The COVID-19 vaccine treadmill
So, you’ve had your 2 shots of COVID-19 “vaccine”, you’ve got your vaccine passport, and you’re ready for your life to go back to normal. The old normal, that is – where you get to go the pub with your mates, fly interstate to see your rellies for Christmas, and send your kids back to school – not the pathological “New Normal”.
You poor, deluded soul. You are now on the COVID jab treadmill… and good luck getting off it.
The Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales (which, as a matter of complete coincidence, has received lots of lovely grant money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), has warned the NSW government that unless it can get a third “booster” dose of COVID jabs into the arms of its adult population, as well as jabbing 80% of children aged 5-11 by early 2022, and continuing to aggressively trace contacts of so-called “cases” of COVID-19 (most of whom never develop any symptoms), the state “may face code black conditions in February 2022”. Code black, for those not in the know, is when intensive care unit (ICU) capacity is exceeded.
Hmmm, that sounds like a slight change in messaging, does it not? It seems like just weeks ago that the bollockticians and corruptocrats were promising Australians that all they had to do to “end the pandemic” and “win back their freedoms” (because it’s not like you have any inherent rights as a human being, is it?) was to take their two shots.
And what is the Kirby Institute’s dire prediction of code black catastrophe based on? Modelling. What’s modelling, you may be wondering? The good folk at the Kirby Institute are glad you asked, and most keen to educate you on what a truly fabulous thing it is:
“Modelling is a science used to predict future outcomes under various conditions. Infectious diseases modelling is a long-established science that is helpful for informing policy decisions in public health.”
Except that modelling has been consistently, comprehensively, laughably wrong throughout the entire COVID-19 panicdemic – and well before that:
“Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, consideration of only one or a few dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and bandwagon effects, and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures… Failure in epidemic forecasting is an old problem. In fact, it is surprising that epidemic forecasting has retained much credibility among decision-makers, given its dubious track record.”
But to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and the Kirby Institute are determined to keep battering the people of New South Wales (and anyone else who will listen) with their giant modelling sledgehammer.
Except they admit that they left something out of their model. Nothing important, mind you. You really don’t need to know about it, I’m sure. But if you insist, they’ll tell you:
“We did not model waning of vaccine induced immunity, which will begin to show effects by February 2022 and coincide with the epidemic peak.”
Wait, what? That seems to be a rather significant omission to me. I wonder why they left waning immunity that would coincide with the epidemic peak out of their model?
Perhaps they’ve read this study from Sweden, which used actual data – what a concept! – instead of tendentious modelling, to chart the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on the risk of developing the disease.
The study tracked over 1.6 million Swedes, comprising 842 974 pairs of individuals, one of whom had received either the Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca COVID-19 jab, while the other – matched for age and sex – had not. Participants were followed up from 12 January to 4 October, 2021.
Two outcomes were studied: the occurrence of symptomatic infection (which could be as mild as common cold-type symptoms) and the occurrence of severe COVID-19 disease and death.
For prevention of symptomatic infection,
“Effectiveness peaked at day 15-30 (92%; 95% CI, 91-93, P<0·001) and declined marginally at day 31-60 (89%; 95% CI, 88-89, P<0·001). From thereon, the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 days onwards, there was no remaining detectable effectiveness (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07).”
In other words, the jabs were very good at preventing infection for about two months, but after 7 months they didn’t offer any protection at all.
For those at highest risk of getting seriously ill – people aged over 80 – protection against infection waned even faster:
“At day 61-120, effectiveness declined to 50% (95% CI, 30-64, P<0·001) among individuals aged >80 years.”
The jabs were also dramatically less effective in men (who suffer higher rates of serious illness and death from COVID-19) than women, falling to 17% effectiveness from day 181 while women retained 34% effectiveness.
Effectiveness varied between the three different jabs:
The Moderna shot was the best performing out of the three, retaining 59% effectiveness after 180 days of follow up.
The Pfizer jab declined to 47% effectiveness at day 121-180, and zero effectiveness from day 211 and onwards.
The AstraZeneca jab proved to be a total lemon, increasing the risk of symptomatic infection by 19% from day 121 and onwards.
For prevention of hospitalisation and death, vaccine effectiveness (for any vaccine) was 89% at day 15-30, falling to 74% by day 121-180, with no detectable effectiveness from day 181 onwards.
Here’s how that waning effectiveness looks, first for prevention of symptomatic infection (notice how the black line drops below 0 at 240 days [8 months], indicating increased risk of infection, and continues to slope downward suggesting that the increased risk of infection will get worse over time):
And next for prevention of serious illness and death (notice how the black line is heading downwards towards zero effectiveness):
While the authors of the study used their findings to press for booster shots, that’s not working out so well for the countries that have already pressed a third (or even fourth) dose on their beleaguered populations. Israel and Gibraltar both suffered spikes in infections and deaths soon after they began rolling out booster shots, and oddly enough, the peaks in new cases in each age group occurred in the exact order in which boosters were administered:
Do you understand now? The “vaccines” have not, will not and cannot “end the pandemic”. They are, for all intents and purposes, useless:
In two months’ time, those of you who are “fully vaccinated” will lose your vaccine passports – and the so-called “freedoms” they grant you – unless you take your booster shot. The COVID-19 vaccine treadmill is going to keep running endlessly until you choose to get off it.
And the only way this nightmare ends is when we – all of us – make it stop, by refusing to cooperate with any of the nonsensical biosecurity theatre – lockdowns, masking, PCR tests, QR codes, contact tracing, experimental injections, medical apartheid, and vaccine passports – that has spectacularly, comprehensively failed to “stop the spread” and “end the pandemic”.
Hit it, Blind Joe: