The modellers confessed to their sins, saying they were not asked to model reality, rather the "worst possible case...". Ergo, no use to policy making, but consistent with years of fatuous climate models, which now even the likes of Gavin Schmidt admit "run much too hot".
Well you dweebs, we've been telling you that for years and been stigmatised for doing so.
And we won't mention Ferguson's models. Ferguson, the very epitome of the now standard UK public sector reward for failure. Why we still employ this fanatic is beyond me.
What's very frustrating is that there is no mechanism for self-correction. The more alarming and doomsday prediction one makes the more likely you are to persist. We heard loudly that the end of Lockdown on July 21st in UK was going to be the the end of the world, yet the cases fell precipitously. None of the people who made such predictions have given up on false realities or are willing to slow down and think about why that prediction failed and if the "Science" they had in mind needed to be updated or revised in the light of new evidence. None.
Quite. This is because when government talks of "the science", they are not invoking what we know as "science", rather science bent to become ideology. And now it's all the rage.
I'm 70, and come from a long lived family (one Gran 102, other pair both 96), even then I may not have enough time :-) But yes, it would be good - must say, stumbling across Substack (I spend little time online, never had a Smartphone) has opened up many people writing on Covid from a critical point of view. Plaudits to all. Happy to be a humble foot soldier.
Haven't seen any pix of her, so can't comment. He however, is a jerk and proof positive that in the higher echelons of UK Public Service, reward for failure is endemic.
It is clear that CV-19 should always have been modelled in the same way as the flu, meaning that waves are self-limiting due to the fact that the vulnerable segments of the population at any point in time are defined. Hence, there has been success in modelling CV-19 using straightforward distributions (notably Gompertz).
However, the statement that, "conconcomitant with the rollout of mass COVID vaccination, an unexpected surge of a variant produced a new distribution which eventually accounted for a further 44,000 seasonal excess deaths", appears to have no genuine empirical basis. Instead, how about treating vaccines as explanatory variables in causing these excess deaths. This would at least appear to help explain the unseasonal pattern observed from June 2021, and also happens to neatly coincide with FDA/Pfizer documents showing higher all-cause mortality in the vaccinated groups versus the placebo and studies of high numbers of vaccine-induced deaths by extrapolating VAERS and so on.
While seasonal respiratory viruses will not go away any time soon, my bet is that you will need to find some other explanations for unseasonal patterns of excess deaths throughout 2022. A continuing refusal to treat the elephant in the room as an explanatory variable is likely to lead to a lot of head scratching, I suspect.
I agree, Roger. Note, sometimes I say things to deliberately stoke debate rather than a genuine insight or conclusion. Only 95% of what I say is empirically rooted! ;-)
Dec 29, 2021·edited Dec 29, 2021Liked by Joel Smalley
They will use the "deaths prevented" argument which should absolutely be rejected since their own modeling by week 39 (Booster week) showed that it was no longer preventing deaths (meaning, it was advancing killing). This is why that was discontinued from the weekly report. The real tragedy is that not only do we have no proof that the vaccines helped prevent anything, we have no way to tell yet due to lack of access to raw data if the vaccine rollouts around the world improved the capacity of the virus to persist and kill (a lot?) or a few more than was in it's "budget".
Dec 29, 2021·edited Dec 29, 2021Liked by Joel Smalley
Edited:
These graphs are incredible. Let me show your audience a trick I learned from looking at these deadly humps, something your audience can verify if it's simply in my brain or you all can see it too.
Look at Joel's first graph. Look at the intersection of the two humps, look at the date at the bottom for the Influenza wave. Google that date with "flu vaccines", you will find this:
Now do the same for the Covid hump on December 7th. What do you find? Pfizer's rollout of vaccination the first in the world in UK.
And they call it a conspiracy? The humps shouldn't be aligned with vaccination trials, or rollouts but they inevitably are, does our vaccine strategy impact these curves? Hard to argue if we can graph the exact moment without looking.
We find that whenever we try to bring a vaccine in the background of a different strain that the vaccine does not neutralize, it removes competition for that strain and it quickly takes over as Alpha wave after Pfizer's large scale introduction of vaccine that wiped out wuhan.
See this paper for the deadly vaccine effectiveness of the Flu vaccines in the 2016-2017 wave compared with deaths in the Finnish register. The evaluation was done without censoring the most important phase of the epidemic (when you placed the vaccinee is a double hazard of exposure to dominant strain + vaccine) where people immediately contract the disease and die.
It's a fairly complicated thing that I am trying to work out for Covid for the past month but someone has done for Flu. See the shocking result below. First the part that's in the paper, and second the part that's not in the paper since nobody would dare to publish it, so it's in the supplementary materials. -500% vaccine effectiveness at the start. Last page of this pdf. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12982-020-00091-z/MediaObjects/12982_2020_91_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
"Mitigation of biases in estimating hazard ratios under non-sensitive and non-specific observation of outcomes–applications to influenza vaccine effectiveness"
Dec 29, 2021·edited Dec 29, 2021Liked by Joel Smalley
If Prof. Fenton is wondering why his friend and colleague got immediately "re-infected" after booster, I think I know why but he should absolutely be asking ONS/UKHSA for reinfections with Whole Genome Sequence and Viral culture titers for every "reinfection" claimed by them after someone's vaccination.
The modellers confessed to their sins, saying they were not asked to model reality, rather the "worst possible case...". Ergo, no use to policy making, but consistent with years of fatuous climate models, which now even the likes of Gavin Schmidt admit "run much too hot".
Well you dweebs, we've been telling you that for years and been stigmatised for doing so.
And we won't mention Ferguson's models. Ferguson, the very epitome of the now standard UK public sector reward for failure. Why we still employ this fanatic is beyond me.
What's very frustrating is that there is no mechanism for self-correction. The more alarming and doomsday prediction one makes the more likely you are to persist. We heard loudly that the end of Lockdown on July 21st in UK was going to be the the end of the world, yet the cases fell precipitously. None of the people who made such predictions have given up on false realities or are willing to slow down and think about why that prediction failed and if the "Science" they had in mind needed to be updated or revised in the light of new evidence. None.
Quite. This is because when government talks of "the science", they are not invoking what we know as "science", rather science bent to become ideology. And now it's all the rage.
Perhaps we need to catalogue all these "mistakes" and lies and publish them?
I'm 70, and come from a long lived family (one Gran 102, other pair both 96), even then I may not have enough time :-) But yes, it would be good - must say, stumbling across Substack (I spend little time online, never had a Smartphone) has opened up many people writing on Covid from a critical point of view. Plaudits to all. Happy to be a humble foot soldier.
What do you think of modeler Neil Ferguson's babe?
Haven't seen any pix of her, so can't comment. He however, is a jerk and proof positive that in the higher echelons of UK Public Service, reward for failure is endemic.
DDG or Bing will find it. Nice face; a bit big in the body.
He is a willing tool of the deep state.
It is clear that CV-19 should always have been modelled in the same way as the flu, meaning that waves are self-limiting due to the fact that the vulnerable segments of the population at any point in time are defined. Hence, there has been success in modelling CV-19 using straightforward distributions (notably Gompertz).
However, the statement that, "conconcomitant with the rollout of mass COVID vaccination, an unexpected surge of a variant produced a new distribution which eventually accounted for a further 44,000 seasonal excess deaths", appears to have no genuine empirical basis. Instead, how about treating vaccines as explanatory variables in causing these excess deaths. This would at least appear to help explain the unseasonal pattern observed from June 2021, and also happens to neatly coincide with FDA/Pfizer documents showing higher all-cause mortality in the vaccinated groups versus the placebo and studies of high numbers of vaccine-induced deaths by extrapolating VAERS and so on.
While seasonal respiratory viruses will not go away any time soon, my bet is that you will need to find some other explanations for unseasonal patterns of excess deaths throughout 2022. A continuing refusal to treat the elephant in the room as an explanatory variable is likely to lead to a lot of head scratching, I suspect.
I agree, Roger. Note, sometimes I say things to deliberately stoke debate rather than a genuine insight or conclusion. Only 95% of what I say is empirically rooted! ;-)
Thanks. I send this link as a "briefing" to the NSW Australia Health Minister - my pen pal.
The one & only side effect of these 'vaccines' is called 'coincidence'.
I want to see how someone might challenge this .
They will use the "deaths prevented" argument which should absolutely be rejected since their own modeling by week 39 (Booster week) showed that it was no longer preventing deaths (meaning, it was advancing killing). This is why that was discontinued from the weekly report. The real tragedy is that not only do we have no proof that the vaccines helped prevent anything, we have no way to tell yet due to lack of access to raw data if the vaccine rollouts around the world improved the capacity of the virus to persist and kill (a lot?) or a few more than was in it's "budget".
Why? Are you not big intro critical thinking?
Edited:
These graphs are incredible. Let me show your audience a trick I learned from looking at these deadly humps, something your audience can verify if it's simply in my brain or you all can see it too.
Look at Joel's first graph. Look at the intersection of the two humps, look at the date at the bottom for the Influenza wave. Google that date with "flu vaccines", you will find this:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2018/02/who-changes-2-strains-2018-19-flu-vaccine
Now do the same for the Covid hump on December 7th. What do you find? Pfizer's rollout of vaccination the first in the world in UK.
And they call it a conspiracy? The humps shouldn't be aligned with vaccination trials, or rollouts but they inevitably are, does our vaccine strategy impact these curves? Hard to argue if we can graph the exact moment without looking.
I don't get it?!
We find that whenever we try to bring a vaccine in the background of a different strain that the vaccine does not neutralize, it removes competition for that strain and it quickly takes over as Alpha wave after Pfizer's large scale introduction of vaccine that wiped out wuhan.
See this paper for the deadly vaccine effectiveness of the Flu vaccines in the 2016-2017 wave compared with deaths in the Finnish register. The evaluation was done without censoring the most important phase of the epidemic (when you placed the vaccinee is a double hazard of exposure to dominant strain + vaccine) where people immediately contract the disease and die.
It's a fairly complicated thing that I am trying to work out for Covid for the past month but someone has done for Flu. See the shocking result below. First the part that's in the paper, and second the part that's not in the paper since nobody would dare to publish it, so it's in the supplementary materials. -500% vaccine effectiveness at the start. Last page of this pdf. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12982-020-00091-z/MediaObjects/12982_2020_91_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
"Mitigation of biases in estimating hazard ratios under non-sensitive and non-specific observation of outcomes–applications to influenza vaccine effectiveness"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348484759/figure/fig2/AS:980896228339726@1610875293912/Estimates-of-influenza-vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-Finnish-elderly-N1-160-986-in.png
Received: 3 February 2020 Accepted: 17 December 2020 Online: January 14th 2021
If Prof. Fenton is wondering why his friend and colleague got immediately "re-infected" after booster, I think I know why but he should absolutely be asking ONS/UKHSA for reinfections with Whole Genome Sequence and Viral culture titers for every "reinfection" claimed by them after someone's vaccination.
DON'T quote one of "them", CIDRAP!
Have you seen this?
https://twitter.com/OS51388957/status/1477457864172134402