The Truth Isn’t Pro Rata

TODAY in NSW, 88 per cent of alleged covid decedents were ‘fully’ and triply ‘vaccinated.’ Now the new normal, the inoculated death toll has caused embarrassment and consternation to state CHOs for weeks. Originally, there was a sense of didactic – even smart-arsed – vindication when most of the dead were unvaccinated. More recently, the same officials started arguing most of the deceased were un-boosted. This was statistical rubbish because the cohort that had received a third needling was relatively small. There were few of them in hospital because there were few of them anywhere. Now that the number has grown, triplers are starting to figure more prominently in the daily grim list. The percentage will increase in coming weeks and months.

The obvious argument from mathematics for this phenomenon is that if the vast majority of people are ‘vaccinated,’ then proportionately fewer are being hospitalised or dying than the unvaccinated. Of all the ad hoc apologetics heard from vaxxer maximalists in covid pressers, this might seem the least saleable but its logic is undeniable. It’s also dishonestly simplistic marshalled as a cautionary tale. We know nothing about why the unvaxxed were unvaxxed but most of them were tangentially vulnerable, possibly with little or nothing to gain from the products. More importantly, experts and politicians didn’t tell the public that vaccination would land them on the sunny side of an actuarial technicality. They told their fear-enthralled listeners they would not become ill, not be hospitalised and not die. That was a grotesque untruth, mathematics or no.

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, Fake science. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Truth Isn’t Pro Rata

  1. Farmer Gez says:

    Most triple vaccinated that have died will no doubt be in the senior aged care cohort as they were first cab of the rank and identified as most at risk.

    This points to the ineffective nature of RNA vaccine action on a geriatric immune system. Studies of the vaccines seem to point this out as the youngest set of the vaccinated show the highest response. We could of course say, as you would expect from a healthy and highly active young immune system.

    The same immune systems also are most effective at fighting off any Covid illness and negate the need for vaccination at all. It’s like an intense exercise regime used on a twenty year old and a sixty year old. The benefits would be quickly noticeable and beneficial to the young person but far less so for the older person.

    As someone on the blog said “It’s a disease of the old and very old”
    The same can’t be said of the supposed cure.

  2. Mak Siccar says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the ‘vaccines’ were developed for an early strain that, by and large, no longer exists. The virus now has some four mutations jump on these ‘vaccines’ and that is why, I understand, one of the reasons that one should not vaccinate during a pandemic of a rapidly mutating virus. Measles, in the other hand, mutates slowly.

    Moreover, the messenger method of delivery is, imho, flawed as it generates an uncontrolled amount of spike protein development in the body, unlike conventional in which a very small but known amount is injected.

  3. Perfidious Albino says:

    As I understand it, the MRNA ‘vaccines’ also rely significantly on DARPA biotechnology created with a view to keeping a juiced up army in the field and combat capable for a limited period (months) notwithstanding potential exposure to bioweapons – that was the primary intent pre Covid.

    We can see how well repurposing them for mass vaccination has played out in the face of an invented existential threat ie: probably much as originally designed, but not fit for the new purpose.

  4. Lee says:

    I wonder if those dying “with” Covid are included in the figures with those dying “of” it.

  5. C.L. says:

    Last week, Andrew Bolt wrote a column claiming victory for the view he expounded last year that the vulnerable and the aged should be protected but that everyone else should be allowed to go about their business. He wanted to know why so many people were dying even with 90+ % ‘vaccinated.’ As a drive-by observation, he said the “dumb” might start to wonder if the ‘vaccines’ work.

    Earth to Andrew: people are dying because 1) they’ve contracted a virus that can kill the elderly and vulnerable; and 2) the ‘vaccines’ that officials promised would protect them have failed to do so. Or is it your argument that the daily death tolls – in which the ‘vaccinated’ now dominate – prove the ‘vaccines’ are actually working like a charm? Saying a greater proportion of the unvaccinated are dying when the proportion of ‘vaccinated’ dying should be close to zero is what’s dumb.

  6. Petros says:

    Bolt has been a slow learner in many areas.

  7. Lee says:

    I was very disappointed with Andrew Bolt being so quick early as to jump on those unconvinced of the vaccine, telling them to just get vaxxed.

  8. twostix says:

    Bolt was convicted of being a nazi racist in a Victorian kangaroo court by a former ALP candidate and didn’t know how to gin up his then massive, but completely anesthetised (by him) audience, to create a populist reaction and leverage his way out of it politically.

    Post Trump, a Bolt 2.0 would be ginning people up to turn up at the court to protest and punch on and make it about political persecution and corruption. Bolt and his completely delusional ConInc 1990’s ideas about “institutions” thought the nuts and bolts of democracy beneath him: “dumb people” with their opinions and rancour and street protests, and off he went and put his dumb ideas into practice. He went to court all by his lonesome expecting his “institution” and “justice” to prevail and instead got called a Nazi on the record and that was that and now nobody cares.

  9. Tel says:

    Saying a greater proportion of the unvaccinated are dying when the proportion of ‘vaccinated’ dying should be close to zero is what’s dumb.

    Exactly … we were sold this as “95% effective” and it shouldn’t be some subtle “maybe it reduces symptoms a bit, some of the time, for a while” result … if it worked as advertised then it should be utterly unmistakable in the statistics, and instead we are arguing about whether the effect is visible at all.

  10. rosie says:

    I agree there is clearly a limit on what covid and flu vaccines can do for the very old and very frail, but are we seeing less hospitalisations and deaths as a result of vaccination?
    The evidence appears to be there that we are.
    French statistics for intensive care admissions show a significant difference per million between boosted and unvaccinated cohorts.
    Still boosters should be voluntary, passports and mandates ended.

Leave a Reply

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