NSW Health should probably also look into why 75% of deaths with Covid in the last reported week were triple or quadruple dosed. The proportion of the NSW population that has received 3 or more doses is 53.3% of the total population; and 69.6% of the eligible population. 3+ dosed also made up 60.6% of hospitalisations with Covid.
Just found your substack Rebekah. Thanks. The statement from NSW Health that "people whose COVID-19 vaccinations are up to date are less likely to infect others" is clearly incorrect. There is no evidence for that. Unless those who are "up to date" are hiding-in-place. In terms of getting infected it is the same (or more likely) to be infected and some evidence that they are infectious for longer. The current claim is get less severe disease and as you show that doesn't appear to be borne out. I suppose 4 dose and 3 dose could be compared for severe disease. And assuming 4 dose is "up to date" then we could check a statement such as people get less severe disease if up to date. But in the end that would likley just be a form of selection bias where those who get 4 dose are different to those with 3 dose,
You highlight one of the greatest frustrations for me since the beginning of the plandemonium. It’s the classic circular argument - the vax reduces severe disease... until it doesn’t and then it can be explained away by ‘only killing the vulnerable who would’ve died earlier’. Interesting how many of us were saying from the start that it was pretty obvious by March 2020 that it was largely not that dangerous for those <70 and/or without significant co-morbidities.
When claiming it reduces chance of severe disease it is always conveniently ignored that severe disease is an unlikely outcome in the vast majority to begin with
There was a bit of a porky in The Guardian today regarding excess deaths (and trying to pin it on covid). Check out the excess deaths graph about half way down the page;
I think they underplay vaccine related sequelae but that's understandable because, as I understand it, actuaries work from the official AU data and are likely to be conservative in their analysis. If they can only work with what is documented via the approved agencies and they won't speculate, you get a good picture of what the 'official' record is showing us.
What I don't understand is if the ABS data shows significant excess deaths starting OCT 2021 and the actuary estimates attempt to account for delayed reporting to the ABS data, then how is it that the actuary estimates are ending up with less excess deaths, not more.
I haven't really applied myself to reading deep and understanding it properly myself yet. If I do in the near future, I will try to remember to post my learnings here to share with you :)
Yes of course they do, did a regular job for a older couple last week who informed me their 10 year old grandson has long covid and is having problems, I asked if he was vaccinated and they said yes twice …. These are smart middle class retired people …. I wanted to smack them around the head and shout “do 10 minutes research you idiots”
I would also be prepared to bet large that Shane Warne and a whole host of others died from the vaccine including quickening up the demise of my 92 year old father a month or so ago.
The next question is how will they spin it to continue the jabs?
I’ve already seen comments to the effect of vaccination reducing the likelihood and severity of long covid. You could vaccinate forever on this claim. Would love to know how this is being measured.
The intention is to vaccinate forever, or as long as it takes!, maybe it’s a blessing in disguise as there are a lot more people around who openly and quietly question it, I would have blissfully and naively gone about my business unaware what big pharma and the rest of the sociopaths were up to without Covid. There are more of us than what you think as demonstrated by the numbers at the protests in Perth.
There is a bit in the Guardian article that made me groan:
"Paul Kelly, said at a conference in July that the increased deaths were in part due to the effectiveness of earlier pandemic measures. The people that haven’t died in the last two years because we had no flu because we did not have [high rates of] Covid and for various other reasons, are now, unfortunately, in that difficult position of being high risk despite the high vaccination rate, and that is by far the majority of people that are dying,” Kelly said.
So what that genius (Chief Medical Officer) is saying is that elderly people who were unfortunately likely to die were locked up and kept away from family to protect them, only to die a year later. It indicates the failure of public health.
I guess the old adage is true, if you tell a lie big enough and often enough people will believe it.
Everything about covid is a lie from the PCR test to the vaccine working and developed for a disease (virus) that has never been isolated and shown to exist.
Just found your substack Rebekah. Thanks. The statement from NSW Health that "people whose COVID-19 vaccinations are up to date are less likely to infect others" is clearly incorrect. There is no evidence for that. Unless those who are "up to date" are hiding-in-place. In terms of getting infected it is the same (or more likely) to be infected and some evidence that they are infectious for longer. The current claim is get less severe disease and as you show that doesn't appear to be borne out. I suppose 4 dose and 3 dose could be compared for severe disease. And assuming 4 dose is "up to date" then we could check a statement such as people get less severe disease if up to date. But in the end that would likley just be a form of selection bias where those who get 4 dose are different to those with 3 dose,
You highlight one of the greatest frustrations for me since the beginning of the plandemonium. It’s the classic circular argument - the vax reduces severe disease... until it doesn’t and then it can be explained away by ‘only killing the vulnerable who would’ve died earlier’. Interesting how many of us were saying from the start that it was pretty obvious by March 2020 that it was largely not that dangerous for those <70 and/or without significant co-morbidities.
When claiming it reduces chance of severe disease it is always conveniently ignored that severe disease is an unlikely outcome in the vast majority to begin with
GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION
Pity it was only proposed by those pesky ‘fringe’ epidemiologists hey
Great work as usual Rebekah, it’s just comical now 🤡
Congrats excellent work
Lol the first sentence of your article was the best! 😆
The more vaccinations you have the more poison you are putting in your body, covid does not exist.
As Molly Meldrum would say - do yourself a favour and have a look, it may well change your thinking.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/oJxCpZCqR2IO/
Thank you Rebekah 👍
Thanks Rebekah, always enjoy your read…
There was a bit of a porky in The Guardian today regarding excess deaths (and trying to pin it on covid). Check out the excess deaths graph about half way down the page;
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/2022/sep/04/covid-pandemic-may-be-causing-more-deaths-than-australias-daily-numbers-suggest
Compare that to the ABS excess death graph;
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release
The Guardian data come from some actuary modelling which uses an "estimate of extra deaths not yet accounted for due to delayed reporting".
Excuse me for having become quite suspicious of these sorts of projections.
I came across this one today on Twitter. I'm not really across the nitty gritty of it. But it seems to be more rigorous than ABS analysis:
https://www.actuaries.digital/2022/08/31/covid-19-excess-mortality-for-may-2022-at-similarly-high-levels-to-earlier-in-2022/
I think they underplay vaccine related sequelae but that's understandable because, as I understand it, actuaries work from the official AU data and are likely to be conservative in their analysis. If they can only work with what is documented via the approved agencies and they won't speculate, you get a good picture of what the 'official' record is showing us.
The Guardian article was based on data from the same actuary but the (cherrypicked) link provided is only for the first two months of 2022;
https://www.actuaries.digital/2022/06/08/covid-19-total-excess-mortality-for-first-two-months-of-2022-estimated-at-15/
What I don't understand is if the ABS data shows significant excess deaths starting OCT 2021 and the actuary estimates attempt to account for delayed reporting to the ABS data, then how is it that the actuary estimates are ending up with less excess deaths, not more.
I haven't really applied myself to reading deep and understanding it properly myself yet. If I do in the near future, I will try to remember to post my learnings here to share with you :)
Yes of course they do, did a regular job for a older couple last week who informed me their 10 year old grandson has long covid and is having problems, I asked if he was vaccinated and they said yes twice …. These are smart middle class retired people …. I wanted to smack them around the head and shout “do 10 minutes research you idiots”
I would also be prepared to bet large that Shane Warne and a whole host of others died from the vaccine including quickening up the demise of my 92 year old father a month or so ago.
The next question is how will they spin it to continue the jabs?
I’ve already seen comments to the effect of vaccination reducing the likelihood and severity of long covid. You could vaccinate forever on this claim. Would love to know how this is being measured.
The intention is to vaccinate forever, or as long as it takes!, maybe it’s a blessing in disguise as there are a lot more people around who openly and quietly question it, I would have blissfully and naively gone about my business unaware what big pharma and the rest of the sociopaths were up to without Covid. There are more of us than what you think as demonstrated by the numbers at the protests in Perth.
There is a bit in the Guardian article that made me groan:
"Paul Kelly, said at a conference in July that the increased deaths were in part due to the effectiveness of earlier pandemic measures. The people that haven’t died in the last two years because we had no flu because we did not have [high rates of] Covid and for various other reasons, are now, unfortunately, in that difficult position of being high risk despite the high vaccination rate, and that is by far the majority of people that are dying,” Kelly said.
So what that genius (Chief Medical Officer) is saying is that elderly people who were unfortunately likely to die were locked up and kept away from family to protect them, only to die a year later. It indicates the failure of public health.
Laugh or cry?
Cry
I guess the old adage is true, if you tell a lie big enough and often enough people will believe it.
Everything about covid is a lie from the PCR test to the vaccine working and developed for a disease (virus) that has never been isolated and shown to exist.