Thoughts on economics and liberty

Emerging proofs from Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA that the vaccines may significantly reduce deaths in the elderly


The truth about UK’s data







The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also reported that while vaccines show declining effectiveness against infection in general, they still show strong protection against hospitalization despite the variant. [Source]



Victoria, Australia

“257 people were in hospital with COVID-19, with 58 in intensive care and 37 on ventilators. Of the Victorians in hospital on Tuesday, 81 per cent were not vaccinated, 15 per cent were partially vaccinated and 3 per cent were fully vaccinated” [Source]



Came across this study from India:  [also reported here]

Between February 1 and May 14, 32,792 people received one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 67,673 received both doses, while 17,059 were unvaccinated, according to the study that was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research.

A total of 31 deaths due to COVID-19 were reported among these police personnel between April 13 and May 14. Of them, four were fully vaccinated, seven had received one dose of vaccine, and the rest 20 were unvaccinated. The incidence of deaths among the vaccinated with zero, one and two doses were 1.17, 0.21 and 0.06 per 1,000 police personnel respectively.

Another study from India

Nine policemen, among the 35,856 who had received at least one dose of Covid-19 vaccines, had died because of the infectious disease, while the number of deaths trickled down to two among the 42,720 police personnel who had received both the doses of the vaccine. 15 persons of the 4,868 personnel of the Punjab Police who had not received any vaccine, had died due to Covid-19.

More on USA

The vast majority of people who have died from COVID-19 were unvaccinated. Fatal cases of COVID-19 among vaccinated people are either very low or virtually zero in 48 states. Over 96 percent of people who died in Montana and 99.91 percent in New Jersey were not fully vaccinated. If we look at the number of vaccinated people developing COVID-19, the District of Columbia is another good example to examine. Of 200 fully vaccinated people who acquired SARS-CoV-2, only 13 were hospitalized, and none died. [Source]

More on the UK

the vaccines don’t entirely reduce the risk of either catching the disease or being hospitalised or dying of it. They are not 100% effective. But they do, at least on the basis of tests from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, reduce the likelihood of both of these outcomes considerably.

Before getting vaccinated the chances of a 90-year-old catching and dying of COVID-19 were estimated to be roughly 2.8%. After getting the jabs, the chances of the same illustrative 90-year-old catching and dying the disease are reduced to around 0.14%.

Of the vaccinated people who had caught Delta, around 2% sadly died. Of the unvaccinated people who had caught delta, around 5.6% died. Deaths-per-case among the unvaccinated were almost three times higher than in the vaccinated group.


See this article.


This is still a preliminary finding – I’ve not yet come to a final conclusion.

This piece is a follow-up from this post.

Covid vaccines have strong side effects including death among the elderly (e.g. the Norway aged care report and some social media murmurings about similar outcomes in Australia’s aged care homes). So we need a better handle on these issues.

But by now fairly strong evidence is emerging that the vaccines do reduce the prospect of death from covid. (And yes, the vaccinated CAN, and do get covid).


See this (26 July 2021)

Of the 43 in ICU in NSW, 42 had not taken the vaccine. That’s pretty strong circumstantial evidence.







Three studies that drew data from different U.S. regions evaluated the protective power of the vaccines. One looked at more than 600,000 virus cases in 13 states, representing about one quarter of the U.S. population, between April and July, and concluded that individuals who were not fully vaccinated were far more susceptible to infection and death from the virus.

They were 4.5 times more likely than vaccinated individuals to become infected, 10 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 11 times more likely to die from the coronavirus, the study found.

Vaccine protection against hospitalization and death remained strong even when the Delta variant was the dominant form of infection. But the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing infection dropped from 91 percent to 78 percent, the study found.

The studies underscore a series of similar findings in recent weeks. [Source]


This does not consider vaccine side effects, so there’s a customised, tailored calculation that needs to be made in each individual case.

Epidemiologists like Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, being among the few scientists I respect, have reached the conclusion quite some time ago that the vaccines can be beneficial for the elderly.

I was somewhat unclear (and remain so) given the contradictory evidence from other sources.

However, I’m willing to give the vaccines a benefit of doubt now – and those in the higher risk categories could potentially consider them (that’s a position I’ve had since my December 2020 article in The Australian, as well as my Times of India articles. I’m not making any recommendation and will probably never do so – that’s not my job. But I would hope people are keeping their eyes peeled for the facts and will objectively arrive at their informed choice.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
One thought on “Emerging proofs from Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA that the vaccines may significantly reduce deaths in the elderly
  1. evelyn

    I read this blog with great interest.
    The issues that got the world to this state of panic were statistics damned lies and statistics. The manipulation of data has been paramount. The modelling used data/stats driven has been widely discredited and dropped. But it served its purpose for the powers that be to implement exactly what they wanted to then they did a back shuffle from it… they had achieved what they wanted . The driver/ sledgehammer to convince the world into fear driven pandemic.
    How quickly we forget the research that has manipulated data and statistics. I have seen research undertaken on the research methodology utilized by Pfizer to convince the world on the safety of the toxin. The research on Pfizer has stated that the safety has been highly overrated and they used the incorrect methodology rendering the “surety” from the Pharma as not giving accurate based information for informed consent.

    It must also be remembered that many scientists / virologists/immunologists are saying the long term safety (5 to 10 years) of this has yet to be measured . So I wonder how this research is trotting out these assurances. Is it possible that this is coming out so quickly- too quickly to my mind – to assure any “hesitants” ..oh hey it is working. Frankly I trust nothing that pharma and its research puts out.
    Do we have a sense of who has funded the research that is coming out? Do we have the definition of who is “vaxed” and who isn’t and if that is applied with any consistency or altered to suit the narrative they wish to put out there to justify which set of findings. For example CDC have a report on adverse effects and the types adverse effects eg clots/ death. The columns are broken into jabbed/ fully jabbed (sorry but it is not a vax it – is now known to be a bioweapon as matters unfold with further new/clarifying document releases re Fauci and funding). Back to columns and the criticality of definitions. The unvaxxed capture definition captures anyone jabbed suffering death or adverse 14 days and under the jab. The definition then also plays with second jab and so on. I saw a similar graph from UK. I asked what that source’s definition was of unvaxxed. The poster replied .. they didn’t know.

    Also, as this is a trial (the FDA approval is smoking mirrors) it is a trial, there 3 types of jabs being administered. What are they what are their ingredients, how is the trail measuring and tracking these as well as the placebos? How are we informed of what ingredients (which jab) the people reacting well were given? We are not. The Pharma are playing the world with the constant change of their narrative. They and governments etc are utilizing every possible tactic to get all on jab. I am extraordinarily wary and cynical of them.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial