in ,

Why Is There A Correlation Between The Vaccine Rollout And Increased COVID–19 Mortality?

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

by Iain Davis

A number of unusual death events have been reported in care homes across the country since the beginning of the vaccine rollout. Officially, any connection to the vaccines has been denied and they have all been taken as evidence of the spread of new variant COVID–19.

The new Coronavirus variant tale, commonly offered by the mainstream media, asserts that SARS–CoV–2 consistently evolves into an ever more dangerous iteration of itself. If that were true, it would turn decades of virology, immunology and epidemiology on its head, and in any case, as we shall see, any such claim is unsupported by the the statistics.

The so called British variant was first discovered in September 2020o we can look at four distinct periods to see if we can observe its effect. Let’s look at the period from the start of the alleged global pandemic to the end of the first hard lockdown.

Until 10 May 2020, the UK state tested 1,655,281 people. From this, they identified 210,500 so called cases (a positive test result). This resulted in 98,799 COVID–19 hospital admissions. There were 32,960 claimed COVID–19 deaths during the same period.

Therefore, the percentage chance of a test discovering an alleged “case” of COVID–19 was 12.7%. The claimed chance of one of these “cases” leading to hospitalisation was 46.9%, and the confirmed “case” risk of dying (Case Fatality Rate — CFR) was a staggering, and frankly unbelievable, 15.6%.

Next, we can consider the period from 11 May 2020 to 30 September 2020. During the summer months, you would expect the raw numbers for any respiratory illness to be much lower. This period takes us up the point where the new “variants of concern” were well established.

There were 20,738,550 tests given, resulting in 235,334 cases and 43,926 hospitalisations. A total of 9,046 people died during this period. The percentage chance of a test finding a case was 1.1%, with an 18.7% chance of subsequent hospitalisation. The CFR had dropped to 3.8%.

Now, let’s look at the period of new variant activity up to the start of the vaccine rollout. As we were heading towards winter here, we might expect a general increase in disease contagion and severity.

Between 1 October and 9 December 2020, there were 21,218,805 tests carried out, finding 1,315,529 cases. Of these, 92,999 people were hospitalised and 21,674 died. The case discovery rate was 6.2%, the hospitalisation rate was 7.1% and the CFR was 1.6%.

The chances of a positive test had increased, suggesting a more contagious COVID–19 variant than seen during the summer. However, the new variants of SARS–CoV–2 were nearly 7 times less transmissible than observed during the initial spring outbreak. The chance of hospitalisation was lower, and they were also less than half as deadly as the summer variants and nearly ten times less lethal than the spring variants.

The data shows that the new variants discovered in the autumn of 2020 were both less contagious and less lethal than the variants encountered in the initial spring outbreak. They were notably more contagious than the variants that persisted during the summer, but were far less dangerous.

Finally, let’s look at the recent period since the rollout of the vaccine. From 10 December 2020 to 31 January 2021, there were 25,982,406 tests, which discovered 1,995,048 cases. This led to 154,019 hospitalisations and 42,038 so called COVID–19 deaths.

The case rate rose from 6.2% to 7.6%, continuing the trend of increasing transmission with the new prevalent variants, though it remained much lower than during the spring. Yet strangely, hospitalisation rose to 7.7% and the CFR jumped from 1.6% to 2.1%.

These figures are very difficult to reconcile from a new variant perspective. During October, November and early December, the new variants had accounted for an increased rate of transmission — but significantly lower rates of hospitalisation and mortality. The disease risk trend continued to decline, even in comparison to former summer variants.

During the vaccine rollout, despite continued falling mortality rates in early December, the new COVID–19 variants suddenly changed behaviour. Hospitalisation rates increased by more than 8% and the mortality risk shot up by over 31%.

Harsher winter conditions are expected to account for more numbers of hospitalisations and deaths, but not to fundamentally change the characteristics of the resultant disease. Some other factor must have been at work during the vaccine rollout.

Less Lethal

Viruses are effectively parasites; there is no evolutionary advantage for them to kill their hosts. Consequently, virus variants lead to new predominant strains which infect more hosts while killing fewer of them. More lethal variants tend to lose out to less lethal ones. This is why some form of coronavirus accounts for approximately 30% of common colds.

Up until the vaccine rollout, the reduction in lethality is clearly identifiable in the statistics. So where has all the fear and alarm come from about the British, Brazilian, South African, Kent, and who knows how many more variants?

Once again the UK government were reliant upon their preferred experts at Imperial College London (ICL) for their new variant alarm. ICL came up with another computer simulation, showing some scary predictions about the B.1.1.7 “global lineage variant.”

ICL said the sub-variant of B.1.1.7 (N501Y) was up to 70% more transmissible. They were wrong again, or as usual, but the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) used ICL’s “science” to provide some legitimacy to the governments claim that the COVID–19 pandemic was still raging.

ICL and NERVTAG designated N501Y as a Variant of Concern (VoC). Amid all the panic, few seemed to notice that there wasn’t any evidence that these scary variants presented any additional risk.

Writing about the newly discovered British variant in December, physicians from Johns Hopkins Medical Centre explained why there was no reason to panic:

Mutations in viruses … are neither new nor unexpected … This particular strain was detected in southeastern England in September 2020. In December, it became the most common version of the coronavirus, accounting for about 60 percent of new COVID19 cases … We are not seeing any indication that the new strain is more virulent or dangerous in terms of causing more severe COVID19 disease.

Professor Michael Yeadon also observed that the notion of greater risk from variants of SARS–CoV–2 took no account of existing human immunity. Even if a variant spread more readily, it could only do so among an ever dwindling number of potential hosts.

Moreover the SARS–CoV–2 genome is vast in comparison to the tiny genetic variations that are allegedly so lethal. A recent study of T-cell immunity by Californian scientists demonstrated how the human immune system is able to adapt to the new SARS–CoV–2 variants. The scientists found:

By attacking the virus from many angles, the body has the tools to potentially recognise different SARSCoV2 variants.

The human immune system normally defends itself against the whole virus, not just one specific genetic component. It does this by breaking the complete virus down into its constituent nucleotide sequences. Prepared to resist each and every one of these genetic signals, it won’t be fooled by any minor genetic mutation in one spike protein. Professor Yeadon stated:

What is happening in the name of saving lives simply doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

It is difficult to understand how the experts at ICL couldn’t work this out for themselves. The ICL team were led by Prof. Erik Volz. Just as they did after releasing their wildly inaccurate COVID–19 models in the spring, they immediately started backpedaling on their claims that the new variant was up to 70% more transmissible…


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sally Snyder
Sally Snyder
February 11, 2021

Here is an article that looks at the current number of deaths and adverse effects in Europe from the COVID-19 vaccines: Interestingly, when governments and their mainstream media partners release any information about deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, on the rare occasion that the deaths are reported, the findings almost always seem to be that the decedent died of a health condition unrelated to the vaccine.  Oddly, this is the opposite approach that governments took when assessing COVID-19 deaths when, in some jurisdictions, anyone who tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus within 28 days of death were classified as… Read more »

Reply to  Sally Snyder
February 11, 2021

Excellent data source, Sally, thank you. It’s curious that on both the Pfizer/BioNTech (slide 10) and AstraZenica (slide 11) breakdown reports on vaccine adverse effects no category has a death associated with it in the fatality column yet there are totals for fatality at the foot of the report. E.g. for Pfizer, there were 49,472 adverse reactions with 107 fatalities but all categories in the breakdown show zero fatalities.

Reply to  Greg
February 14, 2021
Reply to  Sally Snyder
February 14, 2021

A view from the southern states of the USA: contains music which may not suit all tastes.

Reply to  Luka-The-K9
February 14, 2021
Reply to  Sally Snyder
February 14, 2021

Yes there are serious issues:

February 14, 2021

Thank you very much JayTe for keeping us updated.

Very much appreciated.

More here:

UK Column News Special: Care Home Whistleblower

Jolani gets a make-over in Idlib