Build Those Pyres, It’s Persecution Time

Influenced perhaps by the authoritarian regime in Singapore and a nonsensical paper by a couple of public-square wannabes in the part-publicly-funded The Conversation (upon which more below), Bob Carr apparently believes that those unvaccinated who catch a serious case of the dreaded virus should pay for their own treatment. From this poisonous view, it’s a small leap to denying treatment to those without the means to pay for it. Let them die in the gutter! We can expect others of a leftist intolerant turn of mind to become Bobby’s bedfellows. It’s persecution time in Australia, in the year of Our Lord 2021.

I don’t want to dwell on the inconsistency of withholding support from those who are seen by the great and good as putting their own health at risk, while hospital beds are full of people who do all manner of inadvisable and destructive things to their bodies. This is the least of it. What’s happening is that a group seen as defiantly going against the prevailing mass hysteria must be put down. Normal human fellowship goes out the window. “The truth is that pity was dangerous, for it was thought no one could have compassion on the sufferings of a witch who was not a dabbler in the art,” Charles Mackay in his Madness of Crowds.

It bears repeating and repeating ad nauseum: COVID is not the Black Death. It carries little material threat for the healthy; mostly it carries off the old and infirm. The median age of death in Australia and elsewhere from the virus is greater than the overall median age of death. Nonetheless, I don’t want to downplay the seriousness of the disease. For the aged with serious underlying conditions, it is fatal in a sizeable proportion of cases, robbing them of valuable time on this earth.

The ABS reports a case fatality rate of 35 per cent for men and 24 per cent for women aged 80 to 89. Though these percentages are higher, by definition, than the corresponding infection fatality rates and far higher again than the corresponding population fatality rates, they provide good reason to protect the vulnerable and encourage them to consult their doctors on taking the vaccine. It is not a good reason to become hysterical and victimise those who choose not to take the vaccine. But, of course, once rampant hysteria is afoot, it generates its own fuel and keeps going.

Enter the so-called ‘epidemic of the unvaccinated’ and, separately, the supposed risks to others posed by the unvaccinated. As to the first, dismiss it out of hand. Yes, during the initial aftermath of mass vaccinations, the unvaccinated are more likely, pound for pound, to become seriously ill or die. But if that were the real ongoing problem, why the focus on booster shots? The real ongoing problem is that the effectiveness of the vaccines wane. That’s why in the UK during October (from the 4th to 31st), of the 3,604 people hospitalised aged 70 and over, 3,164 had been fully vaccinated.

It is a sad truth that one malady of academia is a lust for public relevance. Academics gain promotions by writing for learned journals but no one reads them. And they can’t make exaggerated claims (at least outside of climate science) – which might get them publicity – without evidence. Never mind, The Conversation, “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” says its calling card, provides a forum. If you have ever read it, any old tripe gets you in provided you’re an academic and not a climate skeptic. And so it is that Andrew Robinson (CEO of the Centre of Excellence [?] for Biosecurity Risk Analysis at Melbourne University) and his colleague Christopher Baker (research fellow for biosecurity risk) had published an article, dated October 28, which claimed that “your unvaccinated friend is roughly 20 times more likely to give you COVID.”

On what evidence is this publicity-seeking claim made? Not much, to be outrageously generous. Let me quote their evidence.

“Recent reports from the Victorian Department of Health find that unvaccinated people are ten times more likely to contract COVID than vaccinated people.” Doherty Institute modelling from August is then brought into the frame, which apparently puts the chance of an infected vaccinated person passing on the disease at 65 per cent less than an unvaccinated person. The authors explained that for their “thought experiment, we’ll take a lower value of 50 per cent.” Thus, the infected unvaccinated person is twice as likely to pass on the disease.

Now you can see now why Baker, the research fellow in statistics, is needed. To do the sums. Ten-times multiplied by two-times equals twenty-times. Go to the top of the class. So, recent reports and tenuous modelling, neither of which is properly sourced, explained or critically evaluated. give rise to a worthless piece of garbage output.

Academic rigour, journalistic flair? Flatulence has more to recommend it.

Incidentally, consider those unnamed reports, cited by Robinson and Baker, from the Victorian Department of Health showing rates of infection among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Only those bereft of inquiring minds would look no further. UK data for October (refer table 5, p 20) provide a more mature picture. 

Only in the 29 years and younger age groups do unvaccinated persons per 100,000 become infected at a higher rate. Older than that, the infection rate among the vaccinated is, on the whole, about twice that of the unvaccinated. Go figure, but there it is. I doubt such data will find its way into The Conversation.

12 thoughts on “Build Those Pyres, It’s Persecution Time

  • norsaint says:

    Don’t be ashamed to downplay the “virus” Peter.
    “The Vaccine was NOT brought in for Covid. Covid was brought in for the Vaccine.
    Once you realize that, everything else makes sense.”

    Reiner Fuellmich – Lawyer who is leading the Corona Investigative Comittee: a large team of more than 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts that has initiated legal proceedings and is gathering evidence against the CDC, WHO and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity.

  • vickisanderson says:

    It is amazing how many people obstinately will not accept what is even conceded by the likes of Fauci – that the double vaccinated can still become infected with COVID and also transmit that infection to others.

    It is the single most significant admission that has yet been made – and maybe that is why it is so resisted. It logically follows that there is absolutely no medical reason why the unvaccinated should be excluded from any premise to which the vaccinated have access. The denial of the ramifications of that truth confirms that the restrictions to the unvaccinated are punitive and coercive.

    But the persistence with this untruth by authoritative figures causes the added injury of encouraging vigilante activity by some of the more sanctimonious amongst the vaccinated. So we are witnessing the sort of informing activity that is akin to that in Stasi East Germany.

    Who would have thought that a virus would reveal such fault lines in our society?

  • Stephen Due says:

    The death rate in the elderly can be reduced with good medical treatment. There are prominent doctors in America who have treated hundreds and in some instances thousands of patients without a single death. Their protocols are readily available from websites such as that of the FLCCC Alliance.
    Sadly, the drugs that are most effective – hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin – have been banned for treating the disease in Australia. Instead of insisting on their right to treat patients as they see fit, doctors have allowed academics, bureaucrats and business managers to take over.
    Dr. Richard Amerling, Associate President of America’s Frontline Doctors, said yesterday: “We used to practice medicine using science, logic, deductive reasoning, judgement and clinical experience – and we got very good results. When you see a patient who is at death’s door suddenly get better [referring to the effect of ivermectin] you do not need a randomised controlled trial… These vaccines are incredibly toxic. But even if they did work, why give them to everybody? This is tyranny…. Doctors have lost their authority and independence.”

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    Quadrant has provided stability and hope to me ever since I discovered it last year. It was amazing to discover that I and a very few in my own acquaintance were NOT the only people to see the panicdemic for what it is. Quadrant articles have corroborated much of what I already think and feel (an encouragement when I occasionally wonder if I’M the one who’s mad, instead of the rest of the world), analyzed the situation in ways I’d never thought of, and provided valuable information.
    However, I am disappointed that Quadrant has not laid out more of the LEGAL arguments against the present tyranny. There have been some such pieces, but I feel that much has been missing.
    Why has more not been written about the Nuremberg Code, which states that someone in a medical experiment must choose to be so, “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”?
    Why has more not been written about the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which counts infectious diseases as disabilities, and forbids discrimination against a person because he might someday have a disability? Why has more not been written about the Privacy Act 1988 and the Biosecurity Act 2015? All are Commonwealth legislation, which supersedes state legislation according to Section 109 of the Constitution.
    Why has more not been written about the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Public Health Act of NSW, for those states?
    Why have we not been told about the Australian Immunisation Register, and how we can fill out a form forbidding our information being shared?
    Why have these–and, I imagine, other–legal matters not received greater stress in these pages? I have mostly learned of them through comments (not articles) or other sources.
    Most Quadrant readers know that this tyranny is wrong, morally and by all the traditions of Western liberty. But to answer the arguments of others, and to fight for own positions, we need to be able to explain why they are wrong LEGALLY. The best way to fight for liberty is by also fighting for the law. Both should be precious to us; we are not rabble-rousers, but concerned citizens.

  • Citizen Kane says:

    Peter, here is BBC article dated from 24 September that was already demonstrating the reality on the ground in the UK, however, replete with all the usual intellectual obfuscation that has marked the so called experts and media throughout this whole sorry episode in humanities history.


    Got to love the subtiitle – ‘nearly a third of hospitalised patients are unvaccinated’ i.e. – two thirds are fully vaccinated!

    The so called experts and their political brethren are running out places to hide, as their lockdowns are a failure, their vaccines are a failure and their leadership an utter dereliction and miscarriage of democracy. Soon they will have no other option than to accept their failure or the slowly awakening masses will decide it for them. People will not keep lining up for these near worthless vaccine booster shots ad nauseum especially given their highly questionable safety profile. More traditional vaccines such as Novavax may offer a more lasting and safer option, but they are being stonewalled by vested interests, just as effective treatments like ivermectin have been. Keep up the good work.

  • Daffy says:

    Ah, percentage ‘chances’ of infection. Then percentages on top of percentages (I’m referring to the biosecurity boys). This brings to mind Gerg Gigerenzer’s insistence on only communicating medical risk in natural odds: that is…the odds of becoming infected from a vaxed person and the odds of becoming infected from a non-vaxed. Let’s say from the unvaxed the odds are 2 in 100 and the vaxed, 1 in 100. There’s your 50%…but both absolute rates are tiny. Note, numbers made up for illustrative purposes.
    See here, for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC200816/

  • tommbell says:

    Some NZ doctors are struggling to be heard as the vax juggernaut rolls on. But the pollies/health bureaucrats/elites are so invested in the vax narrative they have nowhere to go but to demonize those who remain “unclean”. That being vaxxed provided precious little protection against contracting/spreading the Wubug is irrelevant. The need for “boosters” will be relentlessly pushed -and again those who decline to participate face being ostracized from civil society (coupled with serious legal ramifications). I read The Conversation simply to see what my enemies are thinking whether it be Wuflu, climated change, the Patriarchy, domestic violence or whatever. For the most part it’s dreadfully predictable – but hey, they’re all “experts”!


  • rosross says:

    Another excellent article. Quadrant gives hope as one of the few remaining bastions of real journalism.

    The mass hysteria surrounding Covid, which is no threat to 99.99% of people should be enough to make even the most trusting suspicious.

  • pgang says:

    It’s not really a vaccination – more like a short-term anti-inflammatory with unknown long term side effects.
    Given the people I know, it also comes with an almost certain chance of highly undesirable short term side effects.
    Anyway none of this matters. It’s all about collectivising the populace into a single amorphous nothingness, and they have finally found the recipe for getting people to go willingly.

  • Tony Tea says:

    I’m pissed off that some research has indicated that AZ drops heaps in effectiveness after a mere 96 days, but I’m not due a Pfizer booster for another couple of months. We, all of us outside the risky demos, may have been better off simply catching the virus.


    It’s persecution time alright! Below is a compelling article on the ten stages of genocide.
    Read the article then see where Bob Carr’s dangerous views on the unjabbed fit in.


  • pgang says:

    Possibly the best short summary I’ve read yet:
    ‘While the vaccines don’t work as advertised, they are powerful pharmaceutical products and they have strange, unexpected effects — not only on the bodies of people who take them, but also on the dynamics of transmission and infection. Deranged medical bureaucrats, who refuse to abandon their dreams of controlling a highly contagious seasonal respiratory virus, have whole populations popping these things like aspirin. They could very well succeed in making Corona into the unprecedented public health disaster that the virus itself never quite was.’

Leave a Reply