On Thursday, Public Health England (PHE) released a surveillance report (criticised here) claiming that both Pfizer and AstraZeneca Covid vaccines are up to 90% effective in preventing symptomatic infection in the over-65s.
Two days later, on Saturday, PHE released a new study, the headline for which is the reassuring news that the vaccines appear to work almost as well against the Indian variant. Included in the report, however, are quite different effectiveness figures for the AstraZeneca vaccine. It states: “Two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 60% effective against symptomatic disease from the B.1.617.2 [Indian] variant compared to 66% effectiveness against the B.1.1.7 [British] variant.”
This 66% effectiveness against the British variant is much closer to the vaccine effectiveness reported in the AstraZeneca trial (70%) and is likely to be much closer to truth. The vaccine will be less effective still in the over-65s, and so the new figures are well below the 90% effectiveness in the over-65s claimed by Thursday’s PHE study. Much of the data from Thursday’s study also came from a period when the British variant was dominant.
Where, though, are the science journalists jumping on this blatant inconsistency in key data coming out of Government and asking probing questions? On Thursday, many outlets cheerfully reported a Government study showing 90% effectiveness in the over-65s for the AstraZeneca vaccine. On Saturday, the same outlets dutifully reported the next study from the same Government body showing the same vaccine is only 66% effective across all ages.
What has happened to journalism in this country, that this passes without question? What, for that matter, has happened to science? Does anyone care about getting to the truth, or is it just about conforming to the narrative? Is the country too invested in the vaccine-saviour narrative to be able to ask awkward questions about the inconsistent claims coming out of Government?
Stop Press: Ross Clark in the Spectator notes the disappointing effectiveness figures for the AstraZeneca jab and the worrying reports of severe side-effects and deaths and asks, is it time to retire the AstraZeneca vaccine?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How can anyone believe anything that the UK writes about vaccines, sorry jabs ?? No-one should get jabbed (bit late to say that now), but I wish people hadnt rushed to get something put into their arms they have no idea how will react on them.
Even Ross Clarks article references 56 deaths from the AZ vaccine. Not coincidences as they have cited for the hundreds and thousands more, but even the MHRA have to admit this.
What is this? Collateral damage as we protect the collective?
Sacrifice on the vaccine altar?
What is meant by ‘effective’? 34% of a jabberwock doesn’t get Covid? If he gets it, he has only 34% of symptoms? He passes it on to only 34% of those he meets? If the worst comes to the worst, he’s only 34% dead?
Virtue badging replaced journalism among the young a long time ago.
The figures are meaningless because they are based on estimates of deaths that would have occurred if the vaccine hadn’t been used, so it doesn’t matter if there are inconsistencies as all the figures are “educated” guesses.
All that is sure is that they need more data to know for sure.
What’s with all the back pedalling all of a sudden?
They are making it up as they go along. Maybe someone should lend them a random number generator to make the figures a bit more believable.
Neil Ferguson isn’t using his at the moment
What has happened to journalism in this country, that this passes without question?
The Chinese have a state run media – we have a media run state.
How many fingers am I holding up – four or five?
In one hand? Some might say ‘five’ – that would be interesting, but you never know.
According to NHS data we had about a 66% higher chance of testing positive, getting hospitalised or dying only about 2 weeks ago. Not sure I felt any different then than now.
For people without severe comorbidities, who are obese or very old the chance of dying has gone from vanishingly small to vanishingly small+ 10%. And if you are ill, old or obese the chance of dying has merely been elevated by 10%.
“chance of dying has gone from vanishingly small to vanishingly small+ 10%.”
Actually +1%
Depends if we are talking relative risk reduction or absolute risk Going back to the original trials. When a manufacturers claim a vaccine is “95% effective” we must bear in mind that this is an estimate of relative risk as opposed to absolute risk, and can be somewhat misleading for the general public who will interpret this as “if I have the vaccine I’m 95% certain of not getting COVID” – this is not what “95% effective” means. By way of example, in Pfizer’s large trial 8 of their vaccinated group of 18,198 participants went on to develop COVID-19 (0.044% risk), whereas a total of 162 of their un-vaccinated group of 18,325 participants went on to develop COVID-19 (0.88% risk). The relative risk reduction calculation is thus 100 x 1-(0.044/0.88) = 95%, whereas the absolute risk reduction is a mere 0.88 – 0.044 = 0.84%. Thus, if you were a vaccinated subject in Pfizer’s trial, there was a 99.96% chance you didn’t develop COVID-19. If you were an un-vaccinated subject there was still a 99.12% chance you didn’t develop COVID-19, the difference being the absolute risk of 0.84% i.e. vaccination by Pfizer’s product actually reduces your personal risk by less… Read more »
Precisely. Everyone here should be clear about this – it’s the oldest PR trick in the book to fool people about risk reduction.
Always a litmus test of proper research : Is ARR quoted?
If not, it’s a PR job, not a real trial.
If you believe the PR of relative risk reduction, whilst being ignorant of the absolute figure – then you are lacking critical information, anyway. You probable need someone to have Power of Attorney for your own safety 🙂
Nudge nudge, wink wink, hey, you heard the one about the all-new ‘triple-mutant Yorkshire variant”…? I kid you not!
So how effective are the various JibJab types against this super XXXmutant.
And the DD muppets will suck it up.
What next? Alien mutant crosses space to terrorise puny earthlings?
https://news.yahoo.com/triple-mutant-yorkshire-variant-coronavirus-150440221.html
Big Pharma tells lies shock horror