Page 23 of this report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034383/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-46.pdf
The current data given a 3 week period appears to show that the ages 30-80 that have been double jabbed are signficiantly more likely to get a positive covid-19 result than those who are not vaccinated. Also please note that the data presented is per 100,000, meaning that it has taken into account the proportion size of the fully vaccinated and the people that are unvaccinated.
Little confused here I thought that the whole reason the UK were mandating that the NHS and care home workers get this covid-19 vaccine was so that it would help stop the spread of this virus and yet this data seems to show that for ages 30-80 the vaccinated are more likely to actually get this virus. So little lost as to the Governments reasoning behind this is? I would say that money is behind the motive, but I don’t think the Government would swoop that low?
Before you all call be an anti-vaxxer I am proud to announce that I am doing my part in helping prevent the spread of the virus in the process saving lives because I am a good person that cares for the wellbeing of others and have received a covid-19 vaccine and so therefore am indeed vaccinated against this virus which has killed millions of people (even though this data I have presented here shows that 30-80 year olds are more likely to get this virus and maybe suggests that the fully vaccinated are more likely to transmit the virus…)
But yeah I would love to hear all your thoughts on this data that the UK Government have released here. Also currently reading this book “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and he presents a lot of really good information in this book which I think may be of interest to the readers here.
Mods please don’t ban for being anti-vax I am 100% for vaccination even if data shows that it may increase transmisibility of a virus.
You either had a special copy and paste answer for me or you typed all this, both are equally funny
Little confused? which part specifically do you find funny?
The “little confused?” throws me off. Are you confused? Then why the questionmark? It has this condecending undertone… Who is confused? sexy_peach laid out their arguments what else do you need? Either get to the point that you are trying to make or change the phrasing… Also, this is just a surveillance report (not a carefully designed and peer reviewed study) so I would not interpret to much into it based on a single data table.
You are right this clearly isn’t a “carefully designed and peer reviewed study” - its a surveillance report. Do you think that peer reviewed studies don’t study and analyse data such as this in their study to justify their conclusions?
I think that just because it isn’t a “carefully designed and peer reviewed study” doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be at least discussed and analysed by others. I feel that this data is in fact in accordance with the situation concerning Israel which had a vast majoirty vaccinated and yet had some of the highest covid cases the world has ever seen. My point here is that the vaccinated seem to be spreading the virus more than the unvaccinated which is what this data and Israel seem to suggest.
Please debunk this.
If most people are vaccinated you will also find more people spreading it (in absolut terms - assuming a constant probablility of breakthrough). However, we know that these are not entirely constant (e.g., depend on vaccine type, age of people etc.) and might be confounded by other societal measures (e.g., lockdown/isolation of only unvaccinated people). Reporting one data table does not provide enough information… even looking at a single country is just anectotal evidence. Hence, the need for thorough studies or meta-analysis. Nothing to “debunk” here. This is not a conspiracy theory. If you have a hypothesis, test it or quantify its liklihood using all data available.
all of it
Which part and for what reason?