UK Omicron Report - Rigging It Like There is No Tomorrow
UKHSA Announces New Years Resolution of Redefining Verbs in The Oxford English Dictionary To Ensure Vaccine Effectiveness Studies Show What The Governments Want It To Show
 |
Sorry for spamming but this one will be short Edit: (oops was wrong but I’m seething 😤 )
It’s been one whole year of misleading the public. I naively had higher hopes from the UK, which had until recently, resisted the urge to openly lie through misclassification like other governments around the world.
Today’s omicron report has ended that.
It claims
The
riskof being admitted to hospital for Omicron cases was lower for those who had received 2 doses of a vaccine (65% lower) compared to those who had not received any vaccination (Table 4).
What does Table 4 show?
“Not received any vaccination” = Unvaccinated/<28 days since first vaccine dose
“Received two doses” = ≥14 days since second dose
I think English as a Second Language tutors better learn the new definition of having received something → It can mean you haven’t actually received it or that you haven’t received it for sufficiently long to be considered having received it.
Meanwhile you can die in that process within 5 days just as last winter.
You could also have died or been hospitalized and ignored due to “possible misclassification”. “Different exposure risk” so it doesn't count.
Too bad if you had a comorbidity
And if you were unlucky enough to test positive 2 days after admission due to a better immune status, you will be ignored from the statistics as “incidental”. Even if you die because of the “incident”.
And finally, if you got “re-infected” they will simply “adjust” it. Nobody will ever ask them how they came up with the classification and why vaccination event appears to re-infect people at such a phenomenal rate.1
I don’t know what to say to the UKHSA other than they are really letting the public and in some ways the world down. They were the very last credible source of information that had some semblance of the great British tradition of accurate bookkeeping.
My new year’s resolution is to ask to UKHSA-
Please release the following data in this format since you know full well what happened in England last winter:
Tell the public the actual risks like Denmark or from your reports last year?
But I know you will convince yourself that these graphs don’t matter, that was last year, this is a fully vaccinated population and the hazard to the seniors is not high based on your deductions from a low event rate hospitalization statistics in the younger cohort.
Please remember, the symptoms resolve for the younger people and your cover-up statistics might work there, but when Omicron invades the care homes and the actual hazards are revealed, you will have no where to hide with these ad-hoc partitioned datasets.
This is your last chance to really avert a huge tsunami of morbidity and mortality by being honest about the raw data and alerting the innocent person trusting you to not walk into the trap like last year.
People are carefully looking at the raw data. Please be honest about the risks with people who are trying to protect themselves. Is it too much to ask this new year?
Metatron @mdccclxx
I finally got some real, unadulterated data from an FOI. It is absolute dynamite. I have only looked at it for 5 minutes but it is already pointing towards an epidemic of the vaccinated, putting pressure on the NHS. Watch this space!
January 9 Update: UK Citizens - They will pretend this was not expected or “surprising”. But as you can see, it was neither hard to model nor was it surprising if you were simply following the science (the actual empirical data).
Every single death that happens due to an infection after vaccination from here on is the responsibility of the UKHSA and their chief deception officers misleading the public on New Year’s Eve. I wrote this article as a warning to them that this will happen and they will not see it coming. they didn’t.
Addendum:
Those who think hiding or misclassifying the risk in the first 28 days is not unethical for an agency that’s literally got “Health Security” in the name:
I’ll work out an example for your understanding and you can tell me why I am wrong and totally misreading the risks we are inviting vulnerable people to take by misclassifying events.
If you are in the UK please be aware what happened last year, and assume that it’s also happening this year UNLESS shown to be not happening right now!
Yellow are those that got vaccinated and purple are those who didn’t.
We are comparing HIGHLY elevated cumulative risks in the 28 days post injection. (UKHSA label “Unvaccinated”)
With lowest possible risk in those who’ve crossed their high risk zone after the successive injections (see 14 days after jab 2).
How is this an actual comparison of risks a person is exposed to before vaccination vs after?
If you follow this scheme, we will find vaccine effectiveness to be high regardless of actual risk or hospitalization and epidemic spread in the community, booster or not.
Quote from a different post:
Lol @ 28 days since first dose.
And I think we've had some back and forth on the use of Cox regressions to get adjusted hazard ratios. But to remind you, cox regressions should never, ever be used with vaccines. It's statistical heresy. Or did they use my other nemesis test negative control design? I may have read through the article too quick (will look closer when I'm home). In any case, they need to present the unadjusted numbers or don't present any numbers at all. I hate this behind the curtain habit of "trust us" adjustments they use