It appears that whenever it seems likely that a case will make it to court they drop the mandate to avoid that, as with judicial reviews you are asking for the mandate to be dropped and its already happened so the case is over. The fact that the actual hearing is delayed, sometimes for years is a disgrace when people have lost their income. That is the state of our justice system it seems. The expense to get to the point of actually having a court date is a significant barrier. People just need to say "No" in significant numbers and it would be over quickly. This is what happened in the UK NHS but the Australian rebellious spirit seems to have died. Hopefully the result of the Voice referendum will make the population realise they already have a voice, then just need to use it.
Thanks so much for your efforts....it shouldn’t be a surprise to see the moral bankruptcy of senior leaders who also endorse gender fluidity and refuse to look at the v rollout...I think it has a lot to do with the simple fact they know full well that they should be jailed for their role in it...
Great post as usual. Good to see the NSW fire fighters mandate being dropped.
I was writing up something on the pre-print version of the Lancet paper, hadn’t realized it had been peer reviewed and published. Interestingly the paper has their R code in the supplementary material which the pre-print didn’t (or I didn’t see it). Here’s an interesting line of code:
# remove unvaccinated as it is biased group
COVDS <-subset(COVDS,COVDS$SEXCD!="O")
(…)
There’s another paper with Bettie Lui as lead author that I didn’t read because they also excluded the unvaxxed. The exclusion in that case was in the abstract (or somewhere obvious). This one you’ve mentioned in your post interested me because I thought they included the unvaxxed. Looks like I might be mistaken based on the R code. 🤔
I think their results are due to selective timing to make sure they capture the artifacts from vaccine rollout waves. They probably excluded the under 65 cohort because it doesnt have large enough ‘waves’ to exploit. Still getting my head around the Cox proportional survival model. I actually think the model is not a valid way to calculate vaccine effectiveness especially if the results (as shown) pretty much confirm the HR is not proportional.
Why use Cox if you’ve got such a detailed granular data set?
Good observations Ivo. My take so far is that all they are showing that the longer older people live, the more shots they can have. After all those that die earlier in the year won't be able to get a 4th shot. So far I can't tell if they have done any correction for that. It will probably be in the code as you point out. That is an interesting line of code you point out. The other thing I observed is that they say it is for whole population over 65 in Australia. When I checked the population it seems there are half a million missing, who are the ones where they can't link census data to immunisation database data. There is a diagram about the exclusions in one of the supplements.
I don’t actually see an issue with the ones they can’t link to the census data. it could be people that salt the data to stuff up their linking and/or opted out of the electronic health record. I think the Cox model may take care of the survivor bias you mention (not sure). Check out the exclusion in aged care. 83% excluded (non-permanent residents). How representative of the aged care population is it if you exclude 83%? ABS shows foreign born die at a much higher rate than those born in Australia. Good way to knock out a bunch of inconvenient deaths if you ask me. 😀
It appears that whenever it seems likely that a case will make it to court they drop the mandate to avoid that, as with judicial reviews you are asking for the mandate to be dropped and its already happened so the case is over. The fact that the actual hearing is delayed, sometimes for years is a disgrace when people have lost their income. That is the state of our justice system it seems. The expense to get to the point of actually having a court date is a significant barrier. People just need to say "No" in significant numbers and it would be over quickly. This is what happened in the UK NHS but the Australian rebellious spirit seems to have died. Hopefully the result of the Voice referendum will make the population realise they already have a voice, then just need to use it.
Thanks so much for your efforts....it shouldn’t be a surprise to see the moral bankruptcy of senior leaders who also endorse gender fluidity and refuse to look at the v rollout...I think it has a lot to do with the simple fact they know full well that they should be jailed for their role in it...
Finally!
Great post as usual. Good to see the NSW fire fighters mandate being dropped.
I was writing up something on the pre-print version of the Lancet paper, hadn’t realized it had been peer reviewed and published. Interestingly the paper has their R code in the supplementary material which the pre-print didn’t (or I didn’t see it). Here’s an interesting line of code:
# remove unvaccinated as it is biased group
COVDS <-subset(COVDS,COVDS$SEXCD!="O")
(…)
There’s another paper with Bettie Lui as lead author that I didn’t read because they also excluded the unvaxxed. The exclusion in that case was in the abstract (or somewhere obvious). This one you’ve mentioned in your post interested me because I thought they included the unvaxxed. Looks like I might be mistaken based on the R code. 🤔
I think their results are due to selective timing to make sure they capture the artifacts from vaccine rollout waves. They probably excluded the under 65 cohort because it doesnt have large enough ‘waves’ to exploit. Still getting my head around the Cox proportional survival model. I actually think the model is not a valid way to calculate vaccine effectiveness especially if the results (as shown) pretty much confirm the HR is not proportional.
Why use Cox if you’ve got such a detailed granular data set?
Good observations Ivo. My take so far is that all they are showing that the longer older people live, the more shots they can have. After all those that die earlier in the year won't be able to get a 4th shot. So far I can't tell if they have done any correction for that. It will probably be in the code as you point out. That is an interesting line of code you point out. The other thing I observed is that they say it is for whole population over 65 in Australia. When I checked the population it seems there are half a million missing, who are the ones where they can't link census data to immunisation database data. There is a diagram about the exclusions in one of the supplements.
I don’t actually see an issue with the ones they can’t link to the census data. it could be people that salt the data to stuff up their linking and/or opted out of the electronic health record. I think the Cox model may take care of the survivor bias you mention (not sure). Check out the exclusion in aged care. 83% excluded (non-permanent residents). How representative of the aged care population is it if you exclude 83%? ABS shows foreign born die at a much higher rate than those born in Australia. Good way to knock out a bunch of inconvenient deaths if you ask me. 😀
All mandates all around Australia should be dropped. If those who worry about protecting themselves from those unvaxed then why do they get vaxed?