British Columbia Canada Starts Hiding More COVID-19 Data
BC joins the list of provinces and countries no longer reporting any data by vaccine status.
Well, this is it, if we hadn’t reached this point yet we are definitely there now.
It’s the “let’s just sweep it under the rug part of the pandemic”. Surprise, our public officials are just so full of integrity it warms my heart
When the data stops supporting the “vaccines are effective” narrative, they just stop reporting the data.
In a previous article I reported that Ontario and Alberta stopped reporting case, hospitalization, and death rates by vaccine status, and that BC stopped reporting case rate and testing rate by vaccine status on June 18.
Now, as of July 28, 2022, BC has also stopped reporting everything by vaccine status. No case, hospitalization, death, or testing rate by vaccine status. They also stopped reporting percentages of hospitalizations, ICUs, and deaths by vaccine status. They give no explanation on their site for why they stopped, as you can see below.
I have a crazy theory. They stopped reporting case rates by vaccine status because case rates were higher in the vaccinated populations, but they continued to report hospitalization and death rates because they still showed some vaccine effectiveness and supported the vaccinators narrative.
But then they saw that other provincial data was not showing a vaccine benefit against hospitalization and death (Ontario and Manitoba) and that Ontario had already stopped reporting hospitalization and death rates by vaccine status because of it. So, BC jumped on the “hide the data” bandwagon.
I decided to give our BC officials the benefit of the doubt and assume they reported vaccine effectiveness data in the weekly and situations reports and the BCCDC Measuring Vaccination Impact site as they mention in the above screen shot.
Silly me for assuming. Once I checked, I found that the weekly and situation reports contain no information about vaccine effectiveness data and the Measuring Vaccination Impact page is nothing more than a joke, in my opinion. Let’s have a closer look at what the BCCDC says about vaccine effectiveness on this site.
The page was last updated on March 8, 2022. That’s more than 4 months ago.
Here is what they say about Omicron and Delta.
But as you can see, they provide no reference for this information, and they say this only includes data up to February 2022. That is 5 months ago, and we know vaccine efficacy wanes significantly within 2-6 months (and that’s being very generous when it comes to Omicron). Additionally, the data they apparently analyzed is not available for download. So, we should just trust what they say is true, right?
Next, they provide a whole bunch of effectiveness data from prior to Omicron.
First off, this is out of date data, why is it still reported. Shouldn’t they be reporting, current, up to date data, so they can prove the necessity for the continued push for boosters, remaining travel mandates, and to support that the firing of healthcare workers is not just a punitive measure for non-compliance to a mandate that was useless in its stated goal (to protect fellow workers and the public)?
They do provide a link to a scientific study as a reference for the presented data. It’s a link to 1 study and only 1 study. The link brings you to the pre-print version of the study which was posted on October 26, 2021. It appears that the study finally went through peer-review and is currently posted as an “accepted manuscript” as of April 19, 2022. This means it is not yet the final version of the paper. I am no expert on how long it takes for paper to go through peer-review and make it to the final published version, but it has now been 9 months and there is still no final version published. I do have 1 peer-review publication to my name, and it didn’t take this long.
Let’s also take a minute here to think what would happen if you or I wrote a scientific report arguing against the government vaccine narrative with only 1 reference and submitted that to the government or media. What would they say? They would call it BS because of confirmation bias (aka cherry picking studies).
Now let’s have a look at the funding sources and conflicts of interest reported by the authors.
Looks like big pharma and our government health agencies have their hands all up in this one. I wonder what outcome they wanted from this study? Funding and conflict of interest issues don’t mean this is a bad study, but it should make one want to dig into the details and confirm the findings.
I am not a statistician, so I am in no position to check the data and calculations the authors made in this study. If anyone reading this wants to do that for me, it would be fantastic!!
But I will comment on the study design. It is a test-negative design. This type of design is widely used for vaccine efficacy studies, but it has been criticized. I discussed some of the criticisms in a recent article, and one set of researchers found that test-negative design may significantly overestimate vaccine efficacy depending on the type of calculations used and bias present in the design.
The rest of the page talks about Alpha and Gamma variants and the effectiveness of single and double doses. They provide reference to 2 peer-reviewed publications and 1 reference to their own BCCDC website.
Again, this is a joke, never mind if the studies were high quality or not, who cares at this point how effective a single dose was against alpha and gamma, the variants are long gone. They also mention nothing of how quickly the effectiveness wanes. This is absolute cherry picking and only reporting evidence that supports their narrative while ignoring the rest of the evidence.
To be very clear, if this BCCDC “Measuring Vaccination Impact” page was submitted for honest peer-review, it would be laughed at. For crying out loud, if it was submitted as a high school science paper it would fail.
It’s no longer funny, it’s time this ridiculous nonsensical game ends, and that is the responsibility of the people, not the government.