You can’t make this up anymore; you just can’t. This is so bizarre, it’s like Alice in Wonderland meets the Twilight Zone.
The UKHSA are gnashing their teeth over what their own raw data reveals; that in all double-jabbed people over the age of 30, the infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to PCR testing, significantly exceeds that of the unjabbed and in people over 40, the rate of infection in the jabbed is more than twice that of the unjabbed, except for the over 80s. This has proved deeply embarrassing for the UK government and now they are desperately attempting to explain away their inconvenient data as due to confounding factors rather than it being inherently due to the administration of the ‘vaccines’. Eugyppius has kindly provided a graph of the differences in infection rates, which the UKHSA has failed to provide itself in their latest report, presumably because their last graph went viral on social media for all the world to see that the ‘vaccines’ weren’t working.
So here’s what the UKHSA say in defence of their claim that the raw data on infection rates in the jabbed vs. unjabbed is not a good estimate of the actual effectiveness of the ‘vaccines’.
Let’s just reiterate those excuses and go through them one by one:
people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19.
people who are fully vaccinated may engage in more social interactions because of their vaccination status, and therefore may have greater exposure to circulating COVID-19
people who are unvaccinated may have had past COVID-19 infection prior to the 4-week reporting period in the tables above, thereby artificially reducing the COVID-19 case rate in this population group, and making comparisons between the 2 groups less valid
Why on earth would the jabbed be more ‘health conscious’? The unjabbed might be even more health conscious, in that they decided not to risk their health by subjecting themselves to an experimental and demonstrably dangerous ‘vaccine’. The unjabbed might indeed be less likely to get tested, but positive test rate is per 100k, so the sample is smaller, but that doesn’t explain why the positive test rate should also be smaller.
The jabbed are more gregarious! They put themselves about a bit more and so are more likely to get infected! But at the same time they’re supposedly more health conscious, therefore presumably they would be less likely in that case to expose themselves to a deadly virus which is doing the rounds in pubs, clubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and shops – and they’re more likely to wear masks and we all know how effective these are in preventing infections. Also, it’s pretty obvious from comments on social media that the jabbed are still quite fearful, not at all convinced that they are immune from catching a deadly virus and it is in fact the unjabbed who are a lot more relaxed about their risk of getting a bad cold. Good grief. This is just hilarious from the UKHSA.
Neither of the two above excuses explain the difference in infection rates across the cohorts, nor do they explain why the difference between jabbed and unjabbed infection rates is growing weekly and working its way progressively into younger cohorts. But the last excuse is the real side-splitter.
The infection rate in the unjabbed may be artificially reduced by natural infection-acquired immunity in that cohort! What? I’m afraid I’m going to have to go full Cathy Newman here:
So what the UKHSA are saying is that natural, long lasting infection acquired immunity in the unjabbed has resulted in them being less susceptible to re-infection with Covid!
Er, yes, that is indeed what tends to happen when people become infected, recover and thereby acquire long-lasting, effective, broad spectrum, robust natural immunity. Humans and animals have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years before the God-men of Pfizer appeared on the scene.
But somehow, this does not apply to the jabbed. However, there is no reason to suppose that the jabbed were not equally exposed to natural infection with Covid. That being the case, they would also be less likely to be re-infected with the virus . . . . . . unless . . . . . unless, getting jabbed meant that your natural immune defences were somehow depressed thereafter, thus explaining the alleged ‘confounding’ factor as to why the jabbed were more likely to test positive compared to the unjabbed. But then in that case, it’s not a confounding factor is it? Because what it means is that the ‘vaccines’ themselves are making it biologically more likely to get re-infected with the virus on account of the fact that they screw up your natural immune response! Most likely, this is because they have primed the immune system to produce antibodies against now extinct spike variants and also because they suppress the nucleocapsid antibody response.
So in seeking to provide an explantion as to why the data only apparently show the ‘vaccines’ dont work, but in actual fact they do work really (honest guv), the UKHSA have actually provided the explanation for why the ‘vaccines’ don’t work! PMSL, ROFL, LMAO etc. etc.