UK government discusses its COVID stats today

Concludes natural immunity alone (+/- vaccine) "provides good levels of protection against severe COVID-19"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-2023-jcvi-interim-advice-8-november-2022/jcvi-statement-on-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-2023-8-november-2022”

“Considerations

It is estimated that over 97% of adults in England had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, either from infection or vaccination, by the end of August 2022 (reference 1). In Great Britain, an estimated 93 to 99% of children aged 12 to 15 years, and 74 to 98% of children aged 8 to 11 years, had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the end of August 2022 (references 1 and 2). Natural immunity alone provides good levels of protection against severe COVID-19 while the combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity (hybrid immunity) is associated with even higher levels of protection (references 3,4 and 5)….”

Natural immunity works to prevent severe disease, but if you got sick AND got a vaccine, you are marginally more protected, so they say. How much more marginal protection? And did anyone bother to tell the patients that if they had already had COVID, they were at considerably greater risk of an adverse event from the shot?

Here is how the report begins:

Since the first COVID-19 vaccine was authorised for use in the UK in December 2020, the aim of the COVID-19 vaccination programme has been, and continues to be, the reduction of severe disease (hospitalisation and mortality) across the population, while protecting the NHS.

Wish that had been made clear to us—that the vax was only designed to prevent severe disease—we could have avoided vaccinating almost all children and young adults. Even before we were cognizant of the extent of vaccine harms.

What does protecting the NHS mean? Doctors said they had almost no patients in early 2020. What were we protecting when we refused patients normal visits? Or was keeping people from accessing medical care in general part of the depopulation effort? And if the government really wanted to prevent spread of COVID, why did it ban HCQ and later IVM? They work well for prevention as well as treatment. The UK govt had the chief medical officers of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland urge doctors to enroll all their patients in the Recovery trial, where those placed in the HCQ arm received borderline lethal doses, and over 25% died.

If reduction of severe disease was the desired endpoint, why did NONE of the vaccine clinical trials use severe disease as an endpoint?

The report goes on:

The current Omicron era is characterised by:

• high levels of population immunity acquired through vaccination and/or natural infection

• lower disease severity compared to infection due to previous SARS-CoV-2 variants

Thank you! The disease is now milder, and nearly everyone has some degree of natural immunity. This is what is important to remember. The disease we were all trained to fear is no longer with us, and we are now armed through previous exposures. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

However, there remains ongoing uncertainty regarding virus evolution, the durability and breadth of immunity, and the epidemiology of infection. These uncertainties limit the immediate development of a routine immunisation programme against COVID-19.

The FDA is using the same argument as the UK in its briefing documents for the VRBPAC meeting tomorrow: that we don’t know enough about the disease and the vaccines. But FDA flipped the script: the FDA’s response to not knowing enough is to urge yearly booster vaccinations, which will save FDA from having frequent advisory committee meetings at which it must convince the advisors of the need for more or newer doses. Putting a yearly shot in place now saves them from future decisions. Which is a big priority, since FDA’s top vaccine official, Peter Marks, admitted that he approved an earlier booster to kick the can down the road, because FDA needed to ‘do something.’ I must say, we are fortunate to have such transparent idiots running the show at FDA. If they were clever we might actually take them seriously.

Under “Considerations” the UK report says the following:

Not all hospitalisations and deaths ascribed to SARS-CoV-2 infection are vaccine-preventable events. Due to the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant, together with infection that can be asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic, persons who require hospital care for non-COVID-19 reasons may be coincidentally infected with SARS-CoV-2. Such hospitalisations are not preventable through COVID-19 vaccination.

I have no idea how these 3 sentences fit together and make logical sense. Unless it is an admission the vaccines don’t work. Is it also an admission that hospitalizations and deaths attributed to COVID were overcounted, perhaps to gin up the numbers to scare us?

And now for some remarkable statistics. Thank you JCVI!

Revised estimates of the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one hospitalisation during the Omicron era indicate that 800 persons aged 70 years and above would need to be given a booster in autumn 2022 (a fourth dose) to prevent one hospitalisation from COVID-19. The corresponding NNV for persons aged 50 to 59 years is 8,000 and for persons aged 40 to 49 years who are not in a clinical risk group is 92,500 (Appendix 1).

Did you get that? You would need to vaccinate 92,000 people in their 40s to prevent one hospitalization with Omicron. How many would be maimed or killed by all those shots? And you would think that if the shots saved lives, here is the place to tell us. But there is no mention of lives saved.

It looks like the UK is ending boosters for 50s and under:

Based on the current data, keeping the booster (third dose) offer open to these groups is considered of limited ongoing value and the overall impact on vaccine coverage is negligible.

What will FDA do tomorrow? Is this a parting of the ways for the public health establishments of our two great nations?