Connect with us

Government

Latinos support Democrats over Republicans 2-1 in House and Senate elections

The Latino electorate was once again pivotal to election outcomes across the nation, including key Senate races in Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. The 2022…

Published

5 months ago

on

By Gabriel R. Sanchez

The Latino electorate was once again pivotal to election outcomes across the nation, including key Senate races in Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. The 2022 Midterm Voter Election Poll, conducted by the African American Research Collaborative (AARC), has a large sample of Latino voters with enough samples from key states (n-400 per state) to explore important differences across the diverse Latino electorate.

Latino voters remained solidly Democratic in their voting preferences in 2022, with 64% of Latinos reporting that they voted for a Democratic house candidate, compared to 33% who reported they voted for Republican candidates. The final 3% voted for a candidate from another party. As reflected in the figure below, there was a similar distribution among Latino voters across Senate races.

Latinos support for Democratic house candidates decreased by 5% from 2020, but the movement toward the GOP was not as pronounced as pre-election surveys suggested it might be this cycle. This analysis points to a small but consistent shift among Latinos toward the Republican Party across most sub-groups of the overall Latino electorate. This modest shift was nowhere near large enough to help the ‘red wave’ materialize in 2022 and is consistent with historic shifts in vote choice away from the president’s party in off-year elections during their first term in office.

The Role of Latinas in the 2022 Midterms

My pre-election analysis suggested that Latinas were a key sub-group of the Latino electorate whose movement toward the Republican Party was noticeable over time. Latinas defied pre-election surveys and once again voted for Democratic candidates at a high level, with 68% of Latinas casting ballots for Democratic House candidates, higher than the 58% for Latino men. The 10% gender gap among Latinos in 2022 mirrors the gap in the 2016 election.

Latinas were twice as likely to indicate that the most important issue driving their voting decision this cycle was women’s reproductive health and abortion relative to Latino men, with 16% of Latinas across the country noting that this was the most important issue that drove their decision for who to vote for in their congressional district. Conversely, Latino men were twice as likely to indicate that they “always vote Republican” in congressional races relative to Latinas (17% for Latino men/9% for Latinas). The survey numbers suggest that the Democrats’ focus on access to abortion helped stall the movement toward the GOP among Latinas.

Latinos Partisan Preferences by Age, Origin, and Religion

Latinos’ voting differences across age groups also show stark differences and important trends. Latinos under the age of 40 were more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in 2022 (67%) compared to 60% among Latinos over 40. This is almost identical to the Democratic voting percentages for Latinos under 40 years of age in 2020. However, there was a noticeable decrease in the Democratic vote share among Latinos over the age of 60, 74% of whom voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2020 compared to 61% in 2022. Biden’s approval rating of 59% among Latinos 60 years of age or older was lower than Latinos of younger ages, and Latinos 60 or older were the most likely to identify “inflation and cost of living” as the most important issue that drove their congressional vote at 21%.

Latino House Vote by Demographic Profile

Source: 2022 AARC Midterm Voter Election Poll

Democrats did not do as well in the battle for Independent voters in 2022, with 53% of self-identified Latino Independents voting for a Democratic candidate in 2022 compared to 60% in 2020. Gas prices were particularly salient to Latino Independents who were twice as likely as Latino Democrats or Republicans to identify gas prices as the most important issue that drove their congressional voting decision. Democrats also lost some ground among partisans, with 94% of self-identified Democrats voting for a candidate from their party in 2022 compared to 96% in 2020. Similarly, 7% of self-identified Republicans voted for a Democratic candidate in 2022 compared to 10% in 2020.

Although there were no major national-origin groups among Latinos that had higher Republican support than Democratic, there were razor thin margins for Cuban American and South American Latinos who supported Republicans at rates of 46% and 47%, respectively. Cuban Americans were one of the few sub-groups of Latino voters who shifted toward the Democrats in 2022—55% Republican in 2020. However, South Americans increased their Republican percentage by a large margin, +18% from 2020.

In an election season where abortion policy was a major theme, we wanted to explore variation based on religiosity. Given media narratives about Latinos being more religious and thus socially conservative on issues such as abortion, 2022 was an important election to examine those claims. Support for Republican candidates increased with the importance of religion in Latinos’ daily lives; only 24% of Latinos who indicated that religion was not important to their daily lives voting for a Republican House candidate, compared to 33% for those for whom religion is somewhat important, and 37% for Latinos whose religion is very important to their daily lives.

Latino Voting Preferences by State

Democratic support among Latinos in the critical states of Michigan (74%), Pennsylvania (73%) and Colorado (71%) proved vital in Senate and governors races. Florida was the lone state where the majority of Latino voters supported Republican house candidates (54%), and the Latino vote mirrored the overall electorate in the state of Florida which was one of the few states where Republicans performed up to pre-election expectations.

fg

Source: 2022 AARC Midterm Voter Election Poll

The electoral consequences of the shift in Latino voting behavior from 2020 is most apparent when we look at state level variation. Georgia had the most dramatic shift across key states this cycle with a 13% decrease in Latino Democratic vote relative to 2020, and Pennsylvania also saw a significant decrease of 9%. Although votes are still being counted in Georgia, it does not appear as though this Latino movement in 2022 cost Democrats valuable Senate seats.

vh

Source: 2022 AARC Midterm Voter Election Poll; 2020 American Election Eve Poll

Similarly, although Latinos in Colorado were more balanced in their voting behavior in 2022, the solid 71% Democratic support among Latinos in Colorado helped make this a big night for Democrats in the state. Fresh survey data from Colorado reveals that Latino voters overwhelmingly supported Democratic Latina candidate Yadira Caraveo at 75%, with higher Democratic vote support in this district than the state overall.

Latinos comprised 1 in 5 of Nevada’s electorate this fall, making the Latino vote critical to the surprisingly tight Senate race in the state featuring incumbent Cortez-Masto, the first Latina elected to the U.S. Senate. Nevada was a state where Democrats saw a slight but important gain in Latino support which may prove to be consequential in a too-close-to-call Senate race. Latinos supported Cortez-Masto to Republican nominee Adam Laxalt 63% to 35%, a margin which may prove to be enough to help the Latina senator keep her seat, if Latino turnout is sufficiently high.

The Economy and Abortion Drove Voting Decisions for Latinos in House Races

Latinos have faced tremendous financial challenges over the past year, including disproportionately high unemployment rates that at one point were nearly three times as high as the national average. It is, therefore, not surprising that when asked to identify the most important policy issues that drove their congressional voting decision in 2022, “inflation/cost of living” was the leading issue for Latinos at 18%. When you add the “price of gas” at 5% and the “cost of healthcare” also at 5%, it was clear that the economy was the dominant theme for Latino voters in 2022.

The fact that jobs and the economy was second only to the COVID pandemic among Latino voters in 2020 speaks to just how difficult the last two years have been on the economic well-being of the Latino community. The party who can gain Latinos’ trust in improving their personal economic standing will stand to do well with Latino voters in 2024.

One of the dominant themes in this year’s race following the Dobbs decision was abortion policy. This led 9% of Latinos to identify “women’s reproductive and abortion rights” as their most important issue that impacted their House vote, second only to inflation/cost of living across all policy issues.

President Biden and major Democratic surrogates’ (including former President Obama) closing message to voters focusing on the protection of democracy, did not gain high traction with Latino voters. Only 1% of Latino voters identified “election reform and protecting voting rights” as the policy that drove their voting decision.

The Latino Policy Agenda and Looking Ahead to 2024

In sum, the policy priorities of the Latino electorate gives both parties a clear idea of the Latino policy agenda at this point in time. When asked to identify the most important issues that they want Congress and the president to address moving forward, Latino voters want to see action taken on the rising cost of living and inflation, including a particular focus on lowering the cost of gas. Protecting women’s reproductive health care rights is the next most commonly identified policy priority among Latinos. Latinos also want to see policy action to address gun violence and mass shootings (23%) and the cost of health care (22%). Rounding out the top policies on the Latino agenda is climate change/extreme weather (16%).

As we concluded the campaign season, our attention immediately turned to the implications of the 2022 midterm election on the presidential race that will come in two years. When asked if they would be worried if “Donald Trump becomes President again he will promote hate and division and our country will fall apart” a majority of 59% of Latino voters are worried, 43% are very worried. If Trump does represent the GOP in 2024, it is likely that this high concern among Latinos will generate even higher turnout and Democratic support than what we observed in 2022.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

New IRS Report Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Your “Fair Share”

New IRS Report Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Your "Fair Share"

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Every year the IRS publishes…

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 29, 2023

By

New IRS Report Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Your "Fair Share"

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Every year the IRS publishes a detailed report on the taxes it collects. And the statistics are REALLY interesting.

A few weeks ago the agency released its most recent report. So this is the most objective, up-to-date information that exists about taxes in America.

This is important, because, these days, it’s common to hear progressive politicians and woke mobsters calling for higher income earners and wealthier Americans to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

But this report, directly from the US agency whose job it is to tax Americans, shows the truth:

The top 1% of US taxpayers paid 48% of total US income taxes.

And that’s just at the federal level, not even counting how much of the the local and state taxes the wealthy paid.

Further, the top 10% paid nearly 72% of total income taxes.

Meanwhile, the bottom 40% of US income tax filers paid no net income tax at all. And the next group, those making between $30-$50,000 per year, paid an effective rate of just 1.9%.

(Again, this is not some wild conspiracy theory; these numbers are directly from IRS data.)

But the fact that 10% of the taxpayers foot nearly three-fourths of the tax bill still isn’t enough for the progressive mob. They want even more.

The guy who shakes hands with thin air, for example, recently announced that he wants to introduce a new law that would create a minimum tax of 25% on the highest income earners.

But the government’s own statistics show that the highest income earners in America— those earning more than $10 million annually— paid an average tax rate of 25.5%. That’s higher than Mr. Biden’s 25% minimum.

So he is essentially proposing an unnecessary solution in search of a problem.

I bring this up because whenever you hear the leftist Bolsheviks in government and media talking about “fair share”, they always leave out what exactly the “fair share” is.

The top 1% already pay nearly half the taxes. Exactly how much more will be enough?

Should the top 1% pay 60% of all taxes? 80%? At what point will it be enough?

They never say. They’ll never commit to a number. They just keep expanding their thinking scope.

Elizabeth Warren, for example, quite famously stopped talking about the “top 1%” and started whining about the “top 5%”. And then the “top 10%”.

She has already decided that the top 5% of wealthy households should not be eligible for student loan forgiveness or Medicare.

And when she talks about “accountable capitalism” on her website, Warren calls out the top 10% for having too much wealth, compared to the rest of households.

Soon enough it will be the “top 25%” who are the real problem…

Honestly this whole way of thinking reminds me of Anthony “the Science” Fauci’s pandemic logic on lockdowns and mask mandates.

You probably remember how reporters always asked “the Science” when life could go back to normal… and he always replied that it was a function of vaccine uptake, i.e. whenever enough Americans were vaccinated.

But then he kept moving the goal posts. 50%. 60%. 70%. It was never enough. And there was never a concrete answer.

This same logic applies to what the “experts” believe is the “fair share” of taxes which the top whatever percent should pay.

They’ll never actually say what the fair share is. But my guess is that they won’t stop until 100% of taxes are paid by the top 10% … and the other 100% of taxes are paid by the other 90%.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/29/2023 - 11:25

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Financial Stress Continues to Recede

Overview: Financial stress continues to recede. The Topix bank index is up for the second consecutive session and the Stoxx 600 bank index is recovering…

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 29, 2023

By

Overview: Financial stress continues to recede. The Topix bank index is up for the second consecutive session and the Stoxx 600 bank index is recovering for the third session. The AT1 ETF is trying to snap a four-day decline. The KBW US bank index rose for the third consecutive session yesterday. More broadly equity markets are rallying. The advance in the Asia Pacific was led by tech companies following Alibaba's re-organization announcement. The Hang Seng rose by over 2% and the index of mainland shares rose by 2.2%. Europe's Stoxx 600 is up nearly 1% and US index futures are up almost the same. Benchmark 10-year yields are mostly 1-3 bp softer in Europe and the US.

The dollar is mixed. The Swiss franc is leading the advancers (~+0.3%) while euro, sterling and the Canadian dollar are posting small gains. The Japanese yen is the weakest of the majors (~-0.6%). The antipodeans and Scandis are also softer. A larger than expected decline in Australia's monthly CPI underscores the likelihood that central bank joins the Bank of Canada in pausing monetary policy when it meets next week. Most emerging market currencies are also firmer today, and the JP Morgan Emerging Market Currency Index is higher for the third consecutive session. Gold is softer within yesterday's $1949-$1975 range. The unexpectedly large drop in US oil inventories (~6 mln barrels according to report of API's estimate, which if confirmed by the EIA later today would be the largest drawdown in four months) is helping May WTI extend its gains above $74 a barrel. Recall that it had fallen below $65 at the start of last week.

Asia Pacific

The US dollar is knocking on the upper end of its band against the Hong Kong dollar, raising the prospect of intervention by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. It appears to be driven by the wide rate differential between Hong Kong and dollar rates (~3.20% vs. ~4.85%). Although the HKMA tracks the Fed's rate increases, the key is not official rates but bank rates, and the large banks have not fully passed the increase. Reports suggest some of the global banks operating locally have raised rates a fraction of what HKMA has delivered. The root of the problem is not a weakness but a strength. Hong Kong has seen an inflow of portfolio and speculative capital seeking opportunities to benefit from the mainland's re-opening.  Of course, from time-to-time some speculators short the Hong Kong dollar on ideas that the peg will break. It is an inexpensive wager. In fact, it is the carry trade. One is paid well to be long the US dollar. Pressure will remain until this consideration changes. Eventually, the one-country two-currencies will eventually end, but it does not mean it will today or tomorrow. As recently as last month, the HKMA demonstrated its commitment to the peg by intervening. Pressure on the peg has been experienced since last May and in this bout, the HKMA has spent around HKD280 defending it (~$35 bln).

The US and Japan struck a deal on critical minerals, but the key issue is whether it will be sufficient to satisfy the American congress that the executive agreement is sufficient to benefit from the tax- credits embodied in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration is negotiating a similar agreement with the EU. The problem is that some lawmakers, including Senator Manchin, have pushed back that it violates the legislature's intent on the restrictions of the tax credit. Manchin previously threatened legislation that would force the issue. The US Trade Representative Office can strike a deal for a specific sector without approval of Congress, but that specific sector deal (critical minerals) cannot then meet the threshold of a free-trade agreement to secure the tax incentives. 

The Japanese yen is the weakest of the major currencies today, dragged lower by the nearly 20 bp rise in US 10-year yields this week and the end of the fiscal year related flows. Some dollar buying may have been related to the expirations of a $615 mln option today at JPY131.75. The greenback tested the JPY130.40 support we identified yesterday and rebounded to briefly trade above JPY132.00 today, a five-day high.  However, the session high may be in place and support now is seen in the JPY131.30-50 band. Softer than expected Australian monthly CPI (6.8% vs. 7.4% in January and 7.2% median forecast in Bloomberg's survey) reinforced ideas that the central bank will pause its rate hike cycle next week. The Australian dollar settled near session highs above $0.6700 in North America yesterday and made a margin new high before being sold. It reached a low slightly ahead of $0.6660 in early European turnover. The immediate selling pressure looks exhausted and a bounce toward $0.6680-90 looks likely. On the downside, note that there are options for A$680 mln that expire today at $0.6650. In line with the developments in the Asia Pacific session today, the US dollar is firmer against the Chinese yuan. However, it held below the high seen on Monday (~CNY6.8935). The dollar's reference rate was set at CNY6.8771, a bit lower than the median projection in Bloomberg's forecast (~CNY6.8788). The sharp decline in the overnight repo to its lowest since early January reflect the liquidity provisions by the central bank into the quarter-end.

Europe

Reports suggest regulators are finding that one roughly 5 mln euro trade on Deutsche Bank's credit-default swaps last Friday, was the likely trigger of the debacle. The bank's market cap fell by1.6 bln euros and billions more off the bank share indices. Then there is the US Treasury market, where the measure of volatility (MOVE) has softened slightly from last week when it rose to the highest level since the Great Financial Crisis. While the wide intraday ranges of the US two-year note have been noted, less appreciated are the large swings in the German two-year yield. Before today, last session with less than a 10 bp range was March 8. In the dozen sessions since, the yield has an average daily range of around 27 bp. The rapid changes and opaque liquidity in some markets leading to dramatic moves challenges the price discovery process. The speed of movement seems to have accelerated, and reports that Silicon Valley Bank lost $40 bln of deposits in a single day.

Italy's Meloni government will tap into a 21 bln euro reserve in the budget to give a three-month extension of help to low-income families cope with higher energy bills but eliminate it for others. It is projected to cost almost 5 billion euros. The energy subsidies have cost about 90 mln euros. Most Italian families are likely to see higher energy bills, though gas will still have a lower VAT. Meloni also intends to adjust corporate taxes to better target them and cost less. Separately, the government is reportedly considering reducing or eliminating the VAT on basic food staples. Meanwhile, the EU is delaying a 19 bln euro distribution to Italy from the pandemic recovery fund. The aid is conditional on meeting certain goals. The EU is extending its assessment phase to review a progress on a couple projects, licensing of port activities, and district heating. These are tied to the disbursement for the end of last year. The EU acknowledged there has been "significant" progress. Italy has received about a third of the 192 bln euros earmarked for it. Despite the volatile swings in the yields, Italy's two-year premium over Germany is within a few basis points of the Q1 average (~46 bp). The same is true of the 10-year differential, which has averaged about 187 bp this year. 

After slipping lower in most of the Asia Pacific session, the euro caught a bid late that carried into the European session and lifted it to session highs near $1.0855. The session low was set slightly below $1.0820 and there are nearly 1.6 bln euros in option expirations today between two strikes ($1.0780 and $1.0800). Recall that on two separate occasions last week, the euro be repulsed from intraday moves above $1.09. A retest today seems unlikely, but the price actions suggest underlying demand. Sterling has also recovered from the slippage seen early in Asia that saw it test initial support near $1.2300. Yesterday, it took out last week's high by a few hundredths of a cent, did so again today rising to slightly above $1.2350. However, here too, the intraday momentum indicators look stretched, cautioning North American participants from looking for strong follow-through buying.

America

What remains striking is the divergence between the market and the Federal Reserve. On rates they are one way. Fed Chair Powell was unequivocal last week. A pause had been considered, but no one was talking about a rate cut this year. The market is pricing in a 4.72% average effective Fed funds rate in July. On the outlook for the economy this year, they are the other way. The median Fed forecast was for the economy to grow by 0.4% this year. The median forecast in Bloomberg's survey anticipated more than twice the growth and projects 1.0% growth this year. As of the end of last week, the Atlanta Fed sees the US expanding by 3.2% this quarter (it will be updated Friday). The median in Bloomberg's survey is half as much. 

The US goods deficit in February was a little more than expected and some of the imports appeared to have gone into wholesale inventories, which unexpectedly rose (0.2% vs. -0.1% median forecast in Bloomberg's survey). Retail inventories jumped 0.8%, well above the 0.2% expected and biggest increase since last August. Given the strength of February retail sales (0.5% for the measure that excludes autos, gasoline, food services and building materials, after a 2.3% rise in January), the increase in retail inventories was likely desired. FHFA houses prices unexpectedly rose in January (first time in three months, leaving them flat over the period). S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller's measure continued to slump. It has not risen since last June. The Conference Board's measure of consumer confidence rose due to the expectations component. This contrasts with the University of Michigan's preliminary estimate that showed the first decline in four months. Moreover, when its final reading is announced at the end of the week, the risk seems to be on the downside, according to the Bloomberg survey. Meanwhile, surveys have shown that the service sector has been faring better than the manufacturing sector. However, the decline in the Richman Fed's business conditions, while its manufacturing survey improved, coupled with the sharp decline in the Dallas Fed's service activity index may be warning of weakness going into Q2.

The US dollar flirted with CAD1.38 at the end of last week is pushing through CAD1.36 today to reach its lowest level since before the banking stress was seen earlier this month. The five-day moving average has crossed below the 20-day moving average for the first time since mid-February. Canada's budget announced late yesterday boosts the deficit via new green initiatives and health spending, while raising taxes, including a new tax on dividend income for banks and insurance companies from Canadian companies. The market appears to be still digesting the implications. Today's range has thus far been too narrow to read much into it. The greenback has traded between roughly CAD1.3590 and CAD1.3615. On the other hand, the Mexican peso has continued to rebound from the risk-off drop that saw the US dollar surge above MXN19.23 (March 20). The dollar is weaker for fifth consecutive session and seventh of the last nine. It finished last week near MXN18.4450 and fell to about MXN18.1230 today, its lowest level since March 9. However, the intraday momentum indicators are stretched, and the greenback looks poised to recover back into the MXN18.20-25 area. Banxico meets tomorrow and is widely expected to hike its overnight target rate by a quarter-of-a-point to 11.25%.

 


Disclaimer

Read More

Continue Reading

International

The ONS has published its final COVID infection survey – here’s why it’s been such a valuable resource

The ONS’ Coronavirus Infection Survey has ceased after three years. Two experts explain why it was a uniquely useful source of data.

Published

11 hours ago

on

March 29, 2023

By

cktravels.com/Shutterstock

March 24 marked the publication of the final bulletin of the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) Coronavirus Infection Survey after nearly three years of tracking COVID infections in the UK. The first bulletin was published on May 14 2020 and we’ve seen new releases almost every week since.

The survey was based primarily on data from many thousands of people in randomly selected households across the UK who agreed to take regular COVID tests. The ONS used the results to estimate how many people were infected with the virus in any given week.

In the survey’s first six months, we had results from 1.2 million samples taken from 280,000 people. Although the number of people participating each month declined over time, the survey has continued to be a highly valuable tool as we navigate the pandemic.

In particular, because the ONS bulletins were based on surveying a large, random sample of all UK residents, it offered the least biased surveillance system of COVID infections in the UK. We are not aware of any similar study anywhere else in the world. And, while estimating the prevalence of infections was the survey’s main output, it gave us a lot of other useful information about the virus too.

Unbiased surveillance

An important advantage of the ONS survey was its ability to detect COVID infections among many people who had no symptoms, or were not yet displaying symptoms.

Certainly other data sets existed (and some continue to exist) to give a sense of how many people were testing positive. For example, earlier in the pandemic, case numbers were reported at daily national press conferences. Figures continue to be published on the Department of Health and Social Care website.

But these totals have usually only encompassed people who tested because they had reason to suspect they may have been infected (for example because of symptoms or their work). We know many people had such minor symptoms that they had no reason to suspect they had COVID. Further, people who took a home test may or may not have reported the result.

Similarly, case counts from hospital admissions or emergency room attendances only captured a very small percentage of positive cases, even if many of these same people had severe healthcare needs.

Symptom-tracking applications such as the ZOE app or online surveys have been useful but tend to over-represent people who are most technologically competent, engaged and symptom-aware.

Testing wastewater samples to track COVID spread in a community has proved difficult to reliably link to infection numbers.

Read more: The tide of the COVID pandemic is going out – but that doesn't mean big waves still can't catch us

What else the survey told us

Aside from swab samples to test for COVID infections, the ONS survey collected blood samples from some participants to measure antibodies. This was a very useful aspect of the infection survey, providing insights into immunity against the virus in the population and individuals.

Beginning in June 2021, the ONS survey also published reports on the “characteristics of people testing positive”. Arguably these analyses were even more valuable than the simple infection rate estimates.

For example, the ONS data gave practical insights into changing risk factors from November 21 2021 to May 7 2022. In November 2021, living in a house with someone under 16 was a risk factor for testing positive but by the end of that period it seemed to be protective. Travel abroad was not an important risk factor in December 2021 but by April 2022 it was a major risk. Wearing a mask in December 2021 was protective against testing positive but by April 2022 there was no significant association.

We shouldn’t find this changing picture of risk factors particularly surprising when concurrently we had different variants emerging (during that period most notably omicron) and evolving population resistance that came with vaccination programmes and waves of natural infection.

Also, in any pandemic the value of non-pharmaceutical interventions such wearing masks and social distancing declines as the infection becomes endemic. At that point the infection rate is driven more by the rate at which immunity is lost.

A woman wearing a face mask receives a vaccine.
The survey gave us insights into the protection offered by vaccines and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Paul Maguire/Shutterstock

The ONS characteristics analyses also offered evidence about the protective effects of vaccination and prior infection. The bulletin from May 25 2022 showed that vaccination provided protection against infection but probably for not much more than 90 days, whereas a prior infection generally conferred protection for longer.

After May 2022, the focused shifted to reinfections. The analyses confirmed that even in people who had already been infected, vaccination protects against reinfection, but again probably only for about 90 days.

It’s important to note the ONS survey only measured infections and not severe disease. We know from other work that vaccination is much better at protecting against severe disease and death than against infection.

Read more: How will the COVID pandemic end?

A hugely valuable resource

The main shortcoming of the ONS survey was that its reports were always published one to three weeks later than other data sets due to the time needed to collect and test the samples and then model the results.

That said, the value of this infection survey has been enormous. The ONS survey improved understanding and management of the epidemic in the UK on multiple levels. But it’s probably appropriate now to bring it to an end in the fourth year of the pandemic, especially as participation rates have been falling over the past year.

Our one disappointment is that so few of the important findings from the ONS survey have been published in peer-reviewed literature, and so the survey has had less of an impact internationally than it deserves.

Paul Hunter consults for the World Health Organization. He receives funding from National Institute for Health Research, the World Health Organization and the European Regional Development Fund.

Julii Brainard receives funding from the NIHR Health Protection and Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending