Pick an Epidemiologist, any Epidemiologist

A lady made a show of shying away from me the other day when I revealed I wouldn’t be able to watch the new Bond film until on or after December 1 (NSW ‘Freedom Day’), being unvaccinated. Don’t blame her. It’s the zeitgeist.

I’m about to assess the danger unvaccinated people pose to the vaccinated. I have no epidemiological qualifications. But then again, want an expert view to suit your virus agenda? I’m positive you’ll be able to find one.

Andrew Bolt has his favourite epidemiologist pushing the pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine line; and I see that Alan Jones also brought him onto his show, having presumably been softened in the head by knee surgery. Laura Ingraham on Fox News has a much better class of epidemiologists to call upon and does so frequently. Personally I prefer her retinue of experts. But choose your poison, so to say. All told, I prefer my own analysis to theirs (epidemiologists) whoever they are. They get stuck in blinkered medical mode.

Trump hater, and hence by definition COVID-crazed person, Cameron Stewart asserted in a recent edition of The Australian that “an unvaccinated person is five times likelier to spread the virus.” No source for this assertion was provided, but I found it in a well-publicised CDC study dated August 24.

The study considered 43,127 infections, occurring in Los Angeles County from May 1 to July 25. Outcomes as at  July 25 pointed to infections among the unvaccinated being almost five times the rate among the vaccinated. By comparison, another study by Imperial College out of England found it was three times rather than five.

Noteworthily, the CDC study confirmed a number of other studies in concluding that the viral load of the infected vaccinated and unvaccinated is the same.

How robust are these CDC and Imperial College studies? I don’t know. I’m wary. You might recall I referred to a study in a previous piece in QoL which purported to show that vaccinations had no effect on the rate of spontaneous abortions up to twenty weeks after conception. Only problem, 700 of the 827 women in the sample had not been vaccinated until the third trimester. A schoolboy error became the basis for our federal Department of Health advising Australia’s pregnant women that the vaccines are safe. And, by the way, they’ve got away with it. Journalism in this country is dead.

In time, I suspect we’ll find that the vaccinated are as equally likely to contract the virus as are the unvaccinated. And if the vaccines suppress symptoms, as they tell us, then infected vaccinated people will become super-spreaders. But, for the sake of my exercise, I will err on the dark side, split the results of the CDC and Imperial College studies, and assume the vaccinated have four times less chance of catching the disease and, thus, of passing it on.

I need a model. Models are de rigueur. I want one too. So, pardon me for using vulgar fractions. Here are my modelling assumptions: First, 80 percent of those over 16 years are vaccinated. The soon-to-be-reached ‘roadmap target’ of the soon-to-be-gone Ms Berejiklian. (And good riddance; which, by the way, I would say if any of the current crop of leaders, from Mr Net-Zero Morrison downwards, were mercifully to go.)

Second, as the viral load of the infected vaccinated is equal to that of the unvaccinated; both, at some point, are equally infectious.

Third, in accordance with prevailing expert opinion, the vaccinated will be much less likely to get ill than will the unvaccinated; and, therefore, will remain infectious for, say, only half the time. That’s an extra giveaway from me and might not be true.

We need a scenario to manifest my model. I am going to take a Q&A studio audience of, say, 300 people. Extraordinarily, for the purpose of my modelling, I will assume these people are representative of the general Australian population. What does the model tell us?

A healthy vaccinated person in a middle seat, faces odds of 9/25 of sitting next to at least one unvaccinated person. The odds of being straddled, so to speak, by two vaccinated people is 16/25. (Ignoring slight statistical noise.) Don’t bother working this out. Take my word for it. Ditto for my comparative measures of risk right below. This kind of highfalutin’ mathematising isn’t for everyone.

Let’s compare a comparative index of risk. (The measure itself is of no matter; only the comparison is meaningful.)

The risk to our healthy vaccinated person from the unvaccinated is 9/25 by 4 by 1 = 36/25.

The risk to our health vaccinated person from the vaccinated is 16/25 by 1 by ½ = 8/25.

So, according to my model, the extra risk posed by the unvaccinated is 36/8. This is not quite the five times the extra riskiness that Stewart scribbled about. But it’s close. Gadzooks!

But hang on, my vulgar model may be as flawed as its more sophisticated cousins have proved to be. Pray tell why? Well, to reiterate, we are told that the unvaccinated are more likely to get ill. This narrative entirely alters the equation. Entirely.

Suppose for the sake of argument that of the 240 vaccinated persons (80% of 300) invited to Q&A, twenty are infectious (one in twelve) but only, say, five have symptoms, precisely because they’ve been vaccinated. All unknowing, fifteen dudes trundle along to Q&A; Typhoid Marys all.

Of the 60 unvaccinated invitees, twenty (four in twelve) are infectious, but most feel ill, precisely because they haven’t been vaccinated. Fifteen decline the invitation and are whisked off to hospital into an isolation ward or, much more likely, take to their beds with an aspirin. Five only attend the event. Ergo, in reality, the odds of becoming infected from an unvaccinated person sitting next to you at the Q&A green-left gabfest is one-third that of becoming infected from the vaccinated person sitting next to you.

The error is in the modelling. It takes no account of human behaviour. And, it seems to me, this delinquency is universal among expert epidemiologists; who, at the same time as saying that the unvaccinated are likely to get sicker, implicitly assume that those falling sick will go about their affairs as though they were well. Yet another one of those schoolboy errors.

My conclusion: even accepting the unproven hypothesis that the vaccinated are less likely to become infected, the vaccinated still pose more risk to the healthy vaccinated than do the unvaccinated. And, equally, the vaccinated pose more risk to the healthy unvaccinated than do the unvaccinated. The world is a highly complex place. Not set up for modelling or for blinkered experts.

Finally, think. The unvaccinated provide a scapegoating service. If the bully boys bludgeon everyone into being vaccinated, the only thing people will have to fear is themselves. Forever lockdowns anyone?

17 thoughts on “Pick an Epidemiologist, any Epidemiologist

  • Stephen Due says:

    There are studies showing the viral load in the nostrils of the vaccinated is up to 250 times that of the unvaccinated. One example is discussed by Peter McCullough (Global Research 10 August 2021). McCullough noted “This phenomenon may be the source of the shocking post-vaccination surges in heavily vaccinated populations globally.” The scientific arguments against these vaccines are conclusive on multiple fronts. The vaccines are purely a pseudo-scientific solution to the political problem faced by governments that have stupidly terrorised and locked down their populations – and need a way out

  • Stephen Due says:

    Here is the Nobel prizewinner Michael Levitt, speaking at a Lindau Meeting with fellow laureates in late June 2020:
    “Almost all the science we have been hearing is wrong…this has been a disgraceful situation for science….for political reasons we as scientists let our views be corrupted…
    Epidemiologists… made their normal error. They see their job not as getting things correct but preventing an epidemic. So therefore if they say it’s a hundred times worse than it’s going to be, it’s OK… They said the same thing for Ebola. They said the same thing for Bird Flu. No-one shut down for them.
    We should never have listened to the epidemiologists. They have caused hundreds of billions of dollars worth of suffering and damage, mainly on the younger generation. This is going to be a tragedy of – this is going to make 9/11 look like a baby story. This is much, much worse. I am not against lockdowns, But I am against lockdowns for a virus that is exactly as dangerous as flu.”

  • rod.stuart says:

    An effective opposition would challenge the government (at both the State and Commonwealth level) as to why a perfectly good plan for dealing with a pandemic, formulated years ago and updated a year or two before the release of the virus, (assuming there is a virus involved at all) was shelved in favour of instructions from Beijing.
    Does the CCP own more than just Victoria? Why would our illustrious leaders decide to follow Xi Jinping’s example of isolating the healthy rather than the sick? What was (and is) happening behind the curtain? Who is calling the shots?
    Is it treachery, or just plain old incompletence?

  • abrogard says:

    Yes, you’re polite, calm, logical. Generous in your, conceding this and that to the other side, trying hard to be ‘fair’ and so on.
    Good for you, Peter.
    But don’t you feel exhausted? Don’t you feel tired, hopeless? Don’t you fee like giving up?
    Because you are/we are getting nowhere aren’t you/we?
    And they are just going from strength to strength.
    They now parade blackshirt troops at the drop of the hat.
    Plan to enforce vaccinations by untested drugs on everyone.
    Plan for a future where their freedoms to impose always continue and where these ‘treatments’ never end.
    Don’t you think it has gone too far for your nice polite, urbane telling of the story?

    The fact is it is total bullshit.
    And a total crime.

    Yep. If you’re asking we can prove it. We’ve been trying to show them for more than a year but they won’t listen.

    We’re talking to ourselves. Huddled in the corner exchanging our knowledges. But they’re coming to get us. They’ve got us already. When we come out of our corner we find ourselves in a world wherein we’ve lost everything we thought was great and good.

    Find ourselves in a world wherein we are virtual prisoners and experiment subjects, is all, lab rats.

    We’re wasting our breath and our time.

    All we can do now is chant simple mantras:

    It is all bullshit.
    The virus isn’t that bad.
    Your measures are worse than bad.
    Your vaccines don’t work and haven’t been tested and probably actually do harm.

    We have to talk to them. Not each other. But they won’t listen to anything more complicated than that.

    We need some simple mantras to chant. To rally around. To hit them with. To stand behind.

    It’s all bullshit is a good starting place I think. It’s all bullshit. ALL. BULL SHIT.

    Now I’ll go back to consorting with the converted, huddling in my corner, trying to ignore what’s going on all around us, behind our backs as we ‘huddle’.


  • Losthope says:

    great essay, thank you. as you have highlighted, the problem with ” the road map to freedom” is that vaxed people can go to restaurants etc. all good, BUT it says nothing about their contagious status. Business are happy to entertain contagious vaxed as opposed to the non contagious un vaxed.
    as far as being contagious and deadly. May I recommend http://www.coviflive.com.au
    assuming it takes 2 days to yield test results on the 28th sept, NSW conducted 132,279 to yield 933 cases on the 30th sept . all I am saying is that case numbers do not tell the story… context is required

  • rosross says:

    Excellent overview.

  • rosross says:


    Many of us agree. The levels of fear-mongering from the start raised alarm bells for me and having spent a long time as a journalist with a lot of exposure to politicians, Government, medical, academic and science industries it was a small leap from sceptical to cynical. But the fear flag set it all off.

    Anyone with a modicum of intelligence who does the research across the spectrum and crunches the numbers or reads those who can crunch numbers accurately, knows that Covid is no threat to the vast majority, most of the dead were very old and very sick with 2-3 co-morbidities and with a high percentage in aged care – the group which is always at risk; the genetic treatments called vaccines are rushed, poorly tested, unapproved, highly experimental in ways never done before and huge risk with no gain.

    However, it has been ever thus that some see the Emperor is naked and most do not.

  • Stephen Due says:

    The answer to the Covid pandemic is early treatment with sequential multidrug protocols based on the known and predictable pathophysiology of the disease. This has been amply demonstrated by many experts in many locations. A good example is the FLCCC Alliance treatment protocol, but a complete list can be found at the website C19protocols.com.
    For those who are feeling hopeless about the current situation, please be aware that many excellent people, including world-leading medical specialists, are standing up for the truth on Covid-19. Certainly there are dark forces at work. Much of what is happening in Australia is sinister and worrying. But we must believe that truth will prevail – and in truth this is a treatable disease.
    What we are seeing from medical and public health authorities is therapeutic nihilism. This is shocking and shameful but unfortunately that is the way things are at the moment. They are in thrall to the vaccines and the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture them. They have decided the whole thing is too difficult, too complicated, and they just want to roll out the jab and get it all over with. Unfortunately for them, however, no amount of propaganda, not amount of coercion, can make a bad narrative good,
    The best avenue for those who want to defend freedom and health in Australia right now is to learn about early treatment for Covid, and demand that early treatment at home be made available. Tell other people about it. Early treatment must prevail in the end. It eliminates fear of the disease. It eliminates the infection quickly and so reduces transmission. It removes the need for draconian public health regulations. It leaves the option of vaccination open for those who want it. Early treatment is the way infectious disease is always tackled. This one should be no different.

  • pgang says:

    I still want to know what happened to all the flu deaths in Australia over the past 18 months (ie – currently sitting at zero). This is a miracle. We actually seem to have experienced a decrease in deaths from all viruses in Australia since the Great Covid Tribulation began. Yet here we are, being dictated to for the sake of our health, and readily complying.

  • andrew2 says:

    pgang, Flu transmission was probably directly affected by the social distancing policies that were applied across the nation. My personal experience of cold and flu is that I get exposed to it firstly via my kids from interaction at school, secondly at church by people who are clearly symptomatic but showed up anyway, coughing and blowing their noses into tissues or hankies and then want to shake my hand, thirdly by social contact with friends who have symptoms or fourthly by touching something that an infected person has touched and I forget to wash my hands.
    Many of these avenues for transmission were cut off by the implemented policies. When covid was announced I assumed I would be healthier than ever and it has proven to be the case.

  • andrew2 says:

    Stephen Due, excellent post regarding early treatment. Throughout this whole situation it is the lack of action on therapeutics and early treatment that has dismayed me.

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    Never fear, Molnupiravir is here! Saturday night’s news contained a story about this wonderful help; imagine, it can actually treat wuflu as soon as you start showing symptoms! Who’d have thought? Of course, the experts hastened to add, this is no magic pill; it’s no replacement for vaccination.
    I had literally JUST been reading about this drug in the latest Quadrant (in “Covid Strategy beyond Lockdown,” a Robert Clancy piece that I believe was previously published on-line). “The pharmaceutical company Merck has initiated a ‘rolling registration’ process with regulatory authorities across the world despite little evidence of efficacy and an emerging view that the RNA polymerase is a poor therapeutic target. Remarkably, the US government has bought the drug for A$1000 per course before trials are completed and efficacy proven.”
    Not only was the Channel 7 reporting typically misleading, but–on a daily news program–it was also BEHIND that of a monthly journal!

  • vickisanderson says:

    Good grief, Peter! All those numbers!

    All I know is that Fauci himself acknowledged that the vaccinated appear to have about the same viral load in nose titres as the unvaccinated. Ergo – they are just as infectious even if they are unsymptomatic.

    Not that you can convince the sanctimonious, but ignorant, amongst the vaccinated throngs.

  • vickisanderson says:

    Stephen Due – re early treatment.

    Yes, I suspect a lot of readers will be following (as I am) the prophylaxis & are ready for the early treatment protocol recommended by FLCCC & the Covid treatment network.

    As for insisting that early treatment be recognised by government & medical boards – that is a big Ask. We try as best we can & that is all we can do. There are courageous virologists, immunologists & ordinary GPS around the world who are risking everything to have the truth recognised & I admire them beyond words.

    As for the Molnuparavir & other anti virals under development – this is a whole new issue. I can’ t see that they will be as risky as the gene vaccines, but it all remains to be seen. Meantime, there are existing treatments that real world experience show as incredibly successful – but that is another story!

  • Necessityofchoice says:

    A timely article and insightful comments, regarding the corruption of the political cadre and what might have motivated them to do what they do ? I’ve yet to register one of our anointed trot out ” Build back better” but that would seal the deal that we are but one more cod in Klaus’s great reset.
    I have been cikcing around

  • Necessityofchoice says:

    Whoops …
    Kicking around for many decades, and the most astonishing political event to this point was the collapse of the USSR.
    The behaviour of our political , medical, legal and media class to this totalitarian assault AND the acquiescence of the population has been orders of magnitude greater.
    ( My apologies for not giving myself the opportunity to proof read part 1, before somehow hitting send ! )

  • pgang says:

    andrew2 that is not the explanation at all. If you were correct then COVID-19 would have been stopped in its tracks. Besides, not all of us have lived in a bubble for the past 18 months and schools have been open for most of that time. I have had the usual bout of colds since this monstrosity began. The simplest explanation is that people dying with flu are being recorded as COVID-19 victims.

Leave a Reply