Do Covid-19 Vaccinations Reduce The Risk Of Hospitalization And Death?

The government narrative has changed since the beginning of the pandemic, as we know. It has changed as assertions we were given were proven to be false. Almost everything we have been told about the dangers of Covid-19 and benefits of the vaccines against it have turned out to be exaggerated or false.

No longer able to continue to say that the vaccines prevent us from infection by SARS CoV-2, we are now told they greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization and death. Do we believe this?

I have heard anecdotal evidence that, i) the ICU’s in hospitals are full of vaccinated people and, ii) the ICU’s in hospitals are full of vaccine-free people. So what are we to believe? The answer to that question is the same as always: If the data supports it, then we may be able to believe it. But what does the data say? It says different things in different countries, and even within the same country. Rarely are we presented with raw data. We are usually provided with an interpretation of the data. As always, the devil is in the details.

Vaccinated vs Vaccine-Free Data

Let’s look at Scotland. Someone showed me a graph recently. It is a graph supposedly of data from Public Health Scotland. It should be reliable, but who’s to say? Here’s the graph:

It says it is a weekly report of Scottish data issued on 12th January, 2022. The graph says:

• There are 2.57 more vaccinated individuals than vaccine-free individuals (72% to 28%) This is the base rate against which measure the effectiveness of the vaccines.
• There are more than 6 times vaccinated covid cases than vaccine-free cases (85.8% to 14.2%)
• There are 3.65 times more vaccinated individuals than vaccine-free individuals hospitalized, and
• There are 3.87 times more deaths among vaccinated individuals than vaccine-free individuals

All of those rates – cases, hospitalisations and deaths – are higher than the base rate. Based upon this, the indications are that the risk of hospitalization and death is greater for vaccinated individuals, not less. And the chance of being infected with the virus is far greater once one has been vaccinated.

At this point, those against covid-19 vaccines are cheering and those in favour are saying they don’t believe the figures.

Maybe those disbelievers are right.

The Figures Are Confusing

The graph has a web address at the bottom. I went there. Sure enough, it’s the Public Health Scotland website, but the 56 page report I read there doesn’t have that graph on it anywhere. It does have tables with cases, acute hospital admissions and deaths. I’ve worked the numbers they’ve presented in different ways, and I can’t come up with the same percentages as in the graph, although the trends are similar in all cases. The graph only presents “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”, but doesn’t explain what “vaccinated” means. The report tables figures for unvaccinated, single dose, 2 doses and booster.

Admittedly, I’m not trained in statistical analysis, so maybe that’s one of my problems in reproducing the figures. It is confusing, though, to a layman like me.

For example, although it is a weekly report (issued 12 January) 4 weeks of data is presented. A rolling 4 weeks, I presume. Not only that, but the last week’s data “is considered preliminary and subject to change.” So, which data to use? Further, age-standardised case rates are used. These are based on 2013 European standard population. Could that possibly be a little out of date? Not only are the standardized population figures nine years old, but this standard includes 10-14 years olds. Yet 10 and 11 year olds are not yet vaccinated in Scotland.

Figures Are Based On Unreliable PCR Tests

In the end, it doesn’t really make much difference if we’re talking about accuracy, because the report tells us “Data are only based on PCR results. Vaccination status is determined as at the date of positive PCR test.” Are you kidding me? As we all know

• No standard CT rate is used on PCR tests and CT rates above 35 will return 90% false positives
• The PCR test cannot differentiate between coronavirus, influenza virus and rhinovirus (common cold), and
• PCR tests cannot differentiate between a live and a dead virus. In other words, you may have recovered from Covid-19, but a PCR test will continue to show positive for 12 weeks or more.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said testing for COVID-19 at the end of a quarantine period is no longer needed because PCR tests can detect the virus for up to 12 weeks after infection, even after the person is no longer contagious. (Ref 1)

“So, what we do know is the PCR test after infection can be positive for up to 12 weeks so that is not going to be helpful,” Walensky said Wednesday during an appearance on “Good Morning America.”

Finally, the report makes it clear in a section headed, “Hospital Admissions ‘with’ COVID-19”, that figures presented in the report may include patients being admitted and treated in hospital for reasons other than COVID-19.

There are a number of other caveats in the report, too, all adding up to the conclusion that the information presented should be taken as no more than a rough guideline.

A Broad Indication Vaccines Do Not Reduce The Risk

So this graph and the report may indicate that, broadly, covid-19 vaccinations do not reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death. But if that’s the best we can get from Scotland’s public health department, what about closer to home?

As of 21st February, South Australia has 95.1% of the population 12years and older 1st dose inoculated, 92.2% of the population 12years and older 2nd dose inoculated. Just to make the figures easier to compare, let’s say vaccinated to vaccine-free is 10:1

Let’s look at the South Australian government’s SA Health website. They have regular Covid-19 updates.

31st December, 2021
“There are 44 cases in hospital. Of the hospitalised cases, 26 are fully vaccinated, 14 are unvaccinated (includes partial and nil vaccination) and four have an unknown vaccination status.”

5th January, 2022
“One-hundred-and-twenty-five people with COVID-19 are currently hospitalised, including 12 people in ICU and one requiring a ventilator.

Of those hospitalised, 75 people are fully vaccinated, 37 are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, and 13 have an unknown vaccination status.”

9th January, 2022
“There are 176 people with COVID-19 in hospital, including 18 people in ICU and two requiring a ventilator. Of the people hospitalised, 102 are fully vaccinated, 14 are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, and 60 have an unknown vaccination status.”

22nd February, 2022
There are 205 people with COVID-19 in hospital, including 12 people in ICU, and three people requiring a ventilator. Of those hospitalised, 110 people are fully vaccinated, 41 people are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, and 54 have an unknown vaccination status. Due to a reconfiguration of the data, the total number of cases has been readjusted.

The first three dates were what came up when I searched on Google for “vaccinated vs unvaccinated south australia”. Then I went directly to the website and searched for the latest data (Ref 2)

Comparing the vaccinated vs vaccine-free rates for each of these dates, we find:

31st December, 2021 – 1.86:1

5th January, 2022 –2.03:1

9th January, 2022 – 7.28:1

22nd February, 2022 – 2.68:1

In every case, although there are more vaccinated than vaccine-free people in hospital with covid-19, the proportion is far less than 10:1. This is quite a different result to Scotland. Now it’s the turn of the vaxxers to cheer. But not so fast. These datasets are also unconvincing.

Show Us The Figures For Vaccinated Vs Vaccine-Free

If there is to be an assertion that vaccinations reduce the risk of hospitalization and death, then show us the figures for vaccinated vs vaccine-free.

If one applies the 95% argument I just suggested, look at the difference that makes:

31st December, 2021 – 37.9:1

5th January, 2022 – 41.4:1

9th January, 2022 – 146.6:1

22nd February, 2022 – 54.7:1

For all four dates, far, far more than 10:1. In this case, then, there is no evidence to suggest that vaccines prevent hospitalisations and death. Quite the opposite. Unfortunately, we do not have the true number of vaccine-free people in hospital. Even if we did, that is people with covid-19. As with Scotland, we don’t know if they were admitted for covid-19. And as for deaths, we are also not told if they were deaths from covid-19. From the same page that provided the figures from 22nd February:

“Sadly, SA Health can confirm a man in his 40s, a man in his 60s and a man in his 80s, who tested positive for COVID-19, have passed away” (Ref 1)

Do Covid-19 Vaccinations Reduce The Risk Of Hospitalization And Death?

It is difficult to get meaningful data to determine if this is true or false. The only data we can readily get make it difficult to ascertain whether or not it is true.

We also know from many sources that vaccine efficacy wanes with time. After as little as 4-7 months, efficacy is zero. With some vaccines, there is negative efficacy. This is because at least some of the vaccines harm our immune system, leaving those who have been jabbed more susceptible to infection by all diseases, including covid-19, and less able to fight them. (See COVID-19 – A Government Response Part 2) How the vaccines cause immune suppression is explained in a preprint study by Dr Stephaine Steneff (senior research scientist at MIT), Dr Greg Nigh (naturopathic doctor) and Dr Anthony Kyriakopoulos (medical and molecular microbiologist) (Ref 3)

All this suggests to me that it is highly doubtful the assertion is true. My verdict? Probably false.

Adverse Reactions Must Factor In

Finally, if we are to look at whether vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death from covid-19, in any risk/benefit analysis we also have to factor in the increased risk of hospitalisation and death from adverse reactions to the vaccine. The true figures for this are unknown.

But enough is known to realise the risk is being deliberately downplayed by those pulling the strings.

My background checking on the Scottish data for this article raises an obvious question: How much of the data that we see is reliable? We know the government and health department messaging is not supported by the government’s own figures. But how reliable are the figures themselves? Well, that’s a question for another day.