Shenanigans at NSW Health

While reading two interesting posts this weekend, here and here, I wondered to myself whether one of the health departments locally were also engaging in these sorts of shenanigans discussed therein. Well, it appears they were.  When the numbers began to obviously resist the vaccine uber alles message, currently pervading the public health cabal and transmitted ad nauseam through the media and Big Tech, NSW Health chose to muddy the waters insofar as vaxx status of positive COVID cases from June onwards is concerned.*

As I was trying to tabulate the numbers, gathered from here, I tried to establish what exactly was to be counted as fully vaxxed, partially vaxxed, and unvaxxed. The first thing I encountered, however was four categories early on: fully vaxxed, partially vaxxed, single dose within 14 days, and unvaxxed ( a fifth emerges later on for ‘unknown’). From the week 24 report, p. 14:

In June 2021, we have: fully vaxxed (14 days post-second jab); partially vaxxed (14 days post-first jab to within 14 days post-second jab); single dose within 14 days; and, unvaxxed, no jab. Fairly clear. However, by early August (Week 28 report), there is a change to the above:

Under the new definitions, single dose last 14 days is dropped, and we are left now with fully as per the previous definition, however, partially vaxxed now appears to include all single doses within 14 days of first doses, while unvaxxed remains unchanged.

This continues until Week 36, the last week that the above definitions were used. Here is Table 8 with the numbers for the previous 4 weeks, with the last week tabulated 11 Sept 2021: 

Note the trend in partially vaxxed and unvaxxed positive COVID cases. If you were promoting a vaccine uber alles campaign only to find that by 11 Sept, on your own definitions and data, your partially vaxxed cohort was 50% higher than your no vaxx chort, you were in a spot of bother. Now look at what occurs between Week 36 and Week 37. Here is table 8 for Week 37:

Just look at those massive reductions in positive cases in the partially vaxxed row and the increase in the ‘no vaxxed’ now ‘no effective dose’ row.  You might be asking what in fact occurred. Now, some of the changes in the fully vaxxed row and the under investigations row indicate that further investigations bore fruit but that really doesn’t explain the magnitude of the changes we see above. Rather, they can be put down to the following:

‘No effective dose’ now includes every single dose vaxxed yet positive case now up to 21 days after their first dose! This is an extraordinary fudge. Right in the middle of the NSW lockdown, when they were trying to boost their vaxx coverage in the middle of a spike in positive COVID cases, they decided to hide the effect of this surge among the newly minted partially vaxxed by bundling the positive cases that followed in the first 21 days on the unvaxxed. This is misleading and deceptive because, as el gato malo explains, you are more susceptible to COVID at the very least in the first two weeks post-first dose, see Danish study here, where health care workers susceptibility doubled (negative efficacy) in the first two weeks post-first dose. Even Pfizer’s own trial indicated a 40% increase compared to placebo group in the first week. There is simply no reason this risk should be palmed off to the unvaxxed cohort. Whatever occurs immediately following getting vaxxed, from the first dose onwards, is part of the efficacy profile that comes with taking the vaxx. You cannot take the vaxx and ignore that you are actually more susceptible in the first two weeks than before getting vaxxed, or that you only really achieve substantial protection (50% or greater) at least a week after your second dose, or that this begins to dramatically decrease within 90 days until you are actually again in the zone of negative efficacy within 240 days

Keep in mind, these numbers are for doubled vaxxed yet symptomatic cases of COVID. There is also a similar curve for declining efficacy re severe COVID:

This is why they will have you on boosters closer to every six months rather than yearly.

OK. That is enough for the moment. It would be interesting to learn of what discussions occurred within NSW Health and related offices that led, firstly, to the decision to shift this group, the just vaxxed group, from the ‘partially vaxxed’ cohort to the now ‘no effective dose’ cohort, as well as the decision to expand this group from 14 to 21 days post-first dose, and then to  re-designate the ‘no dose’ cohort into the ‘no effective dosage’ cohort. As it stands, these changes appear to be motivated by the need to make the figures appear as good as they can for the vaccinate uber alles campaign, to hide the apparent susceptibility to COVID one has in the first few weeks of a first dose, and to do this in such a way that exaggerates the danger of remaining unvaxxed. It is misleading and deceptive. They knew this at the beginning, where the clearly distinguished each group from the other, but they have muddied the waters in order to cover the deterioration that became evident by early Sept 2021.  

*This continues to the present. I see NSW Health on Monday released an In Focus: Vaccination among COVID-19 cases in the NSW Delta outbreak. They continue the sleight of hand mentioned above by continuing to report the data using the definitions re vaxx status established in mid Sept.

25 thoughts on “Shenanigans at NSW Health”

  1. The fact that they need to resort to this sort of fudging…no, wait…outright deceit, in order to push more and more Australian citizens into the vaccine holding pens tells me that their is much more going on here than we are being allowed to know.

    It does nothing to convince me to change my mind on the pointlessness and danger of giving in to their unreasonable demand to decide on what medical treatment I must have or else. Everything wrong with it, nothing at all to recommend it.

    Report comment

  2. “We nudge, therefore we fudge.”

    Why should the truth, which would be useful and protective for the recently vaxxed, get in the way of a good propaganda-led coercion?

    We are not dealing with honest people here. And our well-being is the last thing on their minds.

    Report comment

  3. I am currently reading the excellent account of this COVID madness: “The Great COVID Panic” by Paul Frijters, Gigi Foster & Michael Baker.

    They make this excellent point (p.226):

    Covid exposed the inability of the political class to understand a complex phenomenon and to absorb new information. They were sitting ducks for any wrong-headed notions proclaimed by supposed ‘experts’.

    Report comment

  4. I have been monitoring the daily Covid information for NSW since 1 August 2021. Between 1 Aug and Sept 10 there had been 32,043 positive cases in NSW and 29,539 were active. The 11 Sept was an interesting day as the active case total dropped from 29,539 to 14,536 overnight. This drop just happened to be about the time Gladys announced plans for Freedom Day exactly 1 month later. Somehow, since 11 September active cases have been adjusted down much more quickly so that by 11 October active cases were 6,747 and by 31 October 3,678. One could say that until 11 September the numbers indicated people were sick for much longer but after 11 September they were only staying active for an average of about 10 days. I watched Chant giving an update yesterday and she was almost salivating while trying to hide her joy that NSW was achieving such high vax rates. It seems the vax rate is the new KPI that the health officials and there-bye the Premiers, judge themselves by. They will massage the numbers any way they can to make sure they achieve their KPI’s.

    Report comment

  5. from the ‘partially vaxxed’ cohort to the now ‘no effective dose’ cohort, as well as the decision to expand this group from 14 to 21 days post-first dose”

    Presumable these people still need to come into contact with someone with the virus to test positive for covid, right?

    Report comment

  6. Presumable these people still need to come into contact with someone with the virus to test positive for covid, right?

    In theory, yes. However, you will never, at this time, get a truthful answer to that question. Of course the non-vaccinated will be blamed when fully vaccinated become infected but, who knows, maybe because of the way this vaccine has been developed, it may well be self-generating in fully vaccinated people.

    Report comment

  7. CDC Emails: Our Definition of Vaccine is “Problematic”

    CDC: Problematic Vaccine? No, Problematic Definition of Vaccine.

    The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.

    The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

    Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

    Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

    The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

    Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

    Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

    People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.

    There you have it. Affirmative action for the multinational corporations. Why have them improve their vaccines when you can just change the definition of vaccine to fit their ineffective vaccines?

    Report comment

  8. RacerX, yes. The fudge is that it appears that the immediate effect of getting a first dose is that it actually undermines your immunity at least as far as COVID is concerned and that your immune response takes at least three weeks to recover to about what you were at before getting jabbed. And it doesn’t get much better anyway until your second jab, and even there, the major improvement occurs in the second and third week.

    Report comment

  9. Can anyone tell me how they diagnose “COVID”?

    If it is by the presence of the spike protein, how do they tell the “vaxxine” spike protein from the “COVID” spike protein??

    Report comment

  10. Presumable these people still need to come into contact with someone with the virus to test positive for covid, right?

    Oh dear citizen, no! …. (to quote the Cheshire cat) ….. A positive test means whatever they say it means .

    A positive test in a well person is at best irrelevant, and most likely completely false.

    Report comment

  11. A question, were the number of supposed cases determined by the PCR method, the test even the inventor of same said was unreliable?

  12. Perhaps Mark Latham would be interested in this post Dover.

    Probably the only politician in NSW who would bring this dangerous deceipt from public servants to the parliament. I’d love to watch ministers squirm over this.

    Report comment

  13. Miss Anthropistsays:
    November 10, 2021 at 3:26 pm
    This makes me quite cross.
    Fucking megalomaniac mendacious fascist arsewipes.
    The Government of Scumballs.

    Don’t hold back, tell us what you really think.

    Report comment

  14. Cheers dot. It is very hard to generate traction given the noise though. You need a lot of people sending this stuff out or someone with a significant following picking it up to gain ground. I will resend to Latham, send to Kelly, and a few others but this needs to be done by others too.

    Report comment

  15. “…the test even the inventor of same said was unreliable?”

    Some more nuance is needed here.
    It’s not that the test itself is unreliable, rather that it requires some expert judgement to interpret correctly – it is not a stand-alone yes/no test, but rather an indication and the cycle count is a significant indicator . This may be why the top health officials and politicians (assuming the pollies knew) liked it – they could “tune” the test to make the results appear as they wanted them to at the time.
    From what I and many others have been able to determine, only those who are symptomatic should be tested, and cycle counts below 25 or so are a reliable indicator, not the 30,35 or even as much as 45 that have been used. Quite simply, above 35 and you cannot culture the pathogen, below 20 it is definitely significantly present, and in between is likely indicative only at somewhere around 20-75% depending on cycle count.

    In truth I wonder if this was a trial run or a softening up for what some see as inevitable – a bio-weapon attack. If China has indeed being doing gain of function on something like nipah virus, which is as much as 50% CFR (vs 1% for CV-19), then getting you used to the idea of being vaxxed or locked down may have been the initial goal, known only to those at the very top – the rest being just “useful idiots” and fed the same line as the rest of us.

    Report comment

  16. flyingduksays: November 10, 2021 at 2:16 pm

    Presumable these people still need to come into contact with someone with the virus to test positive for covid, right?

    Oh dear citizen, no! …. (to quote the Cheshire cat) ….. A positive test means whatever they say it means.

    A positive test in a well person is at best irrelevant, and most likely completely false.

    Definition of iatrogenic from the Free Online Dictionary:

    PS: it was Humpty Dumpty in “Through The Looking Glass” who said that about words…

    Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.