NSW Supreme Crt's Beech-Jones J's application of a subjective test to objective evidence in vaccine mandate case has allowed NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard to escape scrutiny of his failed vaccine policy, against evidence from even BioNTech & Pfizer

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

“Vaccines wane,” Tony Blakely, a University of Melbourne epidemiologis said. “The increase in NSW is entirely expected even before you consider Omicron. Omicron didn’t start this kick-up, but it’s going to fan it, and numbers will go up even faster.”




In the recent vaccine mandate case of Kassam v Hazzard Beech-Jones J of the NSW Supreme Court held that NSW Minister for Health Brad Hazard had every right to be an "advocate for vaccination" for the Minister can be expected to be a "policy advocate".

Since that decision was handed down in October 2021 93.6% of NSW's 16 and over population have been double or fully vaccinated. Herd immunity should have been achieved, but it has not. COVID infection in NSW has reached a record of over 20,000 per day, a record that is more than 15 times the previous high.


The COVID vaccines have clearly failed in what they were meant to do, for they are meant to prevent infection. A BioNTech/Pfizer funded study published on 31 December 2020 found that two shots of the Pfizer  COVID vaccine, which is the vaccine most often used in Australia, is 95% effective in preventing INFECTION.
The study published in the New England Journal Of Medicine defines "EFFICACY " as "INFECTION" not "severe effects", "hospitalisation" or "death". This definition is at odds with the claims made by politicians, including Hazzard, and their civil servants who since mid 2020 changed tune, claiming that they never said the vaccines would prevent infection, but the more severe symptoms of infection, and the consequences such as  hospitalisation, and death.


Despite that obvious failure in policy, Hazzard continues to prosecute his policy of vaccination, of late demanding that anyone who questions his policy face "reality". In Hazzard's word:

"I want to say this. We are still hearing that people are declining to get vaccinated, they know better, they are watching social media, stop, forget it. Get off the social media.........Just stop listening to social media and make sure you are not the one lying in the ICU on a ventilator because you may be the one who die....".

This deceptive "vaccine advocacy" could have been prevented had Beech-Jones J considered the evidence before him in Kassam objectively. He applied instead a subjective  assessment of the evidence which led him, among other things, to not properly consider the evidence before him of waning immunity: 

173. In Section G of his report, Professor Bhattacharya identified three reasons not to adopt vaccine mandates. The first is the short duration of the protection against infection. He states that “after 5 months, the vaccines no longer provide protection against infection”.

In paragraphs 174-179 that follow Beech-Jones provides reasons for giving Professor Bhattacharya's evidence "little weight", none of which concerned the Professor's  methods and reasoning in reaching his conclusions about waning immunity. 

Beech-Jones subjective assessment of the scientific evidence presented by the plaintiff  is also  evident in this sentence in paragraph 181: 
 In the case of (witness for the defendant) Professor Macartney, her level of qualifications and impression as a witness has given me a high degree of confidence in the process she undertook. In the case of (witness for the plaintiff)  Dr Parks, her level of qualifications has not given me that level of confidence.

It should be obvious that scientific evidence needs to be considered objectively by an assessment of the reports presented and the underlying data, and not by the judge's "level of confidence" in the author of the report. 


Meanwhile, waning immunity as identified by Professor Bhattacharya  is obviously the reason for Mr Hazzard's more recent "Booster Club" advocacy. He advocates the policy without explaining why a third shot is needed. This deception would not have been possible had he not been given license to be an "advocate for vaccination" by Beech-Jones J in Kassam.


END 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more