“The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.”
UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, 5 April 2021
My take on it
Sources are important. That’s why I routinely reference them. I note that the SPI-M-O paper is to be read in conjunction with three other sources of modelling, one of which is the University College London. Others have had much to say about the original predictions from that source, and also about blatant conflicts of interest.
Moving on, …
it is surely staggering that an expected 70% of deaths will be of people who have had two doses of the ‘vaccine’. Whatever this injection may claimedly have done for others will be of small comfort to those thus affected.
The expected results reported here are attributed to a high level of uptake in the most at risk demographic; and are explained as ‘vaccination failure’. If the administration of the injection is weighted toward this group, and if the deaths are similarly weighted, then one might reasonably ask, as a ‘first effect’ whether the vaccine itself might be in some way contributory.
If, ‘in the most at-risk age groups, immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals’, at what point should we expect this finding to be reflected in updated health advisories?