Covidistan Annals XXX: injection uptake craters, information about internal dissent and expert failures leaks, and what to expect in spring and summer

Surprisingly, politicians feel that Covid mandates are a political liability, but since experts are increasingly deluding themselves about their influence, we'll soon reach the end of the runway

In the past couple of days, some changes occurred in Covidistan that need to be discussed today. In general, the mood appears to be shifting: record-high ‘cases’ (in excess of 40,000 yesterday) are mirrored by an equally epic decline of injection uptake. As the below screenshot shows, as of 11 March 2022, we’re talking about a -25% reduction in injections over the past seven days. Note specifically the measly number of first injections:

Given the fantastically idiotic policy of reducing the validity of the two-dose ‘certificates’ as of 1 Feb. 2022—EU-wide, the ‘Covid Passport’ of two-dose recipients will expire after 6 months, whereas the validity of three-dose recipients will be ‘valid’ for 9 months—it’s hardly surprising that injection uptake has tanked. This policy decision has also been absolutely moronic in terms of the one and only thing politicians care about: measurable outcome. For ‘victory’ may only be claimed if the numbers of three-dose recipients (or more doses) will continue to rise, theoretically ad infinitum, but this is outright impossible for a variety of reasons, incl. the limited number of people who are ‘eligible’, a presumably growing number of people who quit at any stage of the administration cycles, and the generally limited benefit (‘protection’) these products offer.

What I found most striking in this regard, though, is that the numbers of individuals willing to receive yet another injection appears to be falling off a cliff: 275,074 first-dose recipients declined a second injection, which corresponds to a reduction of -4%. By contrast, the difference between two-dose vs. three-dose recipients is a whooping 1,789,135 individuals who refused a third injection, which corresponds to a -27.4% reduction (from the number of two-dose recipients). If one adds both the numbers of second- and third-dose ‘refuseniks’ (surely, they must be ardent supporters of Mr. Putin, isn’t it?), we arrive at 2,064,209 individuals who at one point or another declined more of these mRNA products (both the J&J and the AstraZeneca products are no longer used in Covidistan; the interest in the Novavax product, available since last week, is similarly quite limited). Note that these 2m people are more than enough potential voters to decisively win a federal election.

With these preliminaries out of the way, let’s return to the Q&A style, shall we?

Q: excellent, now I finally get to ask about what happened since last Wednesday.

Well, part of this I already mentioned: the injection mandate was ‘deactivated’, but not abrogated, with the decision postponed to May or June. Still, ‘cases’ are still rising, and some states are notifying patients that some scheduled surgeries cannot be carried out as planned.

Sidenote: This ‘re-emergence’ of fear-mongering based on these developments was (and in my case is), of course, entirely foreseeable. It’s also perfectly rationally explainable: Omicron has a much shorter incubation period than the earlier variants of Sars-Cov-2 (3-4 vs. 7-10 days), and since Omicron is both more transmissible but less likely* to result in severe disease, we are able to see two interacting factors at work: on the one hand, increased transmissibility equals more exposure, ‘cases’, and infections. This, in turn, means that by sheer numbers, Omicron will result in more hospitalisations (of all kinds), on the other hand. Hence the scheduling issues in clinics and the like.

* So far, so predictable and explain-able. Let me add, though, that the above statement about the likelihood of severe disease potential doesn’t factor in confounders, such as prior infection, the role of the injections, and the many different ways Sars-Cov-2 works on the human body. Be that as it may, the role of (re-) infections of vaccinees is perhaps the most troubling factor, which is known among medical professionals as original antigenic sin (OAS).

Note, though, the idea is also perfectly explainable: any given pathogen tries to infect as many people as possible. Trouble (for the pathogen) is, though, that we humans are so different, and our immune reactions varies greatly across time, environs, and space. Hence, any (random) mutation of a pathogen will only affect so many more people at the same time. Now, however, 70-90% of the entire adult population has received the same injection, thus the potential of most humans’ immune reactions becoming mere one-trick ponies is real. And this, in turn, renders it much easier (probable) for any one random mutation of a pathogen (e.g., Sars-Cov-2) to hit the jackpot, i.e., to become so successful in evolutionary terms that 70-90% of the human population who received these products is potentially at risk at the same time. In other words, trouble (for us humans) is that OAS, or the resultant antigenic priming, has resulted in our immune systems putting up essentially the same response to Omicron that these injections ‘taught’ our immune systems to put up.

Q: interesting, but you digressed from Covidistan.

Apologies (but the above information is crucial further down below), it is, I’d argue, entirely predictable that given the qualities of the Omicron wave (rapid spread among a higher share of the population) will cause the following problems: as the Norwegian authorities admit, the peak of ‘cases’ (positive tests for Sars-Cov-2) will inevitably be followed by a peak of hospitalisations, albeit delayed by 3-4 weeks. It’s not time to panic and/or second-guess the revocations of most mandates a week ago. It’s time to stay calm and think this through: positive tests will recede after the seasonal winter wave, which will be followed by a few more weeks of rising hospitalisations. To speak of a return of some ‘preventative measures’ now is utterly insane and completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

So, left-liberal daily and Covid hawk Der Standard published a weird piece yesterday, which was headlined by this curious gem of ‘logic’: ‘Less Tests, Fewer Cases’:

The [government’s] plan to reduce the availability of free tests [funding expires by 31 March] coincides with massively rising case numbers. On Friday [11 March], there were almost 50,000 new infections [positive tests], there are currently 358,629 actively infected—there were never more—and this number corresponds to 4% of the entire resident population, with a continued rise foreseen.

If fewer people get tested because of a co-pay, there will be fewer registered Covid cases in the short-term. The government’s aim may also be to have fewer people in quarantine at the same time, but then more asymptomatic people infect others, thus facilitating the sweeping-through [Durchseuchung] of the disease. Looking just at Thursday and Friday, 435,083 PCR tests and 35,449 antigen tests were registered; 11% of all PCR tests were positive.

Apparently, the Committee of Public Safety is choosing Omicron as offramp, and this is perhaps a comparatively wise thing to do. Yet, the above-cited piece also notes the emergence of ‘Deltacron’, a combination of a subvariant of Delta and Omicron, which was noted by the WHO but of which not much is known yet.

Q: so, you’re telling me that there’s high pressure on the authorities to ‘do something’, lest the current approach becomes untenable?

Exactly, and it may become untenable for political reasons. Only a few hours after the above piece indicated that ‘cases’ are, in part, a function of testing, another piece of fear-porn appeared in the same outlet. Katharina Mittelstaedt and Gerald John, both renowned Covid hawks, published a long piece questioning (really: second-guessing) the current approach.

They speak of incredibly silly internal discussions last Wednesday in that advisory panel’s meeting about the injection mandate: pro- and anti-mandate discussions appeared to be in the balance, a state representative is (indirectly) quoted asking if in the future ‘only symptomatically ill people should be sent into quarantine’, with Chief Medical Officer Katharina Reich allegedly answering in the affirmative.

Shortly before 4 p.m., Reich comes out in favour of the re-introduction of mandates: the committee recommends ‘the re-introduction of appropriate preventative measures on the federal level’. A break follows, and this formulation is leaked.

After the break, Reich is missing at first because she received ‘an important call’ whose [unidentified] caller allegedly ‘strenuously appealed’ to change this recommendation. Hence, Reich comes out against the word ‘re-introduction’. Another participant of the meeting questions her about-face within the hour, and a hefty verbal exchange ensues.

Still, the wording is changed as well: ‘Due to the rising trend [of cases] and the increasing pressure on hospitals, the Corona Committee recommends the implementation of appropriate preventative measures.’ The word ‘re-introduction’ is left out.

While interesting, the main reasons for this about-face are spelled out below: in a written statement, the new Health Minister, Johannes Rauch, announced the following on Thursday evening:

We must try our best not to lose the public’s acceptance and understanding for these measures. A strengthening of Corona mandates only a few days after the far-reaching revocation of the mandates cannot be explained to the public.

On Friday, Der Standard again indirectly quotes ‘government circles’ who hold that no-one rules out future mandates.

Q: so, this is all—political theatre?

Personally, I’d go for temper tantrums, but yes, it’s mainly a side-show. Sure, there’s some criticism from the opposition parties (it’s hilariously stupid, I’ll tell you, with Social Democratic Public Health Spokesperson Philip Kucher quoted as follows: ‘Why do we have all these innumerable committees, if no-one cares what they determine? It’s all a farce.’)

Curiously, there’s a kernel of truth, for the advisory committees were, of course, disagreeing on the recommendations. Still, no-one expected the above-explained time-lag between ‘cases’, hospitalisations, and deaths, with the only additional ‘explanation’ offered by the ‘experts’ being: ‘Politicians are responsible for the design of the measures.’

Talk about ‘shifting responsibilities (again)’.

Q: so, how far off were the prognosticators?

Quite a bit, I’d daresay, for on 1 March 2022, the experts expected a ‘plateau’ of cases, a week later, they expected a continued rise. Yes, there were of course models suggesting this course of events, but they were ‘within the confidence intervals’, as Der Standard reports, quoting Complexity Researcher Niki Popper who added that these models didn’t accurately consider the consequences of the revocation of the mandates last week. (I’m almost tempted to say—that adding another confounding variable was too complicated for Mr. Popper…)

They also displayed an incredible amount of arrogance and ignorance, which is a super-problematic combination. Apparently, and I think this is fair to say, they didn’t want to think about the time-lag explained above, hence they couldn’t expect this development. This is prima facie evidence of the major problem of all matters Covid-19: it’s political, and now that ‘science’ has been politicised to a degree that matches the agit-prop emanating from legacy media, these experts find themselves talking and listening to themselves (perhaps, incidentally as well as self-referentially, on the guano reservation formerly known as Twitter), hence they appear to become increasingly incapable of assessing objective reality.

Q: oh my, that’s supremely bad, if not entirely unexpected. Would you dare a guess what’s driving this confusion-cum-stupidity?

Well, that’s not too hard to do: in last month’s local elections in the Tyrol, the injection-critical new party MFG quite literally trounced the government coalition in many places. Hence, Der Standard concluding in the same way:

The [enforcement of the] injection mandate could make many voters consider the anti-vaxxer party MFG in the upcoming four state elections. The entire issue [Covid management] may therefore become the overriding, crucial electoral issue. If the experts recommend to reinstate the currently inactivated injection mandate before autumn, it’s easy deduce the priorities of the federal government and the state governors if they must chose between party-politicking and the attempt to formulate and execute a coherent, evidence-based Corona management.

Indeed, it’s politics, stupid, and nothing—no amount of positive tests, rising hospitalisations, and deaths will change the régime’s disdain for life, civil liberties, and human happiness.

Q: wow, that sounds like Covidistan’s body politic is about as corrupt, if perhaps less disingenuous than, say, the swamp bottom feeders in DC, if only because the media every now and then reports, if seemingly unwittingly, on quite essential matters.

Well, yes and no. I’m a sucker for individual responsibility, but I’ll close by highlighting renowned Covid hack Gabriele Scherndl’s follow-up op-ed, which appeared literally a minute after that second Standard piece went live.

Decrying the ‘de facto abrogation’ of the injection mandate (which she obviously regrets, and leaving aside the inanity of the contradictory notion of a ‘de facto abrogation’), Ms. Scherndl calls for more personal responsibility because ‘the government is failing’ the people.

This is dangerous, disingenuous, and dishonest—for legacy media deserves its fair share of these failures for not reporting more or less honestly about these matters. Yet, Ms. Scherndl and her ilk will continue to look for the splinter in their brothers’ eyes, as this core paragraph shows:

Any assessment of the current Covid-19 situation is sobering: 50,000 cases per day, dozens of dead, postponed surgeries, and no useful concept for the hundreds of thousands of sufferers from Long Covid. The current high numbers were a surprise for some experts, yet there’s nothing forthcoming in terms of reactions. There are no admission rules, masks were relegated to a necessary ill that must be suffered every now and then, and getting vaccinated is again a private choice. Neither the Chancellery nor the Health Ministry consider this situation worthy of action.

Q: wow, that’s quite something. What do you make of these statements?

You see, the 11% test-positivity rate we talked about earlier didn’t result in 50,000 ‘cases’, there’s no way Ms. Scherndl can know the cause-effect relationship between Covid-19, incidental Sars-Cov-2 test positivity, and death (as the authorities do not disclose the answers to the ‘of vs. with’ Covid issue), and there’s no data on the numbers of Long Covid sufferers.

The ‘surprise’ she alludes to simply means that the experts don’t know as much as we are led to believe, which is something we discussed above, too. I’m not a MD, epidemiologist, or the like, but I can read the data, such as it is, and deduce a couple of reasonable conclusions. I daresay that I wasn’t as far off as these ‘experts’, though, so, perhaps the government should give me a call for a change?

Finally, I object viscerally to Ms. Scherndl’s arrogation of state (and her) power to determine what goes into my body. It is inconceivable that—a supposedly female—journalist doesn’t understand the utter bankruptcy, both morally and legally, of that statement. If the state gets to adjudicate the ‘my body, my choice’ issue in this case, what’s going to keep the state (or corporations, for that matter) from doing so under other circumstances, such as, e.g., jobs that involve driving: do you privately drink alcohol? If yes, you won’t get the job because you may crash a company car… (and, admittedly, this is a rather harmless example).

Q: so, what shall, and what can, we do?

Well, stay vigilant, remain calm, and keep resisting these misdeeds in any way, shape, or form possible. Speak up and defend reason, morality, and, yes, charity.

Do not give in now, for if we the people let them—government, media, and the public health authorities—get away with this mis-direction of responsibility towards ‘the experts’ who allegedly ‘didn’t inform the government correctly’ but exonerate the media people, this isn’t going to end well, neither with respect to all matters Covid-19 nor in other circumstances.