Lies, damned lies, and statistics

The Herald Sun yesterday ran an analysis, Full impact of booster jabs on serious illness revealed, of Victorian statistics boosting boosters as a necessary part of COVID vaccination. The deputy chief health officer, Prof. O’Brien, even went so far as to characterize them as three dose vaccines; it’s not really a booster, so much as the third dose of a single regimen.

Within the article, the Health Editor promotes, with the use of a variety of statistics, the efficacy of the boosters. We are told:

Those with two vaccine doses have been 7.6 times more likely to be in ICU than someone who had three doses

Someone who was unvaccinated was more than 34 times more likely to be in ICU than someone who had received three doses

Those who are not vaccinated at all are 4.5 times more likely to be in ICU than someone who had received two doses

Setting aside that we are looking at the boosters at their full powers, in their first 2-3 months, before any significant waning in efficacy emerges, and where the 2 doses are now significantly waning in their efficacy being at least 3 months or more after the 2nd dose, we need to keep in mind that requiring ICU is a mere fraction of the number of positive cases that require hospitalization. The proportion varies from 10-15% of those hospitalized. Luckily, he included the likelihood of hospitalization according to vaccination status:

Since the Omicron wave ramped up on January 1, only one person in every 200,000 to receive a Covid booster has required hospitalisation, compared to 4.6 people in every 200,000 who have had only two shots. More than 6.1 people in every 200,000 unvaccinated Victorians have had to be hospitalised due to Covid since January 1.

The figures are breathtakingly low across the board. An unvaxxed person has a 1 in 33K chance of being hospitalized with COVID. And if we carry over the risk of being admitted to ICU for someone unvaxxed it would be in the order of 1 in 300K.

But, look, if you are in the business of peddling COVID porn, moving more Pfizer, etc. through vaccination centres, and justifying vaxx mandates, exaggerating the benefits of vaccination by continuing to employ relative risks, and not accounting for age, sex, health status when it is well within the Health department’s power to do so, why would you mention the staggeringly low risk of hospitalization for the unvaxxed from Omicron? And the even lower risk of ICU or death? Because it won’t attract eyeballs, won’t move more Pfizer, undermines the vaxx mandates, and so on. It would, essentially, confounded the entire COVID narrative. And so, they reach for the pillow.

35 thoughts on “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

  1. Have just spent an hour hunting for the official definition of “up to date”. There are pages and charts aplenty, but the quest is to find it spelled out that, as many Cats have written, one isn’t considered vaxxed until two full weeks after the jab.

    If anyone can point to where I can find the two-week rule in black and white, that would be most appreciated.


    Report comment

    3
  2. Thanks for posting that analysis, Dover. I was stunned by the Herald Sun front page splash: brazen, reckless, irresponsible. The Herald Sun is now spruiking for Big Pharma mega-profits.

    It turns out that the popular press can be easily hijacked by vested interests. It is a very flawed business model that can be easily subverted.


    Report comment

    20
  3. Have just spent an hour hunting for the official definition of “up to date”. There are pages and charts aplenty, but the quest is to find it spelled out that, as many Cats have written, one isn’t considered vaxxed until two full weeks after the jab.

    indeed – and if one were to look at the hospitalisation and deaths of those with ‘one effective dose’ – it is significantly HIGHER (~2.5x) than that of ‘zero jabs’ or ‘two jabs’. (NSW covid weekly stats, table 5.

    Given the period you’re at ‘one effective dose’ is 5 weeks before and 2 weeks after the second dose (assuming you stick to the 8 week pfizer interval).. one has to wonder what the effect of the vaccine is having on your immune system’s ability to fight infection.


    Report comment

    7
  4. Have posted this before but worth repeating. Here is how the decision making for reducing time between 2nd and booster went.

    This was just before Christmas.
    Monday – Federal Health Minister says asking ATAGI to reduce from 6-5 months.
    Tuesday – NSW Health Minister says wants reduced to 4 or even 3 months.
    Wednesday – PM says wants 4 months.
    Thursday – some female WHO lady attached to a Melbourne institute recommends 2 months.

    Naturally ATAGI complied because I guess it’s the “science”. Soon after becomes 4 and then 3 months and now new category of overdue.

    As far as I am aware FDA still at 5 months.

    A clear admission first two have waned seriously. A CM article about everything you need to know about boosters even said vaccine trials did not take into account might wane. Probably because in a rush. Naturally when I commented on that CM article it was rejected. Then we have CEO Pfizzer saying first two don’t work against Omicron ! Israel 3rd shot results ?!All contrary to what were led to believe.

    When you see the Federal Government has bought yet more millions of vaccines you know that ATAGI will follow the science and approve the next shot. Did anybody see the Australian news article indicating the Merck pill not being that effective ? Yet another where comments were not allowed. Did we ask for a refund !? Merck the original maker of Ivermectin which they went out of their way in mid 2020 to say not appropriate to use against Covid. Meanwhile Remdesivir was approved and is now in use in Australia. A failed Ebola drug that has far more negativity around it than Ivermectin.

    Today CM had article about Government considering changing some mandates. Similar to somebody yesterday saying Neil Mitchell of 3AW asking which mandate should be removed and people saying masks. So the game will be remove the mask mandate to make us grateful. This will be to hide the fact we are still preventing unvaxxed going into many establishments and Governments are still heading towards mandating 3rd shot and people already losing their jobs over not getting it.

    Can’t be said enough but the Australian press is failing us.

    Seems they are about to mandate 3rd shot for aged care workers. Shockingly no deaths in Qld aged care reported today. So nothing for Health Minister to blame Feds for.

    If you have not listened to Greg Hunt on Sky News yesterday, with Chris Kenny , I recommend it as clear where he is heading.


    Report comment

    21
  5. These risks are based on the averaging of health outcomes for people of all ages, sexes and physical wellness.
    It’s an absurd concept for any serious medical professional to put forward.
    A fit unvaccinated twenty year old does not face such odds. A flagging eighty year old faces a much worse probability.
    Pure crap. They should be ashamed to put their name next to this tripe.


    Report comment

    19
  6. I’m 74, never had or thought about having the jab, not a sniffle or any other medical/health problem(s) over the past two years (lockdowns/gummint scare tactics ect) and feel as well as I’ve ever been over the past 60 years .. surely, I can’t be the only one over 70 that has been, totally, ignored by BAT FLU ..
    ain’t fair, after all, I thought .. WE WAS ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, except …! .. LOL!


    Report comment

    23
  7. In church on Sunday talked to a lady in her late 70s with a failing heart who said that she is not afraid of dying but is afraid of the suffering that precedes it should she get COVID-19. I was really sad for her and pray that she won’t.


    Report comment

    10
  8. The deputy chief health officer, Prof. O’Brien, even went so far as to characterize them as three dose vaccines; it’s not really a booster, so much as the third dose of a single regimen.

    And when the third dose loses efficacy after c. 6 weeks?

    At what point do they admit the present vaccines are not fit for purpose?

    For how long will the equivocation continue?


    Report comment

    24
  9. Until around 200 million doses have been used up?

    Following ATAGI, state governments have approved AZ as a booster for those who opted for that for their first two jabs, but I’m told they’re only supplying Pfizer.

    Something stinks, that’s for sure.


    Report comment

    13
  10. Australian Government’s Operation Covid Shield just extended the Expiry date for eight batches of Pfizer 12 years+ (Purple) from 28Feb2022 to 31May2022..
    If it doesn’t work anyway, why waste it?


    Report comment

    2
  11. At what point do they admit the present vaccines are not fit for purpose?

    They are fit for purpose and do8ng exactly what they are designed to do.

    An article on the Motley fool website [cant find it now, I posted it on the dead cat] said the worst case scenario is the the injections did not work at all. The second worst case is that they worked too well and gave actual immunity.
    The best case was waning effectiveness over a relatively short time requiring regular top ups.

    Some where else suggested they could also profit of treatment for the side effects.


    Report comment

    4
  12. The second worst case is that they worked too well and gave actual immunity.

    Well, that’s been well and truly debunked.

    The best case was waning effectiveness over a relatively short time requiring regular top ups.

    I don’t think Pfizer planned it that way, as there was just too much about their vaccine that was experimental for them to be certain of its longer term efficacy. But they certainly took advantage of its shortcomings. They’ve set a new gold standard in huckstering, abetted by governments including our own.


    Report comment

    11
  13. Those who are not vaccinated at all are 4.5 times more likely to be in ICU than someone who had received two doses

    That may be true, but it assumes infection.

    The unvaccinated have approximately 80% chance of being immune to infection based on the Diamond Princess data.

    So on that basis the unvaccinated are actually roughly equal chance of ending up in ICU (4.5 * 0.2) as the vaccinated.


    Report comment

    11
  14. The Herald Sun is now spruiking for Big Pharma mega-profits.

    It has been thus for some time now.

    Since classified ads died it has been hard for news media, they can’t fund reporters to gather news like the old days. Now it all paid commentary for govt, pharma, activist groups and a high percentage of entertaining social fluff lifted off social media by kids. If you have a buck you too can get your story out there.


    Report comment

    2
  15. From the BBC today;

    Death registrations involving Covid in the UK fell slightly in the week ending 4 February, according to the latest Office for National Statistics figures.

    There were 13,472 deaths registered in total in the UK during that week – 9% below the five-year average.

    A total of 1,390 of these involved Covid – a fall of 155 compared with the previous week.

    If a death certificate mentions Covid, it will not always be the main cause of death but may be a contributory factor.

    Currently, fewer than two in every three Covid-related deaths are estimated to be caused by the infection.

    A doctor can certify the involvement of Covid based on symptoms and clinical findings – a positive test result is not always required.

    ” Full article here https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60388805


    Report comment

    1
  16. Dr BeauGan:
    “Lies, damned lies and statistics” covers it perfectly. If schools taught decent stats courses routinely, nobody would buy this crap.

    Not true, I’m afraid. Have a friend who got a degree in statistics at ANU in the 1960’s and is an avid Climate Catastrophe/Covid Catastrophe convert/advocate. Appeals to statistical evidence to the contrary are met with anger and a cry that he has had enough of that sort of nonsense.

    Once religious zealotry takes over logic and reason depart.


    Report comment

    7
  17. “The figures are breathtakingly low across the board.” The chances of being killed in a car crash are breathtakingly low, so why wear a safety belt? Answer: because they save lives and are a small price to pay for the higher likelihood of surviving a crash. Same applies to covid vaccine shots.


    Report comment

  18. From TrialSiteNews, paywalled. I posted this yesterday on another thread.

    After analyzing the data in this fashion for 145 unique countries, the results demonstrate that in over 80% of countries the public policy of mass inoculation with novel inoculations for a novel coronavirus does not appear to lower cases or deaths, it increases them over and above what would have been predicted by the Bayesian model. In some countries, this effect is very stark (e.g. Vietnam, Mongolia, Thailand, Cambodia, Seychelles), where we have countries that had near zero cases or deaths before mass vaccination for over 1 year of the pandemic, then they begin the mass vaccination, and they have a surge in cases and deaths. There are many potential reasons for these results that other researchers have discussed and/or warned of prior to the initiation of the mass vaccination campaigns including leaky vaccines, low absolute risk reduction in the first place, a debilitating effect on the immune system, a reaction to the spike protein cytotoxin that may present in hospital as COVID-19-like symptoms and are thus labelled as COVID-19 cases and deaths, mass false-positive testing, an ineffectiveness of the vaccines against new variants, and others. These possibilities and more will continue to be investigated.


    Report comment

    7
  19. Bernie Masters says:
    February 16, 2022 at 11:38 am

    “The figures are breathtakingly low across the board.” The chances of being killed in a car crash are breathtakingly low, so why wear a safety belt? Answer: because they save lives and are a small price to pay for the higher likelihood of surviving a crash. Same applies to covid vaccine shots.

    Just possible that the known and unknown side effects from seat belt use are somewhat less threatening than the effects of spike protein poison.


    Report comment

    5
  20. “The figures are breathtakingly low across the board.” The chances of being killed in a car crash are breathtakingly low, so why wear a safety belt? Answer: because they save lives and are a small price to pay for the higher likelihood of surviving a crash. Same applies to covid vaccine shots.”

    False equivalence

    Seat belts have known efficacy and long term testing and are not medications.
    These vaccines have zero efficacy long term, and have not had longitudinal testing.

    Basically a nonsense comparison


    Report comment

    5
  21. shatterzzz says:
    February 15, 2022 at 7:04 pm

    I’m 74, never had or thought about having the jab, not a sniffle or any other medical/health problem(s) over the past two years (lockdowns/gummint scare tactics ect) and feel as well as I’ve ever been over the past 60 years .. surely, I can’t be the only one over 70 that has been, totally, ignored by BAT FLU ..
    ain’t fair, after all, I thought .. WE WAS ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, except …! .. LOL!

    73 on Friday, same story for me. Except I thought about it until I did some research then no way on earth would I get jabbed.


    Report comment

    2
  22. Bernie Masters, have you checked out the VAERS stats in the USA or the Yellow Card reports in the UK? Not reported by the MSM but easily accessed on official websites. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of adverse cases.


    Report comment

    4
  23. Then, there’s this:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/project-veritas-fda-exec-officer-hidden-camera-biden-wants-inoculate-many-people-possible-get-annual-shot/

    Something wicked this way comes. Be it a carefully-groomed “wind-up toy”, or a”wild” card, it will be the trigger for “the powers that be”, (and “wanna be”), to leap into righteous action (with a heavy heart, of course) and lay waste to vast swathes of REAL people.


    Report comment

    3
  24. Bernie Masterssays:
    February 16, 2022 at 11:38 am
    “The figures are breathtakingly low across the board.” The chances of being killed in a car crash are breathtakingly low, so why wear a safety belt? Answer: because they save lives and are a small price to pay for the higher likelihood of surviving a crash. Same applies to covid vaccine shots.

    No – the odds of being randomly strangled by a safety belt are (essentially) zero.

    Covid shots, not so much.


    Report comment

    2
  25. Important to remember that one of the most important points about vaccinations against Covid-19 is that it is one of the means of keeping numbers of people in hospital and ICU down. Look at the reports of the hard times those working in hospitals trying to treat them have been having. Very annoying and frustrating for them with some people doing things which results in reduced vaccination rates and blatant disregard of hygiene measures. The small minority involved are sometimes effectively responsible for large numbers of infections and largely undo sacrifices the majority have made. Also, their efforts have sometimes had opposite effects of those intended. eg Protests against lockdowns which have spread infections and resulted in more lockdowns to try and control them. Then regarding arguing about effectiveness of vaccines: They obviously only give partial protection and some people have adverse reactions to them. However, would be best for controlling the pandemic overall if everyone received them except those with predisposing conditions at obvious risk of having a bad reaction. eg I have a friend with this problem who has been waiting until Novavax or Covax-19 becomes available.(Which think is tomorrow for Novavax in my local area). These are apparently “older type” vaccines with the mode of action less likely to cause bad reactions.
    moderated

  26. Bernie Masters says:
    February 16, 2022 at 11:38 am

    The chances of being killed in a car crash are breathtakingly low, so why wear a safety belt? Answer: because they save lives and are a small price to pay for the higher likelihood of surviving a crash. Same applies to covid vaccine shots.

    Seatbelts had a dramatic effect on fatalities that the statistics bore out in short order as road fatality statistics showed*. The same cannot be said for these jabs and the deliberate** obscurification of the data by authorities in recent times to suit a narrative is not a good look.

    * The Victorian road toll was steadily rising until the seatbelt law took effect and had been a downward trend ever since. That said, a law mandating their use now troubles me when it didn’t before she to how that principle has been applied in other areas such as bicycle helmets and jab mandates.

    ** Sincerely-held personal opinion. So sue me.


    Report comment

    2
  27. “The chances of being killed in a car crash are breathtakingly low, so why wear a safety belt? Answer: because they save lives and are a small price to pay for the higher likelihood of surviving a crash. Same applies to covid vaccine shots.”

    It does?
    Well, well, well!
    Who knew that strapping a seatbelt around yourself made an irreversible change to your body?
    Would you care to let us know what the irreversible change might be?


    Report comment

    1
  28. I’m no statistician or epidemiologist. But I have the strong impression, based on the figures I’ve seen, that a universal program of mandated early and frequent bowel screening tests would prevent far more deaths per head of population from bowel cancer than does enforcing COVID vaccine mandates.

    Sure, there might be a similarly strong negative effect on the economy if people were, as a prod to screening, forbidden from going to work if for whatever reason they didn’t have their mandated regular bowel screening. But at least the positive effect of screening, and subsequent treatment, on results would be statistically significant.

    This is certainly not to recommend the state to institute such draconian measures to punish non-screeners. But when COVID becomes normal, and the “pandemic” no longer works as the scare tactic politically, I expect the government WILL switch to something like compulsory bowel cancer screening policies in order to maintain its hegemony over the population … “for your own good.”

    A fair bit of public-funded medical research will be devoted to compiling that list.

    The question for me is: why wasn’t there a campaign for compulsory early and regulatr bowel screening population-wide when the positive effects re. reducing bowel cancer are so undisputed and significant, compared to the scientifically/s insignificant benefits of COVID vaccination?

    I guess big pharma couldn’t have made a decent buck from it? And the state couldn’t scream “pandemic!” about bowel cancer even though it’s killing many more people than COVID?

    Whatever the answer, when we’re back to “normal”, the state will realise it has a whole shopping list of diseases it can trawl through to enforce mandates on us that will save many more lives than the COVID vax. There will be no back to “normal”, if the state/medico/pharma apparatus sniffs an opportunity to scare and control, a la COVID.

    Someone has probably noticed this before, so apologies if I’m repeating old news.


    Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.