There were also 7X more deaths among the former, and while Omicron is receding, the IPH still peddles 'vaccines protect' BS while calling for 'strengthened surveillance' to be prepared
I think the term "vaccine evasion" is surely as misleading and deceptive as "vaccine breakthrough". It does not evade nor does not it attempt to evade.
The proper term is "vaccine inefficacy" or "vaccine ineffectiveness".
Another inrestesting post even though it is frustrating to see the political games.
Here in Puerto Rico, the subsecrety of health might be drinking the same water as the people at the IPH. She blamed the surge of corona among school children from age 5 - 11 on their low vaccination rate. (The rate is 70%, which, given the quality of these products, is alarmingly high to me. But anyway...) In her own (translated) words, this low rate could be contributing to the breakout.
Yet the health authority's own documents show that of the tests recently given to this age group, 68% of the positive were among the vaccinated. I'm not epidemiologist, but it seems to me that the vaccinated are the ones primarily pushing the surge.
The newspaper article, of course, didn't mention the publically available data on the tests. That would involve real journalism.
This is so frustrating: why would any parent inject his or her children with something known to contain toxic ingredients with unknown carcinogenic potential?
Re your 68% injected comment: welcome, fellow non-epidemiologist, and I do think that 'reading' (a high-tech special skill no longer in great supply or demand) helps. I'd posit that anyone who reads the data, however untrustworthy it may be to begin with, could see that kind of correlation that you speak of.
Therefore, I'd go for: 'same shit, different smell'. Sigh.
As to your very good question as to why a parent would give their children these injections, the pressure where I live has been like it is in many other countries. The government and news were viciously aggressive here about lying about the vaccines and sometimes flat out saying that the unvaccinated were killing people. The government wouldn't let children go to school without the vaccines unless they got exemptions, which were not easy to come by. Since even churches were receiving money to act as vaccination centres, many pastors and priests refused to give exemptions, and doctors have been cowered as well. (One priest was given the boot by the Vatican for speaking out against the coerced vaccinations.) Poorer parents who couldn't pay to keep their children home felt like they had their backs against the wall. Meanwhile, even children who got exemptions were put under tremendous pressure, including public shaming in front of their classmates by school teachers and officials. (Something similar as to what was going on in Germany.)
Add to that a very low level of education and people's sheepish belief in whatever the news says...it was all a toxic combination.
A lot of parents were scared and confused and so caved. The wake-up call will be painful.
You know, I read your and others’ substacks because I generally agree with your point of view. However, about the Norwegian statistics, is it not possible to say that the unvaxxed are generally children/ younger people that are not so affected by covid, while the hospitalized are the older boosted people that would be in the hospital even without the vax? I don’t read Norwegian and maybe it is in the report, but age breakdown would really help here. That would make the official statement resemble reality.
Fair point, Brahms, and I have provided more data to buttress my reading of the IPH's quite questionable statement. I refer you to the IPH's most recent assessment (dated 5 April) that shows injection uptake broken down by age, which shows a quite high correlation between injection uptake among esp. those aged 55+ and hospitalisation numbers.
As far as I'm concerned, I criticise the IPH for that statement as, during the past four weeks, there were a total of 134 hospialisations of individuals aged 0-54 years, or c. 14% of the total of 942 admissions for Covid-19 as main cause.
True, injection uptake among these age cohorts was (is) far lower compared to seniors, but if you 'invert' the numbers, the problematic nature of the statement becomes obvious, I'd argue: in the past four weeks, 86% of all hospitalisations with Covid-19 as main cause occurred among age cohorts that were ±90% 'vaccinated' and/or (slightly less than that share) 'boosted'.
To me, this shows a quite high 'correlation' between these two data points (which is also quite consistent over time, as earlier weekly reports also show that age distribution, by the way). In other words: to claim that admissions occurred 'mainly among unvaccinated and elderly', as the IPH does, is quite misleading, to say the least.
Oh I agree that the “mainly unvaccinated are in the hospital” is wrong. However, it said “unvaccinated and old.” You show that 86% are old, and some of the rest are unvaccinated :) I think it shows that the vaccine is, at best, completely ineffective, but also that the official statement kind of makes sense. I think we are probably splitting hairs about this :)
Ha, splitting hair is what drives enquiry (and my interest).
As regards the statement, I think it's bending the truth quite a bit, but 'technically' it's possible to say so (even though I think it's very much misleading and disingenuous, to say the least).
I think that there is only one 88 year old with 2 vaccines in the ICU. If you add percentages you get two per cent, and if you check the upper lower quartiles both are 88, so one 88 year old is the only possibility.
It is, and I think the question before us is this: what will it take for a sizable share of those who volunteered for these injections 'discover' that they've been had?
I think only with suffering from it. But, who knows. I am surprised the administrative class is slowly shifting away from the narrative which could be a function of they themselves considering what it will be like for them to also own nothing and die on the hospital bed of an experiment, or virus bioweapon. Or both.
That by them trusted and pre-approved authority figure tells them that it is so. 1/3 are naturally oppositional, 1/3 are apathetic and 1/3 are natural followers.
Meaning that the apathetic who just "goes along to get along" follows the dominant narrative episteme and the natural followers (or true believers which is more accurate but tends to needlessly ruffle a lot of feathers) who in turn follws the Leader(s) of the pack.
"Führer-prinzip" wasn't a concept you-know-who made up out of thin air; rather it is our nature as pack animals condensed into a political principle. It's opposite works just as well, the universal 'enfant terrible' in the older sense of a blunt teller of uncomfortable truths, only in this case the truths drive people in the opposite direction towards the Leader.
When Leader and Fool co-operate, well, here we are. Today the role of Fool is played by mass media.
Or, preferably, a paradigm shift in the next generation of leaders where they use turning away from today's trends as a rhetorical tool for consolidating power thereby also by necessity having to give more autonomy and freedoms back to the people.
Sadly, sometimes one has to crash when skiing downhill the speed not permitting any turns, if the metaphore works.
In a political sense works for me. Its a very low number as those being the Forest Rebel, then there are those who act when there is no alternative. Maybe a quarter.
To clarify, for my own peace of mind if nothing else:
1) the proportions are of course made up - it just feels right to divide into thirds th main response patterns even if it's only personal experience.
2) I'm not trying to pass moral judgement on any one third, just stating how I think it is. Neither third is more morally right than any other, since this pattern holds true (assuming it actually is true) in any situation - it is in no way so that those natually oppositional are always in the right, or that being apathetic to the big issues is wrong either (since another term that fits that third would be adaptable).
And we all belong to different thirds at different times I think, it's just more noticeable the greater the difference between oppositional and believer gets.
I appreciate your thinking. But in times of coercion, oppression, propaganda and censorship, power imbalance etc. the naturally oppositional have an important role to play
'In times of coercion, oppression, propaganda and censorship, power imbalance etc. the naturally oppositional have an important role to play'--exactly.
There are few things that matter more under these conditions: integrity, sovereignty, independence, freedom (of mind and body, as well as expression), and endurance under duress, as well as charity and compassion.
From these, leadership by example may arise, for one's children, neighbours, and community.
I've been pondering these questions myself a lot lately.
While I'm of course inclined to 'explain' all of these by pointing to the connections between the Bio-Phascists, the US Deep State, and their various local minions, my wife typically tells me that, all other things being equal, that's quite unlikely: there's simply way too many moving part to make this work without anyone spilling the beans, however inadvertedly.
I happen to agree with her 'alternative' explanation (stupidity and vanity), but in some cases, that's really hard, if not impossible to do: that Aavitsland character, for example, whom I profiled, of sorts, a while ago--he was there in 2009/10, he stopped the injection rollout due to 15 cases of suspected (!) narcolepsy, 14 of which had occurred outside Norway back then.
Now, the Covid-injection death toll is rising (it's north of 255 deaths now, which is the number when I last checked the reports and wrote about weeks ago), and there is--nothing. The silence of public officialdom is deafening.
When I told me wife about Dr. Rose's enquiries (and the related, or derivative ones in my post about ALC-0315), she quipped: Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not), so, I suppose WHEN that push you mention comes to shove, we'll see just HOW MUCH the courts/judiciary are worth.
I think the term "vaccine evasion" is surely as misleading and deceptive as "vaccine breakthrough". It does not evade nor does not it attempt to evade.
The proper term is "vaccine inefficacy" or "vaccine ineffectiveness".
You're right, Barry, and I wasn't as precise as I should have been: 'vaccine evasion' is actually a quote from the report (and I've fixed that now).
Another inrestesting post even though it is frustrating to see the political games.
Here in Puerto Rico, the subsecrety of health might be drinking the same water as the people at the IPH. She blamed the surge of corona among school children from age 5 - 11 on their low vaccination rate. (The rate is 70%, which, given the quality of these products, is alarmingly high to me. But anyway...) In her own (translated) words, this low rate could be contributing to the breakout.
Yet the health authority's own documents show that of the tests recently given to this age group, 68% of the positive were among the vaccinated. I'm not epidemiologist, but it seems to me that the vaccinated are the ones primarily pushing the surge.
The newspaper article, of course, didn't mention the publically available data on the tests. That would involve real journalism.
So tiring.
This is so frustrating: why would any parent inject his or her children with something known to contain toxic ingredients with unknown carcinogenic potential?
Re your 68% injected comment: welcome, fellow non-epidemiologist, and I do think that 'reading' (a high-tech special skill no longer in great supply or demand) helps. I'd posit that anyone who reads the data, however untrustworthy it may be to begin with, could see that kind of correlation that you speak of.
Therefore, I'd go for: 'same shit, different smell'. Sigh.
As to your very good question as to why a parent would give their children these injections, the pressure where I live has been like it is in many other countries. The government and news were viciously aggressive here about lying about the vaccines and sometimes flat out saying that the unvaccinated were killing people. The government wouldn't let children go to school without the vaccines unless they got exemptions, which were not easy to come by. Since even churches were receiving money to act as vaccination centres, many pastors and priests refused to give exemptions, and doctors have been cowered as well. (One priest was given the boot by the Vatican for speaking out against the coerced vaccinations.) Poorer parents who couldn't pay to keep their children home felt like they had their backs against the wall. Meanwhile, even children who got exemptions were put under tremendous pressure, including public shaming in front of their classmates by school teachers and officials. (Something similar as to what was going on in Germany.)
Add to that a very low level of education and people's sheepish belief in whatever the news says...it was all a toxic combination.
A lot of parents were scared and confused and so caved. The wake-up call will be painful.
You know, I read your and others’ substacks because I generally agree with your point of view. However, about the Norwegian statistics, is it not possible to say that the unvaxxed are generally children/ younger people that are not so affected by covid, while the hospitalized are the older boosted people that would be in the hospital even without the vax? I don’t read Norwegian and maybe it is in the report, but age breakdown would really help here. That would make the official statement resemble reality.
Fair point, Brahms, and I have provided more data to buttress my reading of the IPH's quite questionable statement. I refer you to the IPH's most recent assessment (dated 5 April) that shows injection uptake broken down by age, which shows a quite high correlation between injection uptake among esp. those aged 55+ and hospitalisation numbers.
As far as I'm concerned, I criticise the IPH for that statement as, during the past four weeks, there were a total of 134 hospialisations of individuals aged 0-54 years, or c. 14% of the total of 942 admissions for Covid-19 as main cause.
True, injection uptake among these age cohorts was (is) far lower compared to seniors, but if you 'invert' the numbers, the problematic nature of the statement becomes obvious, I'd argue: in the past four weeks, 86% of all hospitalisations with Covid-19 as main cause occurred among age cohorts that were ±90% 'vaccinated' and/or (slightly less than that share) 'boosted'.
To me, this shows a quite high 'correlation' between these two data points (which is also quite consistent over time, as earlier weekly reports also show that age distribution, by the way). In other words: to claim that admissions occurred 'mainly among unvaccinated and elderly', as the IPH does, is quite misleading, to say the least.
What do you think?
Oh I agree that the “mainly unvaccinated are in the hospital” is wrong. However, it said “unvaccinated and old.” You show that 86% are old, and some of the rest are unvaccinated :) I think it shows that the vaccine is, at best, completely ineffective, but also that the official statement kind of makes sense. I think we are probably splitting hairs about this :)
Ha, splitting hair is what drives enquiry (and my interest).
As regards the statement, I think it's bending the truth quite a bit, but 'technically' it's possible to say so (even though I think it's very much misleading and disingenuous, to say the least).
I think that there is only one 88 year old with 2 vaccines in the ICU. If you add percentages you get two per cent, and if you check the upper lower quartiles both are 88, so one 88 year old is the only possibility.
Looks plausible to me, thanks for bringing this up!
Its quite obvious to all other than to the majority of humans who volunteered for these injection experiments this is not about saving humans.
It is, and I think the question before us is this: what will it take for a sizable share of those who volunteered for these injections 'discover' that they've been had?
I think only with suffering from it. But, who knows. I am surprised the administrative class is slowly shifting away from the narrative which could be a function of they themselves considering what it will be like for them to also own nothing and die on the hospital bed of an experiment, or virus bioweapon. Or both.
That by them trusted and pre-approved authority figure tells them that it is so. 1/3 are naturally oppositional, 1/3 are apathetic and 1/3 are natural followers.
Meaning that the apathetic who just "goes along to get along" follows the dominant narrative episteme and the natural followers (or true believers which is more accurate but tends to needlessly ruffle a lot of feathers) who in turn follws the Leader(s) of the pack.
"Führer-prinzip" wasn't a concept you-know-who made up out of thin air; rather it is our nature as pack animals condensed into a political principle. It's opposite works just as well, the universal 'enfant terrible' in the older sense of a blunt teller of uncomfortable truths, only in this case the truths drive people in the opposite direction towards the Leader.
When Leader and Fool co-operate, well, here we are. Today the role of Fool is played by mass media.
Or, preferably, a paradigm shift in the next generation of leaders where they use turning away from today's trends as a rhetorical tool for consolidating power thereby also by necessity having to give more autonomy and freedoms back to the people.
Sadly, sometimes one has to crash when skiing downhill the speed not permitting any turns, if the metaphore works.
In a political sense works for me. Its a very low number as those being the Forest Rebel, then there are those who act when there is no alternative. Maybe a quarter.
Same here, as in: I agree with Rick on this one. It takes two to Tango.
To clarify, for my own peace of mind if nothing else:
1) the proportions are of course made up - it just feels right to divide into thirds th main response patterns even if it's only personal experience.
2) I'm not trying to pass moral judgement on any one third, just stating how I think it is. Neither third is more morally right than any other, since this pattern holds true (assuming it actually is true) in any situation - it is in no way so that those natually oppositional are always in the right, or that being apathetic to the big issues is wrong either (since another term that fits that third would be adaptable).
And we all belong to different thirds at different times I think, it's just more noticeable the greater the difference between oppositional and believer gets.
I appreciate your thinking. But in times of coercion, oppression, propaganda and censorship, power imbalance etc. the naturally oppositional have an important role to play
Thanks, Oregonian, for the appreciation.
'In times of coercion, oppression, propaganda and censorship, power imbalance etc. the naturally oppositional have an important role to play'--exactly.
There are few things that matter more under these conditions: integrity, sovereignty, independence, freedom (of mind and body, as well as expression), and endurance under duress, as well as charity and compassion.
From these, leadership by example may arise, for one's children, neighbours, and community.
Life without these isn't worth living.
I've been pondering these questions myself a lot lately.
While I'm of course inclined to 'explain' all of these by pointing to the connections between the Bio-Phascists, the US Deep State, and their various local minions, my wife typically tells me that, all other things being equal, that's quite unlikely: there's simply way too many moving part to make this work without anyone spilling the beans, however inadvertedly.
I happen to agree with her 'alternative' explanation (stupidity and vanity), but in some cases, that's really hard, if not impossible to do: that Aavitsland character, for example, whom I profiled, of sorts, a while ago--he was there in 2009/10, he stopped the injection rollout due to 15 cases of suspected (!) narcolepsy, 14 of which had occurred outside Norway back then.
Now, the Covid-injection death toll is rising (it's north of 255 deaths now, which is the number when I last checked the reports and wrote about weeks ago), and there is--nothing. The silence of public officialdom is deafening.
When I told me wife about Dr. Rose's enquiries (and the related, or derivative ones in my post about ALC-0315), she quipped: Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not), so, I suppose WHEN that push you mention comes to shove, we'll see just HOW MUCH the courts/judiciary are worth.
I won't be betting the farm on them.