Asking @EthicalSkeptic to graph something is like asking RFK to be honest about vaccines. cc. @henjin256

Barry, you're correct that New Zealand's reported COVID-19 vaccination coverage is now lower than 95%. But this isn't quite the flex you think it is. As is the case with large data sets things can be quite messy. And calling the 95% figure "absolute rubbish" suggests you haven't understood how New Zealand calculated its vaccination coverage, or how those calculations subsequently changed. Let me share about the government's original reports, the population denominator revisions and the actual vaccination records released under the Official Information Act. The results are rather interesting. 1. The 95% figure wasn't made up. It was officially reported. On 1 March 2022, New Zealand's Office of the Auditor-General reported that 4,003,247 people aged 12 and older had received two COVID-19 vaccine doses. That represented 95.1% of the eligible population, according to the official reporting methodology at the time. Eligible being 12+ years and older You can disagree with the methodology. But calling an officially published government statistic "absolute rubbish" doesn't make it disappear. My original post was written in December 2023, using historical vaccination figures released at the time. The tally that was shared publicly was 4,051,754 as my screenshot from December (soon after you stole and shared your data with known grifters) shows. The screenshot also shows first-dose coverage, whereas my accompanying statement concerned two doses. The two-dose claim therefore requires its own supporting source, which the Auditor-General's report provides for March 2022. The original percentage was genuine. It just needs to be understood in its historical context. Interestingly, the government subsequently revised its methodology. And this is where what you eventually discovered become particularly relevant.

Sometimes I genuinely struggle to come to terms with how we operate as humanity. Some ideas are simply bad ideas. Not every question represents a legitimate scientific controversy, and not every disagreement means the evidence is evenly balanced. Take measles. The evidence that measles can cause serious harm, and that vaccination provides highly effective protection, is about as clear as medical evidence gets. Yet somehow, decades of research have been turned into what many people perceive as an open debate. (Yesterday I was confronted with "independent" thinking.) And I suspect something rather disturbing happens along the way. For many, the mere existence of a debate becomes evidence that there must be something to debate. Someone raises a question, someone else challenges the answer, and suddenly established scientific findings are treated as just another opinion. The appearance of controversy becomes more persuasive than the weight of evidence. I'm all for asking questions. Science depends on it. But # asking a question is not the same as producing evidence, and manufacturing doubt is not the same as discovering a problem.# We should never stop questioning what we know. But we also need to recognise when those questions have been asked, investigated and answered, repeatedly. At some point, we need to stop treating every unsupported claim as though it deserves equal standing with decades of rigorous scientific research. Demand evidence. Challenge misinformation. Stop mistaking confidence for competence and controversy for credibility. And above all, when children's health is at stake, we have a responsibility to act on what the evidence actually shows. Protect your children. Vaccinate them. Speak up when misinformation puts others at risk. Because the consequences of getting this wrong aren't theoretical. They're measured in preventable suffering, permanent disabilities and lives lost.

"It’s the truth. Ladies and gentlemen, there was no pandemic. There was no virus. They use these PCR tests to identify Covid, which is coronavirus which has been around for thousands of years and we’ve all had it. It’s the common cold ladies and gentlemen."