Mater’s Musings #35: Is that the best you could come up with?

Epidemiological week 39, ending 2 October 2021

Interpretation: In the current outbreak from 16 June 2021, people aged under 40 are over-represented among the cases, relative to their proportion in the NSW population. Under-representation among older groups may be due to vaccination programs targeted towards elderly and aged care residents.

Yeah, well I guess that is the one ‘interpretation’ that supports the narrative.

The other interpretation, and the far more likely one, is that people under 50 represent a greater proportion of the ‘essential’ workers who were (and are) out and about being exposed to the virus, keeping our society operating. I’d add to that, that they are far more likely to have children living with them to whom to spread the virus (see the 0-9 & 10-19 figures).

I’ll be kind and just suggest that NSW Health could do with expanding their thinking and offer a number of the more likely interpretations.

6 thoughts on “Mater’s Musings #35: Is that the best you could come up with?”

  1. Sorry, should have clicked on the link first. In NSW report, Table 8 says 11% of infections double vaxxed vs 51% of total population d.v.
    Interesting to note in the preceding tables however a high proportion (>50%) of health care workers with infection are double vaxxed.

  2. Childless bureaucrats? If they had kids they’d know that kids pass every greebly onto other kids and then to their parents. It’s an endless merry-go-round, which these people seem never to’ve been on.

  3. “…NSW Health could do with expanding their thinking…”

    Well, there’s your problem!
    Government departments do not think about things, they do as their political masters order. That is always the safest course for those involved – the path of least resistance, as it were.

    Along with standard public service unspoken rules:

    If you don’t do anything, you won’t do anything wrong. If you don’t do anything wrong, you’ll be promoted. Therefore, you should do as little as possible for as long as possible.

    If you must do something, find a suitably complex question that is above your pay grade, and ask someone higher up to answer that question – in writing. This usually takes enough time that you can arrange to go on holidays, or be assigned “more urgent” work and therefore either put it off indefinately, or make it someone else’s problem.

    If you still must do something, you should always peruse the rules first, and find some obscure one from antiquity that can justify any choices you are forced to make – the older and more obscure, the better. Then you are only following the rules, and can’t be blamed even if the rule is obviously bad/wrong/stupid (no meed to cross anything out – they almost always all apply). This works well because you can be guaranteed to find a rule as well as it’s exact opposite, so you are never in a position of being unable to justify what you did. But finding such rules is time consuming, so you must do it before you decide anything.

    If all else fails, you must ensure that any instructions to your underlings are as vague as possible, and preferably use phrasing such as “standard procedure”, “normal practice”, “industry standards” etc. You can justify almost anything with such phrases, as can your political masters. As in “We were following standard procedure as outlined under section such-and-such. Alas, this appears to be out of date and in need of serious and urgent review.”

    If you have no underlings, then you should only do exactly as directed – nothing more, nothing less, and regardless of any obvious mistakes. After all, you have no-one to blame, so if things go wrong the only way to avoid blame is to ensure you followed the directions given you to the letter.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.