`Why it's important to look at the 'bigger picture' behind COVID-19 intensive care numbers

ABC News Rebuttal from 3rd Feb 2022
By Ludwig Van

So, the ABC wants you to know that the vaccine, or the experimental medical drug as we should really call it, may not look like it is working, but it is. In an article from February 2022, they compared hospitalisation rates for the unjabbed and jabbed and stated data shows you are 15 times more likely to end up in ICU if you have not been jabbed and contract Covid than if you have been.
Sounds compelling right? 
​
But before you go and roll up your sleeves, for the first, second, third, or maybe even fourth time, there are a few things they forgot to tell you. 
In this short article, we try to break it down for you. But please don’t take our word for it, you can look at the data yourself in the links provided below.

Out of 6.5 million people who have been double jabbed up until January 2022 in NSW, we have seen 267,000 cases of Covid from the 26th of November to the 8th of January. This works out to be a 4.11% infection rate of Covid in “Jabbed” individuals.
The 650,000 ‘unvaccinated’ people who had ‘No effective dose’ at all against Covid, had 3,552 cases at a 0.55% infection rate.
Big numbers, huh? to me it seems the rate in the unjabbed is much lower than in the ‘fully’ jabbed, no?. 
But let's compare them further to the “Gold Standard” Pfizer trials done in 2020, which ‘proved’ these bad boys were “Safe & Effective” for use against Covid-19.
In the trials done on 83,448 brave souls across different parts of the world, there were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among 21,720 participants assigned to receive BNT162b2, and 162 cases among 21,728 assigned to the placebo. 

That’s roughly twenty times more cases of Covid in the unjabbed than the double-jabbed, or a 0.04% case rate for the jabbed, and a 0.74% case rate for the unjabbed. 
As such, we should have seen a 20 fold increase in cases for the unjabbed in NSW as well, right?
If we then apply those Pfizer % case rates to the NSW population figures, we should have seen 4,810 cases of Covid in the unjabbed population of 650,000 at a case rate of 0.74% and in the jabbed population, only 2,600 cases at a case rate 0.04%. The shocking reality is we ended up having a 100X  increase on cases in the jabbed and on the contrary a number less than expected in the unjabbed. 

Maybe it’s only me but something doesn’t stack up here.
Remember the stated ABC figures, where we have seen 267,000 cases of Covid in the jabbed instead of 2,600, as it should have been according to the 0.04% case rate from the Pfizer trial. These are truly shocking results.
To recap and use the actual % rates from NSW and not the Pfizer trial. If you didn't get the jab, you had a 0.55% chance of contracting Covid, and if you were jabbed, that went up to 4.11%. This means you were 7.5 times more likely to contract Covid if you were double jabbed than if you had no effective dose. Explain to me again how this so-called ‘vaccine’ is supposed to protect me from Covid, ABC?

So using the official NSW data, you were just as likely to be hospitalised if you took two doses of the still only conditionally approved ‘vaccine’ as if you didn't. Yes, the data says that you were more likely to be hospitalised if you contracted Covid as an ‘unvaccinated’ person, but because you were 7.5 times more likely to contract Covid in the first place if you had 2 doses, the odds of being hospitalised for Covid were exactly the same
Maybe more people who ended up in the hospital were admitted to ICU and ultimately died, but knowing the strict policies for medical exemptions for the Covid ‘vaccine’, only the very ill were given them. It’s likely that these very ill people were the ones who were either admitted to ICU, already in ICU, or in palliative care when they died from complications of Covid, explaining the 15 times higher ICU rate in the ‘unvaccinated’.
There’s really nothing to shout out from the rooftops here. The ‘vaccine’, if it works, should at least protect you from having to go to the hospital in the first place. It should not be increasing your chance of developing the disease.
Something seriously wrong is going on here. The peak of around 50,000 cases around New Years of 2021/22 correlates perfectly with the 7.5 fold increase in susceptibility that the vaccine makes you to developing Covid from Sars-Cov-2.
And to make matters even more confusing, given often the data gets screwed with, how do we know that the so called ‘unvaccinated’ have not been jabbed, given they don’t count as vaccinated if they die only shortly after they had the jab. But I suppose that’s a topic for another rebuttal (Please see definition of No Effective Dose in the references of this article)
​
So, whitewash it as much as you want ABC, but remember, if you put lipstick and a dress on a pig, it’s still a bloody pig and nothing is going to change that

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
Covid Weekly Surveillance report (Ending Jan 8 2022)
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/covid-19-surveillance-report-20220120.pdf
Why it's important to look at the 'bigger picture' behind COVID-19 intensive care numbers
https://web.archive.org/web/20220320131947/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-03/how-to-interpret-omicron-covid-vaccination-rates-in-icu-hospital/100800114
Open Science Sessions: How flawed data has driven the narrative
https://rumble.com/vtxi1h-open-science-sessions-how-flawed-data-has-driven-the-narrative.html
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZWreMbG5unf7QxPap9UdQ
No Effective dose meaning (taken from the footnotes of the NSW Covid Weekly Surveillance report)
Cases reported as no effective dose received their first dose of a two-dose vaccination course less than 21 days prior to known exposure to COVID-19, or have not received any vaccine dose.
Using the phrase “no effective dose” indicates that an insufficient period of time has elapsed to allow for maximal immune response provided by the vaccine. It does not indicate that vaccines are ineffective

---