Previous posts in series: (2021) Wane’s world | #45 | #46 | #47 | #48 | #49 | #50 (2022) #1 | #2
This series graphs COVID-19 “vaccine” efficacy in the UK using UK Health Security Agency weekly vaccine surveillance report data, and applying the efficacy formulas used by our very scientific friends at Pfizer and Moderna. This iteration graphs the report for week 3, 2022.
CORRECTION: I found a non-material error in the Per 100K bar charts due to a data transcription mistake. I have posted corrected charts below the old ones that contain the error.
Preamble
I’m a week late! My apologies. As with the most recent Danish report, the most recent UKHSA vaccine surveillance report was altered from previous weeks to drop key data that happen to be inconvenient to the narrative. Unfortunately, the data dumped by the duplicitous bureaucrats are exactly the ones I have been relying on to generate the week-over-week time series graphs of the efficacy of the vaccines injectable pharmaceutical products in the UK. My delay in getting week 3 out reflects a little bit of time spent coming up with a workaround, and whole lot more time spent steeling myself to the task of actually implementing it.
For the past while, the UKHSA report has presented a table containing the rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death per 100K population, for people injected with the Very Safe and Effective COVID-19 injectable Science potion. Before the booster campaign in week 36 of 2021, the rates in the relevant column of this table reflected “people injected with two doses” of health juice. As booster and Megatron fear campaigns got underway, the definition drifted to be “people injected with at least two doses”, but at least the data in this column remained comparable to prior weeks. Now, as of week 3, UKHSA has sharply changed course and totally redefined this column of data to refer only to “people with exactly three doses”. The data as presented in the report now cannot be compared apples-to-apples with data from the previous weeks.
Luckily, a happy combination of basic algebra, spreadsheet wizardry, and other data in the report allow us to generate a fairly accurate estimate of “people injected with at least two doses” number, allowing the efficacy time series to continue. Moreover, the same technique allows us to estimate some even more important graphs, inspired by eugyppius, which directly compare the pureblood (i.e. never injected), double-dosed-but-not-boosted, and boosted populations. I reach the same conclusion as eugyppius by a slightly different route, namely that the people with two doses are faring much much worse than the unvaccinated pureblood population, and the discrepancy is being masked by the temporary effect of the booster.
At the very end of this post, I explain the algebra in case you are interested or can find an error in my reasoning.
Notable
The booster campaign is sputtering out. It is indeed an Omicron Emergency Bust. The increase from week 2 to week 3 is less than one percentage point, sharply down from the previous week’s figure, which itself represented a precipitous decline.
We have passed the Megatron peak in the UK. It seems likely that by week 5 we will be approaching the steady state.
Detected infection, hospitalization, and death rates are falling rapidly for the injected population (which is now predominantly a boosted popoulation) but still seeing a slow steady rise for those never injected.
When we estimate the case, hospitalization, and death rates for the dose 2 and dose 3 populations separately, we see that those who received two doses, but not three, of the
vaccineVery Safe and Effective longevity formula are faring worse than those who received nothing at all including in the hospitalization and death outcomes, the outcomes that, according to the updated narrative, the “vaccines” are supposed to protect against, now that everyone knows they are (at best) worthless against infection.For the eighth consecutive report, the pregnancy section is unchanged, with the authors pleading on page 24, in the usual copy/paste boilerplate, that “latest HES [pregnancy] data available are for August 2021”. If the “public health” bureaucrats of Britain choose to show half as much enthusiasm for finding fresh pregnancy data as they have shown for deleting inconvenient data from their reports, we may get an update to this section in our lifetimes.
Efficacy Graphs
The above eight graphs show vaccine efficacy against infection, hospitalization, and death in each age bucket tracked in the UKHSA report. Efficacy against infection is plotted on the right y-axis because it has been so terrible. The x-axis is time (report week). Since week 3, 2022, the numbers are my estimates since the UKHSA has now stopped printing the data on which this time series is based.
Context Graphs
The above graphs provide broader context about the state of the epidemic in the United Kingdom. The first one shows total percentage of the population who have been injected with 1, 2 and 3 doses of the majestically Safe and Scientific vaccination sauce. The next three graphs show case counts, hospitalization counts, and death counts, respectively, broken out by vaccination injection status. Again the x-axis is time (report week). Keep in mind that the counts are based on rolling four-week windows so divide by 4 to get a weekly number.
The above two graphs show the change in percentage of population injected from week to week in order to your eye “zoom in” and assess the rate at which the Percent Injected, by Dose rates are changing week over week. As you can see, the rate of increase for receiving both dose 2 and dose 3 declined this week, to 0.2% (dose 2) and 0.9% (dose 3). This suggests the current Megatron panic is drawing to a close in the UK.
All data above this point are taken directly from the UKHSA reports. The below graphs show two views of excess mortality from other sources. The top chart shows excess death in England and Wales in 2021, taken from mortality.org’s STMF visualization toolkit. The bottom shows excess deaths in the broader UK in 2020 and 2021, taken from Our World in Data (direct link here). It is too early to have data from 2022.
Current Rates per 100K
CORRECTION: I made a mistake transcribing the source data affecting the 18–29 bucket on the Infection per 100K chart and Hospitalizations per 100K bar charts. The above version is the original, the below version is corrected. As you can see, the correction resulted in a reduction in the number of Dose 2 only events, but the change isn’t really material in that the point remains that those with two doses only are doing terribly.
The three bar charts above show the rates of infection, hospitalization, and death per one hundred thousand people broken out by age group. The x-axis is age group, unlike most of the other charts—these graphs show data only from the current week, in the style of eugyppius. Note how dose 2, on its own, is almost universally worse than no injection at all, even for hospitalization and death. The catastrophic failure of dose 2 is being temporarily masked by the booster campaign, and the UKHSA bureaucrats know this. They are choosing to withhold it from you. Conduct yourself accordingly.
Methodology
The change in data in the week 3 report is annoying and almost certainly motivated by a desire to obfuscate the horrible performance of the original two dose injection regimen. However, the change does give something of value in return for the obfuscation, in that it allows us to compute the absolute size of the boosted (dose 3) population for each age group bucket. This is because the report continues to provides absolute numbers of injection, hospitalization, and death events (in tables 9–11). With the recent change, table 12 provides the rates per 100K affecting the boosted population. This allows us to derive the size of the boosted population by way of the following algebra:
rate per 100K = (number of events / population) × 100,000
=> population = (number of events × 100,000) / rate per 100K
Now that we have the dose 3 population, it is possible to derive the size of the dose 2 population using a slightly trickier method. For each age group bucket, we can calculate the size of the dose 2 population given the dose 3 population, which we just algebrized, and the percentage of the total UK population that the dose 2 and dose 3 populations represent. If we have the dose 2 and dose 3 injection rates for the age bucket, then we can simply estimate the dose 2 population by scaling the dose 3 population according to the injection rates:
estimated dose 2 population = k × dose 3 population
where the scalar k represents the relative size of the dose 3 population in relation to the dose 2 population, calculated as:
k = (dose 2 injected % - dose 3 injected %) / dose 3 injected %
Now that we have the dose 2 population, it is trivial to calculate the combined dose 2 and dose 3 case rate per 100K, which is the figure ignominiously deleted from the report by the UKHSA operatives.
Two subtle issues add to the effort of performing the above calculations in practice. The first issue is that the report does not contain tables of vaccination injection rates by age bucket. It does, however, contain graphs of these rates, so I extracted the figures by estimating them from the graphs. The second issue is that the rates per 100K and absolute event figures are presented across a rolling 4-week time window. To make my estimated dose 2 population as accurate as possible, I therefore averaged the injection rate figures across the time window.
Other Points of Interest
I strongly recommend eugyppius’ take on the week 3 report, accessible here. We arrive at some of the same conclusions by way of a similar, but slightly different methodology.
Another useful write-up on the week 3 report: https://justguy.substack.com/p/uk-weekly-update
The author also concludes that UKHSA is hiding dose 2 failure behind the boosters.
A win for algebra and persistence! Thanks for showing how you arrived at your conclusions. I'm curious as to whether there are data on people who had only one injection and how they're faring. That said, it's got to represent such a tiny portion of the population that info on them will be thin on the ground, at least outside of the public health system.