before.

Well, the dilemma is obvious. It’s going to be difficult to maintain the demonisation or mockery of the unvaccinated if data begins to suggest that the unvaccinated are not really causing a problem.

To continue to preach that the unvaccinated are ‘letting the country down’ or are socially irresponsible, etc, is going to be tricky when the double-vaccinated and fully compliant are shown to be contracting COVID at a far higher rate – at least right now – than their non-vaccinated inferiors.

Epidemiologist Paul Elias Alexander, writing at the Brownstone Institute, consults 21 different studies from across the world, all of which are suggestive of the vaccines being unreliable or ineffective. To cite just a couple of those examples, there’s a study in Qatar ‘which showed that the vaccine efficacy (Pfizer) declined to near zero by 5 to 6-months and even immediate protection after one to two months were largely exaggerated‘.

Another report ‘suggests that as high as 90% of hospitalizations in the US are among the vaccinated‘, while ‘One leading Israeli health official reported that the vaccinated are accounting for 95% of severe and 90% of new hospitalizations for COVID-19.’

He draws the conclusion that ‘It appears that it is the vaccinated who are getting infected and thus transmitting the virus at a far greater rate. This unravels the demand for universal vaccine passports…’

And that’s why these studies and figures make people uncomfortable: if the idea of the vaccine effectiveness – and the threat to society posed by the unvaccinated – is seen to be falling apart, it’s a lot harder to justify pushing through things like vaccine passports, medical apartheid and discrimination against the non-vaccinated, etc.

It also potentially risks losing the trust and faith of those who’ve been fully compliant with the demands made of them thus far.

The goal-posts are, predictably, being moved all the time. Weeks ago, the CDC in the United States suggested it would have to alter the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’: apparently implying that being double vaccinated will no longer count as ‘fully vaccinated’ – and that only having a third (booster) shot would be acceptable.

So the propaganda for the booster jabs is going to gather pace, almost certainly.

Talk in the US of ‘mix and match’ booster jabs is also gathering pace: meaning people can get Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer or Moderna, regardless of what their first two jabs were. It’s kind of like the pick n’ mix sweets we used to get when we were kids – except this is concerning experimental mRNA vaccines (that are being shown to not be entirely effective).

Boris is among those calling for boosters.

Rather interestingly – and largely something the media hasn’t made much of – the PM himself, Boris Johnson, has just confirmed that the double vaccinated are not protected from the virus. And that, therefore, the booster jab is really necessary.

Said the PM: ‘…The boosters are fantastic. The levels of protection are really very high, but it’s also very, very important that you get one because the double vaccination provides a lot of protection against serious illness and death but it doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on…’

It seems like a pretty important admission – a little too significant to just pass under the radar. Boris essentially is saying the vaccine doesn’t stop you being infected and, crucially, it doesn’t stop you infecting others.

To be clear, the primary argument has always been that the vaccines meant less critical symptoms and less hospitalisation – rather than being outright COVID-proof. And it does seem to be the case that vaccination is protecting those infected from experiencing the more severe symptoms and outcomes of infection.

But… if it doesn’t stop you infecting others, then essentially its ability to stop the spread of the virus has to be considered limited. And *if* the vaccinated are as likely to transmit the virus to others as the unvaccinated are, then… what difference does it make – at the pandemic level – whether someone’s vaccinated or not?

And if the double-vaccinated have only limited or temporary protection, it isn’t clear why we would expect a third jab to yield any better results.

By this model, we would potentially be setting up a future in which people simply have to keep getting treated with these mRNA jabs: with vaccines that were experimental in the first place.

In the passed couple of weeks actually, my sister – who is fully vaccinated – contracted COVID 19. And my Uncle, who went and got his booster shot, has been bedridden with severe flu-like symptoms for over a week (in his case, he bafflingly decided to get the flu jab on the same day as the booster – so that might be why he’s sick).

In Israel, by the way, the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has already been altered: now meaning you’re only ‘fully vaccinated’ if you’ve had a third (booster) jab.

This is interesting because the whole push for the initial double-vaccination was sold around the coercive promise of the ‘green pass’ (i.e: proof of double vaccination meaning you’re free to participate in society, use public services, go to restaurants, etc): now the people who went along with this demand have had the rules changed on them, demanding the third shot now in order to keep the green pass.

It is blatantly obvious then that these goal-posts can and will be moved and these definitions altered whenever the state wants: each time demanding that its citizens comply with ever-changing demands or have their liberties and rights stripped from them.

This was *always* the problem of going along with the programme in the first place: once you’ve shown your willingness to jump through the hoops – and your willingness to have your rights and freedoms altered on a whim – they’ve got you by the balls.

When the critical mass of people goes along with that (which is what happened), it sets the precedent forever – your personal rights and rights of movement, etc, are now tied to your medical records, your ‘vaccination status’ and your level of compliance with the state.

That criteria of ‘compliance’ was, only a short time ago, being ‘fully vaccinated’ – as in double vaccinated. Now it’s going to change to having had the third jab.

But, six months down the line, that could change to something else.