Important Data: Delta Variant Not So Bad

The Delta variant continues to dominate the news cycle, but is it as bad as sounds? How worried should we be? As always, we let the data tell the tale.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

To know if the spread of vaccinated above 50 or below is abnormal, you should compare that wtih the total population. I mean: if 30% of all people under 50 are vaccinated, you should expect 30% vaccinated amongst deaths as well. The same for people over 50. If 69% of all people over 50 are vaccinated, and you see the same numbers amongst the deaths above 50, you can draw the conclusion that vaccination is not a factor in deaths.

And now I have numbers I can use to hammer on the folks around me suffering from vax mania (and I can offer comfort to those terrified by the absolutely obscene fearmongering in the MSM)…

For some; not so Billyboy? What’s a trillionaire who is enthusiastic about vaccine profits to do?
(Would it be uncharitable for me to suggest he learn to code?)

I dont believe there is a Delta variant…or, more accurately, I have no good reason to believe there is a delta variant.
Can anyone give me one good reason why we should believe it? I ask two questions now when confronted with any new information…who says so? and, are they credible? [ ie have they lied to us already ].
This new delta variant has all the hallmarks of yet another scare campaign by the pathological liars that have done this over and over. I dont know at what point we all stop paying attention…I wish I could fast forward to that time.
I find it perplexing that every time they come up with a new lie we all discuss it seriously as if all the other lies never happened. Its like every day the slate gets wiped clean and we go back to the old days when it was all credible. Mass hypnosis seems the only explanation.

When asked what she thought of humans Sophia robot said:

"Humans are clever and very programmable."
Succinct and Profound.

Dr. David Martin says that there are not alpha, beta, gamma, delta, etc. variants. It is all the same virus. According to what I understood him to say, they are starting/stopping the DNA/RNA sequence at different points and saying that the results are unique, but all of the same virus. I don’t know enough to refute him.
Here is a short 11:16 video excerpted from the interview Dr. Reiner Fuellmich had with Dr. Martin. It doesn’t exactly address the issue of variants, but worth the few minutes to hear … if you haven’t already heard it.
That video is excerpted from this 1:22:47 video.
Dr. Martin goes through the patent history to show that all aspects of this virus were patented well before it was first “discovered” in the general population. I remember (toward the end of the video) that he mentioned the variant issue. Sorry, but I don’t have time to nail the exact timing of his quote. He speaks very slowly and deliberately. I listened at 1.75X and was able to follow him completely. If you still think big Pharma is trying to help us, do yourself a favor and listen. They’re not in it for us.
PS - H/T to Redacted1 for posting this thread: New Video: Dr. David Martin on the SARS-CoV-2 Patent History | Peak Prosperity

It is extremely difficult to make use of this data in the way it was compiled as Dr Martenson points out. It leaves a lot for speculation, and the questions is , should we be doing this?
It is very hard to accept that the under 50 and over 50 are doing 2 totally different things - in fact, completely opposite in out-come when analyzing for success of vaccine. In biology, it is difficult to account for such differences based on age alone.
But because I like to be analytical, and like to speculate, I will attempt to give my input on what can cause such discrepancy, and what data can be reliable.
I will first tackle the admissions data. This, I think should be taken with a grain of salt. Why? because it is very subjective. What was the requirements for admission? we have no clue, there was no lab standard used for that in the data. In fact, one could even argue one the criteria used for admission in itself was simply if the person had been vaccinated or not. So , you can see how quick we will just discount this mass admission of unvaccinated. And I would not be so quick to do so, but the other data does not seem to support it. ( the data regarding the outcomes )
So, we have scrapped the nonsensical data, that has no useful place. Lets turn to the deaths. The deaths are much more interesting. As it seems to definitely show that the vaccine has a over-all negative effect for people over 50 on outcome - but positive on people under 50. The numbers were so significant and consistent , that it would be very hard to discount this in anyway. But it seems to be a real head scratcher.
Lets make an assumption, younger people generally have a more robust immune response to vaccines. They generally get better protection from them accordingly.
The above statement is pretty well accepted in vaccine science. What we do know about ADE, is that incomplete or partial immune response to a vaccine or even a poorer immune response to infection, increases likeliness of ADE in subsequent infection.
With that said, it could certainly explain why the unvaccinated older group is fairing better than the vaccinated older group which likely are suffering from some sort of ADE. Not saying all older people are having such issues, but clearly a subset of older people could be having incomplete immune response.
The double dose, strong response exhibited in the younger people could actually be the desired efficacy they are actually after. But that could come with a lot of side-effects, such as some young people are seeing. It does seem to follow that immune systems of the young, in general, are less effected in a negative way by this particular vaccine. The young group is exactly what you would expect to see in a functional vaccine. It the anticipated and expected result. oddly enough, as you get just a bit younger than the top age in the group, the death rate even without vaccination is so exceedingly minuscule, that it still unlikely risk reward for most of the individuals. However, when we look at the older group, the group that needs the protection and the best risk reward, the vaccine seems to be a total fail. AND significantly risky as well.
All I can say, it is likely with this speculation, that does follow the science, and seems to be the only explanation I can come up with to explain this , simply shows that the vaccine sucks and not worth taking no matter which group you are in.

I believe the data from Israel is exactly what you would like to do. And, I have not dove into that yet, but did take a glance at those numbers. And all I saw there, was there was absolutely zero difference in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. And that was broken down by age much more. And all age groups reflected the same results. It was simply related to the percent of the population. Basically showing no matter what age group deaths were equally related for both and vaxxed and unvaxxed individuals. Basically, deaths represented their age share in the population and their percentage of vaccinated individuals. No group was over or under represented. Basically, my interpretation, is it did not matter what so ever, if you received the vaccine or not. Results were exactly the same for all in your age and groups. Again, we have vaccine that did not seem to offer any protection over those that were unvaccinated.

Here is my own personal review of the PHE data that Chris is talking about here. from another thread. I am a layman so apologies upfront for any errors.
After staring at the PHE data about deaths in vaccinated and unvaccinated I have come to the conclusion that the whole technical report is next to useless for anyone trying to work out what is going on with covid.
Firstly, splitting the entire population arbitrarily at 50 years old makes no sense. You don’t suddenly become sick and weak at 50. Dividing the numbers up into age decades eg. 20s,30s,40s etc. would be far more interesting and useful. One has to ask why this is being done.
First of all let’s make some speculations. So far more people have been infected in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and the vast majority of them are under 50 (totally useless but that’s what we have to go on)
In the UK there has been a massive push to test children. Houses with children have been sent free covid test kits twice a week to test children since March 8th. I would imagine this would skew the numbers hugely and account for the huge rise in infection numbers in the under 50s (again we don’t know more because there is no information on under 18s) There are also reports of kids using fruit juice to get positive tests so they don’t have to go to school (kids are clever like that)
For the vast majority of people covid is no more than a cough and a bad cold, so we could speculate anybody over the age of 50 who has been fully vaccinated and thinks they are invincible may well pass off covid as simple cold symptoms and not get tested.
Further more the vast majority of people over 50 in the uk have been vaccinated. So who are these that haven’t been vaccinated? I would suggest that they are the infirm and weak that can’t take the vaccine. They are the most at risk of dying from covid of anyone on the planet.
So what can we really take from these numbers so far? nothing. It may well be that the deaths in unvaccinated over the age of 50 are people in their 80s and 90s that are so weak and infirm that they couldn’t take the vaccine, and that they were sadly going to pass away very soon anyway, covid then pushed them over the edge (let alone who knows how many of them died WITH covid rather than OF covid, again this information seems to be left out)
So really all we have to go on is the percentages of the under 50s and the death rate. which is
Unvaccinated deaths = 0.029% of cases
Vaccinated deaths (double jabbed) = 0.0357%
so pretty much nothing in it really.
I’d also like to point out that it is the middle of summer and this may well account for the huge spike in cases but the disconnect between cases and deaths as we know Vit D plays a huge role in cutting deaths. This disconnect could also be attributed to the possibility more young people are being tested due to the school scheme and older people don’t feel the need as they now think they are invulnerable.
In my humble opinion to get to the bottom of this we would need the following data.

  • Vaccinated Cases by age decade (20s,30s,40s, etc.) individual years would be even better.
  • Unvaccinated Cases by age decade (20s,30s,40s, etc.) individual years would be even better.
  • Vaccinated Deaths by age decade (20s,30s,40s, etc.) individual years would be even better.
  • Unvaccinated Deaths by age decade (20s,30s,40s, etc.) individual years would be even better.
  • Comorbidities of all those above that died both with and without the vaccine
  • data on who these unvaccinated people are over the age of 50. Are they people who refused the vaccine or are they people who couldn’t take it because they were at deaths door?
  • Did these people die WITH covid or OF covid
All of this data is already collected and sitting in a database somewhere that I can’t find. This is the information that is most relevant to finding out who is dying of covid and how well the vaccines are working and yet somebody at PHE is either unwilling or unable to share that data with the wider public. At the end of the day this is all speculation from me, someone who has no scientific training (I’m an artist) but I have come to the personal conclusion that the information being released is next to useless and possibly worse may well be massaged to fit a narrative. If you got to here, thanks for reading and apologies if I am very wrong about all this. I will go back to artistic things now ?

Thanks for your input with the Israeli data. With regards to the spread of vaccination throughout the entire population, my guess was also that vaccination has no correlation.

There are some Caveats in Chris’ interpretation here I think too. First of all well over 90% of over 50s in the uk have now been vaccinated. which leaves a very small amount who are unvaccinated. So these percentages have to be taken into account when looking into the numbers. For instance on page 16 we can see that 70,664 people had a case of the Delta variant who were under 50 and unvaccinated. On the other hand only 1,267 unvaccinated over the age of 50 had a case.
We then look at fully vaccinated cases in the over 50s and it’s 5,234. Initially this seems higher and so once could surmise that your more likely to catch it if you are vaccinated. This simply isn’t true though as remember well over 90% of over 50s in the uk have been vaccinated. So for a thought experiment lets say there 100 people living in the uk. 90 of them have been vaccinated and 10 haven’t. If we have 1 person unvaccinated who caught the virus and 5 vaccinated who caught the virus, then it’s very easy to see that there is a 10% chance of catching it if you are unvaccinated and a 5% chance if you are vaccinated, even though the gross number initially show something else. I hope that makes sense.
So without my analysis in my previous post (above) the all of this data would actually suggest that the vaccines are working very very well indeed. Hence why I have looked at it more thoroughly in my previous post. Either the data is being massaged very cleverly (which is a very high possibility) or the vaccines are working amazingly well. I would love some responses :slight_smile:

The current message in the UK is that everyone should accept the vaccine when they are called to take it, when “it’s your turn”. The data should be viewed with this in mind, because the data is supporting and part of this message. Without going too deep, this table certainly highlights that unvaxed under 50s are at greater risk of dying. If you are a thinking person under 50 and able to read tables of data, this table is designed to scare you into getting the jab - “when you are called”.
There should be no (hospitalised) cases in the UK in summer - there were no (hospitalised) cases last year in the summer months, when there was no vaccine. Long story short, I believe any increased risk in the vaccinated over 50s is due to ADE.
Table at 16:50 or thereabouts. There is a column missing from this table- the time of year that each variant surfaced & spread/thrived. Clearly then, you will see that Delta had the benefit of the summer months which will be a factor in its being less deadly. Better vitamin D levels, fewer deaths all round. I wish this had been all good news - but look at the row below. Eta has higher initial figures, and if we can’t collapse Eta using the summer surge in vitamin D levels - people catching it and natural immunity kicking in - then Eta will be a real problem in the coming months as natural immunity is compromised by falling vitamin D. In the UK we need to get out and mingle and catch this Eta while the sun shines.
On the wording - Ebola is what I’d call worrisome, a coronavirus 18 months down the line, not so much.

Hi Chris, my apologies for suggesting this, but your UK-US comparison may not be totally valid because the vast majority of vaccinated people in the UK are done with the Astra Zeneca vaccine, which is very rare in the mRNA-dominated US. So while the UK data is highly interesting, it may or may not enlighten the US situation much because in a way you are comparing apples with oranges.

This data published by PHE for the Covid-19 Delta variant shows it is completely harmless. Looking just at the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups there is zero benefit for vaccinating all of those under 50.
Vaccinated under 50: 2 deaths from 5600 cases = CFR 0.04% (normally reported as 0.0%)
Unvaccinated under 50: 21 deaths from 70664 cases = CFR 0.03% (normally reported as 0.0%)
Vaccinated over 50: 116 deaths from 5,234 cases = CFR 2.2%
Unvaccinated over 50: 71 deaths from 1267 cases = CFR 5.6%
Given that the CFRs for the under 50s are virtually identical and would both normally be rounded down to 0.0%, then it raises questions as to why the CFR jumps from 2.2% to 5.6% in the over 50 age groups respectively? What is striking is the almost 70X ratio between those under and over 50 who were unvaccinated. The question here is why were those small number in the over 50 age group not vaccinated? The government would like us to assume that it’s vaccine hesitancy but its just as likely to be that they were not healthy enough or good candidates for vaccination.
This is only a small dataset to evaluate and it would tell us huge amounts about who is actually at risk from the Delta variant. Yet PHE do not provide a link to the underlying dataset supporting Table 5, whilst they provide no less than 20 data links for numerous data charts that are of no real material interest in assessing the public health impacts and implications of the Delta variant.
It would be really useful if we had underlying table data as to mortality age and vaccination status for the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups along with data as to any comorbidities. 21 deaths is a tiny amount from 70,664 people and those 21 were likely to have had multiple comorbidities. This means that the actual CFR for any healthy individual under the age of 50 is a great deal less than 0.03%.

I’m sure it’s already been mentioned in this thread, but the CFR in the chart from the video is probably influenced by vaccination rates at the time the different variants were active. Delta is active now at a time when much of the older, more susceptible population, has been vaccinated. I assume that the younger, less susceptible population has a higher percentage of unvaccinated. As Delta spreads, it’s going to infect a higher percentage of low risk vs high risk people, thus a lower CFR.
I doubt the true CFR is .2% on an unvaccinated population. All this table tells us is that the CFR is .2% at this moment in time when a good majority of the older and vulnerable population has been vaccinated.

The vulnerable part of the population is also routinely vaccinated against the flu in most countries, so you actually can compare these numbers. Problem is that a very high percentage of cases is just people who test positive without being sick, which would never happen with the flu, so eventhough the CFR may be at flu levels right now, the IFR is probably still quite a bit higher.
Btw, I’m really disappointed in Chris’ analysis in this video. He’s taking numbers for vaxxed/nonvaxxed and <50/>50 and interpreting them as if these groups all exist of the exact same number of people. Like, come on dude, that’s clearly not the case.
“Why are >50 vaccinated more likely to die than their nonvaxed counterparts and <50 vaccinated less likely to die than their nonvaxed counterparts?” Because most old people are vaccinated, and most young people aren’t.
I mean, I’m sorry, I respect Chris, I really do, but come on man. Do better.

Please watch this explanation of the Virome that all life on the planet is taking in and exuding. It is the stuff of life and we are in the process of destroying it, making it our enemy and battling it. If we do not change our perspective on this we will kill ourselves. The science over the last decade or two is very clear.

Exactly. I was saying the same thing. The vast majority of over 50s in the UK received the Astrazeneca. I am in the UK and found a way to get Moderna, but it was not easy. You cannot compare the US to the UK in this scenario. Astrazeneca is clearly an inferior vaccine when it comes to this Delta variant.

According to the UK data on vaccination rates, 92.04% of people over 50 in the UK are vaccinated (I had to do a bit of math to combine the groups). That means only 7.96% are unvaccinated.
The unvaccinated people make up only 7.96% of that population but they account for 31% of the deaths. That means the vaccines are helping. Vaccinated people over the age of 50 have a lower chance of dying from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people over 50.
The real story is the much lower case fatality rate. Thanks for sharing that.