Never in the field of pharmaceuticals has so much been gained by so few for delivering so little. With apologies to Winston. The triple-jabbed Queen has Covid. She would have likely caught it from triple-jabbed Prince Charles or Camilla, in turn, they would have caught it from some triple-jabbed royal courtiers or hangers on. The UK Government has just announced that a fourth jab will be offered to the over-fifties from next month. Wider distribution later.
Am I missing something?
This is the usual spiel from the latest NSW covid weekly surveillance report (14 February):
“…the proportion of cases with two effective doses who experience severe outcomes is still lower than that for cases with less than two effective doses in every age group, demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccines to protect against severe outcomes.”
I dare say you will find the same thing or close to it in every Covid report issued by health authorities wherever. What they’re finding out is unpalatable. The vaccines are not keeping people from getting sick and dying. Bluntly, they don’t work. They’re a crock. So, they resort to statistical legerdemain.
In the NSW covid report mentioned above, 80 percent of those between the ages of 70 and 79 reported as being in ICU’s or as dying in the reference period had at least two doses of the vaccine.
Now, it’s bad enough claiming that this is less than the proportion of people in that age group vaccinated. Really, one might say. Never mind that distraction, why are so many people protected by the vaccine getting sick? That’s the question.
Second, it’s worth me repeating something that I’ve written a few times lately. Telling us that proportionately fewer people getting badly sick are vaccinated is meaningless. It is meaningless unless we know the morbidity condition of all those getting badly sick and those not. For the edification of the statistically challenged, obviously including politicians, using the population as the denominator is invalid. Statistics for Dummies is recommended reading.
The population at risk from the virus is the population of all of those with relevant comorbidities, say, two or more of such comorbidities. This is the denominator; not the population as a whole. Above the line – the numerator – is the number of such people getting badly sick and/or dying; first, who’ve been vaccinated (to give one ratio); second, who haven’t been vaccinated (to give another ratio).
The two ratios can be compared. A priori, I don’t rule out them being more or less the same. They could be. Who knows? If they were, it would point to the likelihood of the vaccines being completely ineffective. In any event, the information would be meaningful. We need it, not the rubbish we’re fed and which the media, also statistically illiterate, laps up.
This information is not made available so far as I can find. Frighteningly, maybe the powers that be don’t even know it. Or perhaps, more frighteningly still, maybe they do and they’re keeping it from us to protect their reputations and Big Pharma’s profits. I don’t know. Is it too much to ask for reliable information when people are onto to their third and fourth jabs and when the parents of five-year-olds are being cajoled into vaccinating their children with experimental drugs; with babies and infants next in line?
Listen to the astute questioning coming from the mainstream media. The silence is deafening.