Last week we published Part 2 of our evidence updates, focusing on ethics, masks and elderly care. This week, we take another detailed look at the collateral damage caused by lockdowns and rather topically have reworked the piece on covid vaccines for children.
In December 2021 Norman Fenton, Martin Neil, Clare Craig, Josh Geutzkow, Joel Smalley, Scott McLachlan and Jonathan Engler published an article casting doubt on the vaccine efficacy implied by the UK’s official mortality statistics as they related to vaccination status, raising miscategorisation of vaccinated deaths soon after injection as unvaccinated as a possible significant factor.
It is over two years since the first lockdown and now more than a year since HART published its paper COVID-19: an overview of the evidence. We asked all the original authors to go back and review their article and update with relevant publications, revising their conclusions as appropriate.
There have been marked differences between the covid trajectories in Eastern and Western Europe; in particular Spring 2020, Spring 2021 and Autumn 2021 showed markedly different death rates (from covid).
This paper, published in the “peer-reviewed” Canadian Medical Association Journal, quite simply represents an amoral, unethical and utterly transparent attempt to use pseudoscientific modelling to fabricate a false narrative.
The Government has attempted to answer this question using a combination of antibody testing and the ONS household survey. The latter tests a random sample of the country each week to determine who is PCR positive and extrapolates to estimate the prevalence in the whole population.
Thousands of deaths in the vaccinated missing from ONS data Over 2,000 deaths in the vaccinated had been miscategorised as unvaccinated in the ONS deaths by vaccination status reports. These were people who had had a vaccine recorded electronically but never made it into the UKHSA dataset on who had been vaccinated (NIMS). There remains […]
After two years one might hope that there was a clear definition of what counted as a covid death. Collateral Global published a report this week exposing how far we are from an agreed definition with numerous different ways to define a covid death.
In its report of 14th February 2022, PHS has declared that it will no longer publish data on COVID-19 outcomes (cases, hospitalisations and deaths) classified by vaccination status, a hitherto valuable component of the COVID-19 vaccination surveillance strategy. The reason given for making this change is that ‘PHS is aware of inappropriate use and misinterpretation of the data when taken in isolation without fully understanding the limitations’.
There is increasing debate about the accuracy of covid admissions, with talk of “incidental” covid patients who are in hospital for another reason but happen to test positive. This would mean that should the patient subsequently die, this might be attributed to covid when this was not the cause of death.
The PM has been announcing statistics and making mistakes. He has claimed that 30-40% of all hospitalised patients were unvaccinated. On 29th December, he said that 90% of patients in intensive care were not boosted. Neither of these figures can be verified as the data is not in the public domain.
When you hear that a vaccine has 95% efficacy, what do you think that means? Most people think that it means that, if 100 people are vaccinated against a virus, 95 won’t get that virus. That’s not what it means and the truth might surprise you.
A diagnosis is a compilation of clinical symptoms and testing adds further information to help doctors decide on the likelihood of a particular diagnosis. Because a covid case has been defined not by symptoms but by a positive test result this logic has been reversed.
There have been numerous papers that have shown how well the vaccines protect people after the second dose. Some of this effect is a mirage. The effect happens as a result of inaccurate measuring and a phenomenon called survivorship bias.