Table 5 is damning

Many thanks to Peter Smith for reminding me in his latest post of NSW Health’s Weekly Summary and the latest figures re COVID severity and vaccine status. I would recommend reading both the post and his links therein. I simply want to point out and emphasize Table 5 in the Weekly Summary, it is damning:

In every category, no effective dose is doing as well or better than one effective dose, two effective doses, and three or more effective doses (are there already patients with four or more ‘effective’ doses in our hospital system?). This is really quite extraordinary. The entire prudential justification for vaccine mandates has dissolved and their continuance only magnifies the injustice involved therein.

44 thoughts on “Table 5 is damning”

  1. And would anyone from the MSM report on this . . . ? ? ?

    All I can hear is crickets . . . crickets . . .

    I’d imagine there’s too many numbers in the table for the MSM to grasp and understand..


    Report comment

    13
  2. Found this at the link:

    • Among those aged 12 years and over, 92.8% of the population had received at least two effective doses. Among those aged 18
    years and over, 33.5% of the population had received three or more vaccine doses.

    Can anyone explain why 12 years and over only has 2 shots while 18 and over has 3 and why the breakdown?
    Is it significant?
    Does it mean that more or less every High School student has had at least 2 Covid shots?


    Report comment

  3. Just read her comment on the protesters, and the retweets of others. Astounding venom and ignorance.

    Yeah, but there was a guy wearing a Tinfoil hat, another blaming ScoMo for loss of his BigBux FIFO job, the sperm germ, plus the Phlebotomist.
    These people are stooges, if you let weirdoes hijack your protest, it raises serious questions about how legit you are and whether there is Spook involvement here.


    Report comment

  4. O/T, but Mercola was saying a few years ago that Phlebotomy is a good idea for people with Excess Iron, which is a serious condition, quite common but underdiagnosed.
    Steelfixers definitely get it, the job is strenuous and out in the fresh air, but it’s impossible to tie steel wearing gloves.


    Report comment

    1
  5. As mentioned on the other post earlier today, they don’t admit many elderly with multiple comorbidites to ICU. Hence, their deaths won’t show up as ICU deaths.


    Report comment

    3
  6. Thanks, Mr Siccar.

    Rarely, people will present with a grey or bronze discolouration of the skin.

    I’ve seen that amongst Steelies quite a bit, it’s not rare.


    Report comment

  7. It would only be significant if each group had the same number of people in it.

    If 90 percent are vaxxed, it’s hardly a gotcha if they make up the majority of cases.


    Report comment

    4
  8. What’s this?

    “In every category, no effective dose is doing as well or better than one effective dose, two effective doses, and three or more effective doses”.

    Really? Cases and deaths.

    72,000 cases and 98 deaths out of 436.


    Report comment

  9. It would only be significant if each group had the same number of people in it.
    If 90 percent are vaxxed, it’s hardly a gotcha if they make up the majority of cases.

    FFS, look at the percentages columns. Reading fail.


    Report comment

    4
  10. The “no effective dose” means those who never got a shot AND those who got the first shot in the last 2 weeks. Be interesting to see that broken out, given that we know that the immune system is depressed and more vulnerable for 2 to 4 weeks after the shot.


    Report comment

    5
  11. Aaron says:
    February 13, 2022 at 3:37 pm

    It would only be significant if each group had the same number of people in it.
    If 90 percent are vaxxed, it’s hardly a gotcha if they make up the majority of cases.

    Correct.
    To properly compare the outcomes, one has to use the correct denominator for each population group.
    Percentages are valid comparisons only if group numbers are equal or similar.

    Assuming 90% or 95% vax rates for the applicable population, my quick Excel calc shows the following risk ratios of vaxxed (1,2,3 shots) vs. unvaxxed (zero or UI), using 2 assumptions on total vaxx rates: 90% and 95%:
    vaxxed vs unvaxxed HRR
    NSW vaxxed prevalence 90% 95%

    Hospitalisation 23.66% 11.21%

    Hosp+ICU 17.81% 8.44%

    Death 31.76% 15.04%

    By every measure, the risk of harm in the unvaxxed is 4- 12 times greater than in the vaxxed population, when adjusted for raw numbers of vaxxed vs unvaxxed.
    There are, of course, other ways to compare the apples, one would have to spend hours analysing other measures, especially noting what is NOT reported.

    The use of raw percentages is the principal method ACOSS and similars use to lie about the quantum/growth of the societal problems they need more money to fix, absolute scum!

    Using their methods lowers us to their level. We should be better than that.


    Report comment

    2
  12. “If 90 percent are vaxxed, it’s hardly a gotcha if they make up the majority of cases”.

    Should have mentioned this group also includes the most vunerable so it’s not a like for like comparison.

    Triple vaxxed geriatrics vs unvaxxed youngsters willing to trust their immune system etc.


    Report comment

    1
  13. The unvaxxed are either inherently immune or have had the virus and are dead or immune.

    The vaxxed have had their immune system suppressed by multiple vaccine insults, in the same way that you desensitise kids against peanuts, multiple vaccinations suppress the immune response against the virus.

    So the vaxxed are locked into a lifetime of boosters and debilitating moderate infections

    The unvaxxed are set for a future of the odd cold here and there every time a new variant is squeezed out by all the vaxxed with damaged immune systems.

    Two clear options. Let people choose.


    Report comment

    11
  14. Aaron,

    The double vaxxed make up over half of the deaths which is to be expected if they are more than half of the population. It does, however, put lie to the claim that the vaxxes, while not preventing transmission or infection, are the surest way to prevent hospitalisation and death.

    I suspect the low death rate among the unvaxxed is made to look better than it is by the large number of children under 12 who would be part of this cohort and are the least likely to be hospitalised. Again, without the data presented by age group, it is hard to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of the vaxxes.

    (Still not vaxxed and completely unrepentant. Grappling with the upcoming deciosion, though.)


    Report comment

    5
  15. I wonder how many of the unvaxxed are those who are too old or sick to get one. It strikes me as quite likely they’d make up a disproportionate number of deaths if a stiff breeze would knock them off.


    Report comment

    5
  16. “0.1% is not the fraction of the total deaths, i.e. 98/436”.

    I realise that.

    The point is that 90 percent vaxxed supplied 338 deaths.

    10 percent unvaxxed supplied 98.

    It’s hardly a point of celebration.


    Report comment

    1
  17. The notes about effective dose are quite telling too. A dose isn’t effective for 14-21 days so there would be a proportion of unvaxxed who have had a jab. Likewise some of the 1 effective dose have had their second, some of the 2 dose will have had the 3rd.


    Report comment

    3
  18. Looks like the worst cases are the single vaxxed. All the others are within the range of variations you’d expect for rolling a dice. Over 98% of all vaxxed and nonvaxxed don’t need hospital. And the viral effect for any vaxxed or unvaxxed status ranges equally from “gee, didn’t even know I had it” to a painful death – no great difference.


    Report comment

    3
  19. It’s hardly a point of celebration

    No-one is pushing any deaths as a celebration.
    Is that all you’re left with, a pointless point?

    Over 98% of the infected sail through it.
    Compared to the doom and gloom propaganda, that’s a point to celebrate.


    Report comment

    4
  20. The point is that 90 percent vaxxed supplied 338 deaths.

    10 percent unvaxxed supplied 98.

    It’s hardly a point of celebration.

    Who was celebrating? BTW, 89% provided 78% of the deaths. The point is that those numbers do not provide a prudential justification for vaccine mandates or their continuation.

    Should have mentioned this group also includes the most vunerable so it’s not a like for like comparison.

    Triple vaxxed geriatrics vs unvaxxed youngsters willing to trust their immune system etc.

    Table 6 clarifies that.


    Report comment

    3
  21. “No-one is pushing any deaths as a celebration.
    Is that all you’re left with, a pointless point”?

    Unthoughtful figure of speech.

    My point is that say what you like, but the unvaxxed 10 percent suplied approx 23 percent of the deaths, the ninety percent supplied the other approx 77 percent.

    Good luck getting that past the MSM.


    Report comment

    3
  22. Aaron and Gilas are correct.

    All this detracts from the central point; that mandates are an obscenity in a western liberal democracy (or whatever the hell this is).

    I’d like to see a breakdown by age.
    Unvaxxed 20-50 Yrs vs Vaxxed in the same age bracket.


    Report comment

    2
  23. On the numbers in the table the vaxxed rate is actually 86.5% ignoring the “under investigation” cases.
    If diagnosed positive on the PCR and “no effective dose” your chance of dying is 0.134%, if vaxxed (one, two or three) 0.069%, a little more than half. Stunning absolute risk reduction. Give it a couple of more months and let’s try again as the vax effectiveness wanes even more.


    Report comment

    1
  24. Aaron says:
    February 13, 2022 at 3:37 pm
    It would only be significant if each group had the same number of people in it.

    If 90 percent are vaxxed, it’s hardly a gotcha if they make up the majority of cases.

    If the vaccines were worth a pinch of shit, there shouldn’t be ANY of them sick enough to need to be in hospital, let alone in ICU or dead!

    That’s how the damned things were marketed to the gullible public, by some as even being a guarantee of total immunity, as in “you won’t get sick if you get jabbed”.

    It’s an utter bloody disgrace, arguably criminal, considering there are safe and now well-proven effective treatments with cheap and available current drugs that have been outlawed as treatments.


    Report comment

    15
  25. “Under investigation” mean vaccinated but we chose not to include them in the statistics. Useful method of tilting the figures.

    Of course they know who is and who isn’t, it’s one of the first questions.


    Report comment

    5
  26. How can it be that nearly one in five of the cases is “under investigation”?
    Is it possible to have your shots and/or a per test without a link to Medicare number?
    This big number makes all other numbers in this chart pretty meaningless.

    Second point there have been 15 deaths in this under investigation cohort of 130,000 people, recorded as <0.1%.
    This is much closer to 0.01%. and is a massive statistical outlier measured against every other group.
    As a Queenslander I’m calling bullshit on this.


    Report comment

    5
  27. The table includes Delta and Omicron patients bundled together. Not much use as is. We really need just the Omicron data.

    The unvaxxed may be less or more likely to get tested in the first place too, as well as having different risks and comorbidities. These tables need a lot of supporting data…


    Report comment

    7
  28. How can it be that nearly one in five of the cases is “under investigation”?

    Yes, it stinks. Still “Under Investigation” 2 weeks after data cut-off prior to publication.

    But even if this cohort is assigned to the vaxxed group in Table 5, the HRR still favours the vaxxed, though the ratios are markedly reduced.
    Notes from Page 1 and Table 5: “Hospitalised includes cases admitted to ICU”, thus double counting and introducing errors.

    Reading the notes, it is obvious that the people counted are with COVID, no other associated factors for the severe outcomes are mentioned.

    Missing statistical confounders: co-morbidities and like-for like age (see Table 6.. no mention of unvaxxed). This would invalidate any conclusions from the data presented, given that these factors alone make up 80+% of the risk of severe outcome from infection.

    Overall, a dense 33-page “summary” of one week of unreliably selected data.. a good way to dilute and hide important information.


    Report comment

    5
  29. Unvaccinated people are overwhelmingly ideologically against getting tested unless forced to.

    Their absolute infection numbers are much higher than reported.

    Also carrying the burden of those already too sick and frail to take the drugs.

    Every way you cut it unvaccinated people who aren’t inches from death made the correct choice in response to this mild respiratory illness, and it is a decision millions and millions made, but were then forced at the point of a gun and an increaingly deranged mob into capitulating over.

    Only the old and sick should have been put on this experimental drug regime, everyone else should have acquired natural immunity to covid. As per the public health response to every virus for a century. The last two years have been a catastrophic public health experiment. Our public health apparatus and governments attempted to use radical policy and response plans they’ve devised since 2009 Swine Flu to eradicate a respiratory virus before it took hold in a society. They did this for ideological reasons and undertook this vast experiment upon our society without asking – worse, they lied to us about it (April 2020: Qld CHO rejects claim government is pursuing elimination strategy, etc).

    Unfortunately there will be no reckoning, and some of these “measures” are now going to be a permanent fixture, dusted off and used each flu season.


    Report comment

    10
  30. “98.7% of infected and double vaxed were not hospitalised.
    98.6% of infected and unvaccinated were not hospitalised.”

    Doing a univariate analysis on this kind of data is not just useless, it is likely misleading – very likely highly so.
    We need a competent epidemiologist to be given the full data and read his or her report. I would not be surprised to know that were someone to actually attempt this, the complaint would be “insufficient data for any firm conclusions”.
    My suspicion is that at least some of the relevant data required to perform such an analysis has not even been collected. – perhaps even deliberately.


    Report comment

    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *