Thanks for this reference, but you are wrong in saying the kernel of my argument is that the vaccine rates for London were lower than elsewhere yet infection rates were not worse. Don't you remember that I was making the same argument of natural immunity by prior infection throughout 2020 when there were no vaccines in existence, also showing how very high the London infection rate in support? The lower London vaccine rates I've only latterly given to support the effectiveness of prior infection which is belatedly officially accepted as likely anyway. The kernel of my argument is and always has been that London's very high prior infection is at least as effective as vaccination and likely to be more so. I've posted chief statistician Professor Spiegelhalter's support for that and you have referred to your professor's support too
in this link.
I have never claimed London's infection rate is lower, it's often been higher and that is still very true now. The second part of my argument is that London's death rate is lower. These also show the effectiveness of prior infection reducing the ill effects of Covid if caught. How you can misread these is frankly staggering when I've spelled them out so clearly.
I was already aware of the GP list discrepancies since the same claim has been made in several publications, but the argument is false as I'll show later.
But I'll first deal with it on the basis that it's true to show it makes no difference.
The published proportion of Londoners with no vaccine jab at all is 29% of the official 9.4 million population. Assuming that population is reduced by your mid point of 800,000, it leaves 26.5% with no vaccine. The UK has just 10.3% with no vaccine, so you see the reduction makes no material difference. London's vaccine take-up failure rate remains very far below the UK one, even if I took that whole erroneous 1.6 millions away.
To emphasise this, London's 68.1% with one jab would increase to 74.4% against the UK 89.7%, and the 61.8% with both jabs would increase to 67.6% against the UK 82%, both far lower in London, yet with lower death rates.
However, the claim of multiple GP registrations omits the opposing truth, that many entering London do not immediately register with a GP or even at all before moving or leaving. Most coming into London for employment are fit healthy young adults who have no need for any medical attention and I typified that when I returned to London in my late twenties. Other than my army entry medical, the last time I'd seen a doctor was at 10 years old, so being fully fit It didn't occur to register. It was only a grumbling appendix years later that finally triggered a contact with a local doctor.
If that hadn't happen it could have been decades later before I saw a GP since going up to 15 years without any doctors appointment was the norm for most of my life. Since London's vaccinations and booster programs were mostly conducted in large walk in centres and not in GP surgeries, a GP registration wasn't necessary. In this connection I trust you will remember my posts saying how I had to belatedly chase first and second jabs because I was not contacted at all, this after 54 years of continuous London residency and decades of 'flu jabs
And anyway, the claim on the basis of GP records that London's true population is 8.6 millions and not the official 9.4 millions is ridiculous when the GLC's research indicates the true population is 10.1 millions.
So the reason for London's better Covid performance against all the odds and predictions remains the benefit of the very early extremely high infection rate and the immunity benefits against infection, sickness and later deaths that resulted.
.
