More vaccine misinformation from UK gov

They’ve finally decided to start pointing the finger and accusing people.

From the Guardian:

Britain’s health minister, Sajid Javid, has said unvaccinated people are “taking up hospital beds” that could be used for someone else. Speaking on Sky News, Javid said 10% of the population – more than 5 million people – still had not received their jabs, and about nine out of 10 of those needing the most care in hospital were unvaccinated. He added: “I just cannot emphasise enough the impact that they are having on the rest of society.” “They must really think about the damage they are doing to society by … they take up hospital beds that could have been used for someone with maybe a heart problem, or maybe someone who is waiting for elective surgery.” “But instead of protecting themselves and protecting the community they choose not to get vaccinated. They are really having a damaging impact and I just can’t stress enough, please do come forward and get vaccinated.”

A report by the charitable Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre shows the percentage of unvaccinated Covid patients admitted to critical care in England fell from 75% in May to 48% last month [November] as more people were jabbed. [1] The 10% is based on London I think where vaccination rates are lower. [1] So if the Minister actually said 9 out of 10 that would be substantially incorrect.

Indeed as vaccination rates continue to increase the percentage of unvaccinated people in intensive care will continue to fall.

The other contestable idea here is the notion that everyone needs to get vaccinated. In reality – the people who are unvaccinated and are in critical care will be predominantly people in at risk groups – the elderly, the obese and those with other existing medical conditions. It is these groups who are, arguably, acting irresponsibly in not getting vaccinated. But the Health Bureaucracy is continuing the scheme of total vaccination. They continue to do this despite:

  1. Vaccines are actually more dangerous for young people than Covid. [2]
  2. The vaccines have limited efficacy against transmission [3]
  3. The vaccines have limited efficacy against the new Omicron variant – without a booster. [4] And in this case it is not known how long the booster effect will last.

A more realistic way forward is indicated here:

Robert Dingwall, professor of social sciences at Nottingham Trent University, said, however, said that regular boosters may not be the best route forward. “I have heard respected immunologists say privately that it may be better in the long-term to be exposed to infection as an infant and develop a lasting immune response, which is topped up by periodic mild reinfections,” he explained. [5]

I would add supported with regular vaccinations for the most vulnerable.

The Health Bureaucracy moves like a juggernaut. They have latched onto the idea of total vaccination. They did this at the point when it looked like the best vaccines provided reliable (> 90%) protection. And without looking at the long-term. For example; it was inevitable that vaccine evading variants would emerge. The answer “oh – we can just tweak the vaccine” completely fails to get to grips with the logistical problems of re-vaccinating billions of people, (conceivably every 6 months or so). Together with the evidence on transmission it is looking increasingly like the vaccines are not the dream-ticket they were sold as. But they’ve got a big order at Pfizer and a lot of people are getting very rich and so it is going to take a while for them to admit this.

Update – in the US too

This is the clearly out-of-it US President Joe Biden telling Americans that “if you are fully vaccinated especially if you got your booster shot you are highly protected [against Omicron]”. Without a booster shot Pfizer seems to offer about 70% protection against hospitalisation and very reduced protection against mild infection and therefore being a transmitter of the virus. [4] Even with a 3rd “booster” shot Pfizer offers substantially less protection than it did against Delta. [6] Update: one recent study is reported by the Guardian as giving just 55% protection to people whose initial protection from 2 doses (of Pfizer) had dropped over 5 months. [6.1] Pfizer itself says in relation to Omicron: “We must be aware that even triple-vaccinated are likely to transmit the disease…It is obvious we are far from 95 per cent effectiveness that we obtained against the initial virus” [7] – So “highly protected” is a kind of lying euphemism. If people believe this and act accordingly people will die as a result. It is likely that Biden is just saying what he is told to say by the people running the Public Health response in the US. So – they are lying and, by their lies, killing people.

The fact is that this virus is a serious risk to elderly and vulnerable people. Vaccines offer some protection on a statistical basis against serious illness but many people who are vulnerable and have been double even triple vaccinated will still end up in hospital. The “booster” will also wear off after a period of time; based on existing data for two vaccines, probably quite significantly within 3 months. The problem is the Health Bureaucracy is not thinking about you – they are thinking about how to protect their Estate – the hospitals. From this point of view a 70%, or even 80% protection rate (the absolute top of a range with a booster [6]), is a huge win; from the point of view of your elderly and frail granny these are not very good odds (and based on other studies even with a booster may be much lower). In order to protect their estate they are more than happy to sacrifice your Granny. This is the same logic that leads them to tell the lie that “the vaccines are safe” when in reality there are statistically significant risks of serious adverse events. (Such that any rational person should weigh up the relative risks and make an informed decision).

These people are the mirror reflection of “anti-vaxxers” who tell you that vaccines are dangerous. On the whole the vaccines are not dangerous for the vast majority of people who take them. Both sides are taking one-sided and unscientific positions.

As before; if you read the press releases from Moderna and Pfizer it is clear that they are envisaging a world in which people have to take regular and repeated doses of their highly expensive products. (Moderna is already suggesting “double boosters” [8] -update: as is the German Health Minister [8.1]). At the same time the fact that even with boosters they offer limited protection against transmission means that the goal of achieving low levels of circulation of the virus worldwide will not be achieved. (Other vaccines fare even worse against Omicron [9]). Thus there will continue to be a large pool of virus circulating in the wild and generating mutations. The mutations will require further “booster” shots and maybe new vaccines (AstraZeneca is already working on an Omicron vaccine). And so, from the point of view of Moderna and Pfizer this is an extraordinarily profitable situation.

Illich’s analysis could not be more pertinent here. These companies are aiming for a world in which entire populations are entirely dependent on them to take repeat doses of a failing product (paid for out of compulsory taxation). The more the product fails the more of it you should take. (The classic addiction model). The Health Bureaucracies are aiming for a world where people live their lives according to their edicts; many of which are not even vaguely scientific; you can’t go to a bar after 10.00pm, the dance floor has to be cleared of the unvaccinated at 2.00 am and so on. The media which should be questioning all this is playing along and broadcasting the mythology that “experts” have concluded as a result of “scientific research” that lockdowns and fines are necessary and that mass vaccination including of healthy children, with failing vaccines which do not protect against transmission, makes some kind of scientific sense.

In the war between profiteering and Public Health statist control on the one hand and science on the other, the former are winning. Part of the problem being that most of the scientific community themselves confuse authoritarian ideology with empirical science. The media which should play a key role in fomenting debate are simply allied with the Public Health bureaucracy seeing it as their duty to broadcast whatever information or misinformation they are currently issuing without discrimination.


  1. The report from the National Intensive Care Audit Centre:
  2. The study of AstraZeneca showed that for 18-39s there is greater risk of dying from the vaccine than from Covid by a factor of approximately 2:1. – a factor which one imagines is even greater for under 18s. Pfizer is more likely to cause hospitalisation in teenage boys than Covid:
  6. – The Guardian reports on a study at Imperial London which appears to give a figure for between 55% and 80% protection post-booster for AstraZeneca and Pfizer : The Guardian spins this as “up to 80%”. 6.1 :
  8. 8.1:

Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer