A few weeks ago, I wrote an article “Is Santa Clara County, CA breakthrough data fake?”. I explored how their breakthrough statistics graph changes in weird retroactive ways.

I visited that particular county a couple of weeks ago to see my relatives. The weather was spectacular and so was the sun setting into the ocean.

Anyway, I checked SCC’s latest vaxxed vs unvaxxed stats and was shocked. SCC is the place where vaccines are still working as well as in the original Pfizer study! How could this be?

The case rate among the vaccine-free is 103.6, while the rate among the vaccinated is 27 per 100,000. This implies vaccine effectiveness at preventing infection, as

Vaccine Effectiveness = 1-27/103.6 = 73%.

Wow. It is as if the clock stopped in March 2021, and effectiveness of the vaccine did not drop at all, despite Omicron and all the “waning immunity” that we heard so much about. A question arises: **is this possibly fake**?

The answer is, yes, **Santa Clara County case rates by vaccination status ARE FAKE**. It became easier to prove since they switched to the same age range for all groups.

We have a basic formula (CR means Case Rate):

Overall CR = “Vaxfree CR” * “Vaxfree Population Percentage”

+ “Vaxxed CR” * “Vaxxed Population Percentage”

or

**Overall CR** = “**Vaxfree CR**” * “Vaxfree Population Percentage”

+ “**Vaxxed CR**” * (1-“Vaxfree Population Percentage”)

We know everything from this equation (the bolded pieces above) from the Santa Clara County graph. What we do NOT know is “Vaxfree Population Percentage”, which we will replace with “X” to look more like an algebra equation.

`31.5 = 103.6*X + 27.0*(1-X)`

This is a very simple “linear equation” involving one variable “X”. Solving it

```
31.5=103.6X + 27 - 27X
31.5-27=76.6X
76.6X = 4.5
X = 0.058 = 5.8%.
```

So, the Santa Clara graph implies population of 5+ years old where only 5.8% are vax free.

But does Santa Clara really have such a low percentage of vaccine-free persons 5+ years of age? Of course not. **Santa Clara County has 13.1% vax-free persons over the age of 5.**

In other words, Santa Clara County undercounts its vax-free persons, but ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CASE RATES, by 2.25 times, leading to a over two times OVERSTATEMENT of case rate disparity.

There is a small confounder of “one-time vaccinated persons”, which Santa Clara is saying there is 111,243, or only 0.9% of the population. This number of people will do nothing to reduce this discrepancy. We might as well ignore them for now.

So we have:

Case rate statistics suggest that there is 5.8% vaccine-free persons over the age of 5

County’s own statistics suggests that there is 13.1% vaccine-free persons over the age of 5

This discrepancy alone suggests that the county’s data is fake and has an internal contradiction to the official vaccination percentages.

Please note that it is not my job to decipher how exactly they achieve fake numbers, my job is simply to report that they are nonsensical and inconsistent. There is two possibilities: they might simply use incorrect population denominator, or they might exclude any infections occurring 14 days after dose 2 or 14 days after dose 3. They might be using both of these dishonest methods to arrive at their fake numbers.

Without knowing what was faked, it is difficult to guess what the true numbers are, but we can make an educated guess.

If the percentage of vaccine-free persons is 2.25 times greater than implied in the official statistics, then their case rate is roughly 2.25 times less. Similarly, if the percentage of vaccinated persons is 86.9% instead of 94.2%, the vaccinated case rate is 94.2/86.9 times greater.

```
Adjusted vaccine-free rate = 103.6/2.25 = 46 per 100,000
Adjusted vaxxed rate = 27*94.2/86.9 = 29.26 per 100,000.
```

This would be relatively consistent with 44% recently-boosted population. The recalculated vaccine effectiveness is

VE = 1-29.26/46 = 36%.

These numbers would be similar to the UK numbers. Note that without knowing what exactly was faked and how, estimates of “adjusted rates” are only guesses, but they should get us into the ballpark.

David Watson added a very intelligent comment about “cases” and “casedemic” among the unvaccinated, caused by “test the vax-free” rules:

Another source of fraud is defining cases. The numbers are always grossly incomplete, at best, or manipulated. They boost the numbers by increasing tests. If you look for contagious viruses and pcr it 42 times, you'll get lots of cases, mostly asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. So spikes in "cases" are simply spikes in testing. The results are irrelevant. We need to ignore stats that aren't symptomatic, and the symptomatic should be divided by the entire, asymptomatic population to see the real risk. It has always been, and will always be, a very small fraction.

Ignore cases. They're inherently fake.

Another source of fraud is defining cases. The numbers are always grossly incomplete, at best, or manipulated. They boost the numbers by increasing tests. If you look for contagious viruses and pcr it 42 times, you'll get lots of cases, mostly asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. So spikes in "cases" are simply spikes in testing. The results are irrelevant. We need to ignore stats that aren't symptomatic, and the symptomatic should be divided by the entire, asymptomatic population to see the real risk. It has always been, and will always be, a very small fraction.

Ignore cases. They're inherently fake.

Yes. How come adjacent San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Alameda counties seem to have entirely normal winter-seasonal and decaying COVID curves, all with extremely similar demographics? Santa Clara government, heart of Silicon Valley, home to Facebook (Instagram), Twitter, Apple, Google (YouTube) and many more anti-American front organizations has been completely occupied. MUCH of the money that Gavin Newsom will generate to retain his Lefty governorship in November (if post-vaxx Guillain-Barre doesn't remove him from the field) will come from Santa Clara techstock billionaires. I am finding it hard to be surprised that data massage continues apace.