Do COVID Vaccines Work? (part 10)
I utilise data from an unknown NHS Trust in the development of a staged multivariate logistic regression model in the assessment of 14-day efficacy by dose
In part 9 of this series I ended with the following suggestion:
I’m going to refine the model by considering dosing and the time delay between dosing and death. Right now we have a hotch-potch of unvaccinated in-hospital death, dose 1 in-hospital death, and dose 2 in-hospital death with no regard to days elapsed between vaccination and vaccine-acquired immunity.
Yes, we are going to have to suffer even more mind-numbing logistic regression output, but at least this should now be familiar and I’m hoping readers understand where I’m going with all this. In this particular series I’m not trying to provide evidence of increased risk of early death following vaccination. Nope, no, nein, and нет! What I am trying to do is the exact opposite and that is to weedle out evidence of benefit in terms of reduced risk of COVID-induced respiratory conditions. The logic here is if the jabs don’t work then why bother to take them even if it can be shown that they pose minimal risk? But they don’t pose minimal risk, do they? It’s been quite clear for some time that they pose considerable risk that the manufacturers, authorities and media are doing their very best to ignore. Hence heavy censorship across all of social media instead of heavyweight debate.
In all honesty I shouldn’t be hunting and scraping for evidence of vaccine benefit like this, for the situation should be self-evident if claims of 95% or even 80% efficacy are to be believed. By ‘self-evident’ I mean data that comes at us singing a song, doing a jiggy dance and shouting-from-the-rooftops sort of evident. Admittedly, it’s a bit weird looking for benefit amongst inpatients who went on to die but the reason why I use this sombre cohort is because of the fine level of diagnostic detail in the EPR.
Plat Du Jour
For today’s feast I am going to swallow the official narrative hook, line and sinker and give the vaccines 14 days to (allegedly) assemble immunity against ACE2 receptor attack in the lungs by intramuscular injection in the arm. In doing so I am ignoring the curveball thrown by some experts (you can’t solve lung vulnerability via injectables in the arm), and I shall filter the data to permit separate models for those who received just the initial dose, as well as those who received both doses prior to death. Very few boosted deaths were present in the data sample owing to the time frame. The modelling strategy will be precisely as described in part 9.
What this refinement will hopefully do is address any grumbling from the pro-vaccine cult who will insist we shouldn’t be analysing benefit based on the initial dose alone, and that we shouldn’t be analysing benefit after the second dose unless 14 days have passed. I hear you. You can hide a lot of vaccine harm in those 14 days but pro-vaxxers can’t seem to hear that message which, if we think about it, is a decent definition of cult-like behaviour.
An assumption here that has always sat awkwardly with me is that a second dose of the same stuff is going to magically save the day and suddenly yield a fabulous benefit even if the first dose of the same stuff failed to do so. Another decent definition of cult-like behaviour, methinks! It is tempting to place a bet but I invariably find that the best bet is always to see what the data says when the handle turned as honestly as possible. Regular subscribers will know the drill by now… it’s time to get the coffee on the stove and something tasty on that plate!