I do not have a worthwhile view on the efficacy of the vaccines or of  the balance of good and harm from them . I have not read enough of the literature and have no medical training . Yesterday I reported the NHS line and the questions raised by some MP s over the vaccines.I have myself raised other big issues over the way government responded to the pandemic. At the time I raised queries about the statistics presented for infections and deaths.I did not presume to advise my constituents as some non medically qualified MP s did over getting vaccinated. If asked I suggested they talked to a medical adviser they trusted.

During the covid period I did have strong views on the economic damage done by extensive lockdowns. I worked with a small group of MP s to press for  Parliament to be up and running and then for the earlier return of an active in person Parliament. I saw the need for more scrutiny of the wide ranging actions being taken to direct the economy and to spend large new budgets on healthcare.  I argued for concentrating protections on the vulnerable and helping them safely avoid contact with possible disease carriers, rather than getting most of us to avoid contacts outside our own family or bubble. I voted and argued for less extensive lockdowns.

I also pressed for more work on the possible approval and use of existing medicines to blunt the virus and help with symptoms for those infected. I argued for isolation hospitals to be separate from other general hospitals, for the Nightingale capacity to be used, for more use of the private sector hospitals for non covid patients, for better air flow and air cleansing in hospitals and other public buildings. I have subsequently sent in these issues for the Covid Enquiry to consider when they can spare time from examining the issues over how Ministers behaved. To produce a good report they need to examine the scientific work, forecasts , NHS management of greatly increased resource and medical advice offered as it evolved during the waves of the virus.

I have not published all contributions from yesterday. The share prices of pharmaceutical companies generally have fallen this year for a variety of reasons. The  lawsuits I see raised as contributors to share declines are about infringement of patents, rather than  harms from covid vaccines. Governments often issued some exemptions from liability to speed introduction of vaccines that they thought would save lives.

Governments and medical experts continue to recommend a range of covid vaccines, and have made decisions now about which ones they prefer to use. Anyone thinking of having vaccinations can now find plenty of information about side effects and about what has happened to a small proportion  of people who have experienced greater harm than a sore arm and feeling a bit under the weather for a few days. Those who do dislike these vaccines can make their own decisions as they are free to do and can study outcomes so far from using these treatments.

On Friday Parliament debated the issues surrounding vaccines and in particular the various covid vaccines. Christopher Chope  produced a private members bill to improve payments to anyone badly affected by vaccine. The Minister reminded the House that anyone can claim a one off £120,000 payment if they have proof of disability and harm from taking an NHS vaccine. This applies to any vaccine including one against covid. The government added the anti covid treatments to the list of those items covered. The Minister explained that the one off payment does not exclude benefit payments for disability and sickness which may be necessary for anyone badly affected by a vaccine as well as by other more usual  causes of disability and ill health. The one off payment is  not compensation.  The Minister argued that such incidence was unusual for covid and for other approved vaccines. It is unlikely the Bill will pass as it seems that the government and the Opposition disagree with it, thinking current arrangements to make payments are sufficient subject to admin improvements to ensure prompt payment.

The Adjournment debate is a half hour debate at the end of the day’s business when a single member can be allotted the time to make a case they think important and  hear a Minister’s reply. Andrew Bridgen secured this slot to point out  that there were too many excess deaths continuing in the UK and to argue these were related to the covid vaccination of most people.

The Minister drawing on her NHS medical  advice agreed that excess deaths were continuing at higher levels than before covid, but denied this resulted from the vaccinations. She argued that because 93.6% of the population had been vaccinated it was true most people dying were those who had the vaccine. It did not prove or mean  the  vaccine  caused those deaths. Nor did she detect a lower death rate amongst the minority who had not been vaccinated. She said there was some inconclusive  evidence that non vaccinated people suffered a higher death rate than vaccinated.  She argued that there were a  variety of  causes of continuing excess deaths, including the backlog of treatments, bad outbreaks of flu, and a range of other killers running higher.

Work on the sudden death of young people from blood clots we are told has revealed  a small number of  cases brought on by vaccines, but we are told more people die of blood clots from contracting covid.  The Opposition supported the government in the debate of the Chope Bill and made clear their belief in the efficacy and success of the vaccines administered by the  NHS.

I set this out as I know some constituents and readers are concerned about these matters. I have  no medical knowledge or evidence to challenge the NHS/Ministerial view that these vaccines like all such treatments adversely affected a small number of people per million injected but are  not the main  cause of the current continuing spate of excess deaths. I offer people the chance to debate this further but will not publish contributions that potentially libel the NHS or drug companies based on coincidence or circumstantial evidence with  no  proof of causation. It was of course open to people not to take the vaccine if they did not like what was said about possible side effects, or about the balance between possible harms and possible benefits of taking it. The authorities  always said there could be some side effects and put in place a reporting system to monitor them.  The issue for some Health staff is  different if they had to take it. Everyone was aware these vaccines were developed at pace and approved to offer some defence against the virus when understanding of it was evolving.

I followed the debate carefully but did not contribute as I do not  have any special knowledge or evidence to present to  disagree with the NHS view. The argument that excess deaths today result from the vaccine need to show strong evidence of  more excess deaths for the vaccinated than the unvaccinated and to show causes of death are clearly linked to the vaccine impact rather than resulting from higher levels of death from a range of causes from dementia to flu.

The main messages from the two. Y elections are that many Conservative voters do not like what the government is doing or not doing,  nor do they want to vote Labour.

The secondary message is if frustrated  Conservatives vote Reform they can tip the balance between a Conservative and a Labour MP but they are miles off winning a seat even  in by election conditions.

It confirms my view that the government needs to cu5 taxes urgently, control spending better, make a substantial reduction in legal migration and follow through on it pro drivers pro personal freedoms policies.