CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
Those 11,000 claims might be the tip of the iceberg. The increase in long term sick is way larger than that -
https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/17881606...
Ed Dowd in the 'States has been looking into the disability numbers of which the rise has been staggering!https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/17881606...
He has also taken a different 'tack' in terms of analysis by looking at the insurance claim numbers which are perhaps a better and more accurate methodology.
The numbers are terrifying! https://phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/...
RSTurboPaul said:
Rollin said:
jameswills said:
r3g said:
Just for the lolz, check out the BBC article on the AZ withdrawal :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68977026
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68977026
This is why it’s important to keep talking about it, this is going to be the history past down to the next generation, outright lies. Which is why you have to question everything else you’ve ever been taught. And the wise man would.
r3g said:
Enough of the "young healthy" nonsense. The vaxxes did the same damage to everyone. It's just that nobody cared about the elderly as "they were in their final years and would have died soon anyway" and doesn't make for sensational headlines like 14 year olds "died suddenly" does.
Absolutely this. Edited by jameswills on Thursday 9th May 06:10
CDC very definitely stated you were 'unvaccinated' until two weeks after your injection:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines...
but even this seemingly pro-injection article seems to note confusion on timelines:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03...
The Atlantic said:
And yet, many news outlets and public-health authorities, including the CDC’s own vaccination tracker, are putting people in the “fully vaccinated” count as soon as they receive their second shot of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, or their one-and-done dose of Johnson & Johnson. (The agency acknowledges in a footnote at the bottom of its tracker that it is using fully vaccinated in two different ways.)
The ONS appear to be using / to have used different criteria:https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgove...
ONS FOI response said:
We have produced analysis on deaths involving COVID-19 or deaths from all causes after receipt of the COVID-19 vaccination, available via the following link: Deaths by vaccination status, England. This is an analysis of deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status that occurred between 1 January and 31 October 2021 in England.
In this analysis, following values are used when defining whether the deceased is vaccinated:
Unvaccinated
Vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is within 21 days of vaccination
Vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is 21 days or more after vaccination
Vaccinated with both the first and second dose, date of death/last day
Therefore, our definition for deaths in the 'unvaccinated' category would be any death that does not fall into the other three categories. This would be deaths where someone has not received any doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.
The other three categories used are:
Deaths where the person was vaccinated with only the first dose and the date of death is within 21 days
Deaths where the person was vaccinated with only the first dose and the date of death exceeds 21 days
Deaths where the person was vaccinated with the first and the second dose
In this analysis, following values are used when defining whether the deceased is vaccinated:
Unvaccinated
Vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is within 21 days of vaccination
Vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is 21 days or more after vaccination
Vaccinated with both the first and second dose, date of death/last day
Therefore, our definition for deaths in the 'unvaccinated' category would be any death that does not fall into the other three categories. This would be deaths where someone has not received any doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.
The other three categories used are:
Deaths where the person was vaccinated with only the first dose and the date of death is within 21 days
Deaths where the person was vaccinated with only the first dose and the date of death exceeds 21 days
Deaths where the person was vaccinated with the first and the second dose
Elysium said:
All medicines do some harm. Read the leaflet in a packet of over the counter painkillers.
What matters is if the person taking the medicine receives a benefit that outweighs that. Elderly vulnerable were at serious risk from COVID. Whereas ironically vaccine harms seem to be more focused in younger healthier people.
The death rate for first exposure to COVID in a 90 year old was around 30%. So for every 10,000 people:
3,000 would die without vaccination
vaccines might save 2,000 lives
Severe vaccine damage might affect 1 person.
In which case the maths very much favours vaccination.
If you are young and healthy the COVID risk is much lower. For kids it’s potentially lower than the vaccine risk.
It’s lower now for everyone that has been infected and recovered from COVID.
So, the safe and effective magic potion might not be totally safe and effective, your immune system will do what it does best...plus random numbers that simply can't be substantiated. What matters is if the person taking the medicine receives a benefit that outweighs that. Elderly vulnerable were at serious risk from COVID. Whereas ironically vaccine harms seem to be more focused in younger healthier people.
The death rate for first exposure to COVID in a 90 year old was around 30%. So for every 10,000 people:
3,000 would die without vaccination
vaccines might save 2,000 lives
Severe vaccine damage might affect 1 person.
In which case the maths very much favours vaccination.
If you are young and healthy the COVID risk is much lower. For kids it’s potentially lower than the vaccine risk.
It’s lower now for everyone that has been infected and recovered from COVID.
Let's be honest here please...it was a farce from beginning to end, and people are very slowly realising it.
andyA700 said:
The BBC's darling Dr Ranj was on this morning, talking about the vaccines and how rare the injuries were, so myself and some others who have been injured, asked some polite questions on his FB page and guess what - the comments were deleted.
That wouldn't be the same Dr Ranjit that got paid £22500 last year by AZ would it ? Rollin said:
Surely you can see that non of that relates to recording or investigation of ADRs...Just a load of flannel
If people have died shortly after injection but the injection and any reactions to it are not recorded as even a potential cause of death 'because unvaccinated', that would seem to relate to recording and investigation of ADRs.jameswills said:
Elysium said:
All medicines do some harm. Read the leaflet in a packet of over the counter painkillers.
What matters is if the person taking the medicine receives a benefit that outweighs that. Elderly vulnerable were at serious risk from COVID. Whereas ironically vaccine harms seem to be more focused in younger healthier people.
The death rate for first exposure to COVID in a 90 year old was around 30%. So for every 10,000 people:
3,000 would die without vaccination
vaccines might save 2,000 lives
Severe vaccine damage might affect 1 person.
In which case the maths very much favours vaccination.
If you are young and healthy the COVID risk is much lower. For kids it’s potentially lower than the vaccine risk.
It’s lower now for everyone that has been infected and recovered from COVID.
That is some serious bending of statistics! And actually false, the probability of a 90+ year old dying from anything is 1 in 3, they are near death. They are old, most won’t be well. What matters is if the person taking the medicine receives a benefit that outweighs that. Elderly vulnerable were at serious risk from COVID. Whereas ironically vaccine harms seem to be more focused in younger healthier people.
The death rate for first exposure to COVID in a 90 year old was around 30%. So for every 10,000 people:
3,000 would die without vaccination
vaccines might save 2,000 lives
Severe vaccine damage might affect 1 person.
In which case the maths very much favours vaccination.
If you are young and healthy the COVID risk is much lower. For kids it’s potentially lower than the vaccine risk.
It’s lower now for everyone that has been infected and recovered from COVID.
Here’s the deaths registered stats from 2020 to 2021 by age. It’s nothing like what you say.
Edited to add: the death rate of the elderly spiking has already been done with the disaster that the health care offered to them and end of life treatment protocols, which skews all figures anyway.
Edited by jameswills on Thursday 9th May 10:46
jshell said:
Ed Dowd in the 'States has been looking into the disability numbers of which the rise has been staggering!
He has also taken a different 'tack' in terms of analysis by looking at the insurance claim numbers which are perhaps a better and more accurate methodology.
The numbers are terrifying! https://phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/...
No matter what the subject is, if someone is showing you a chart with two different Y-Axis, it is total bullsHe has also taken a different 'tack' in terms of analysis by looking at the insurance claim numbers which are perhaps a better and more accurate methodology.
The numbers are terrifying! https://phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/...
t. Both sets of numbers have been specifically chose so that they will overlay and look like correlation=causation. How could you have -150% of the population vaccinated??On The Rest is Politics podcast they asked a question in their survey.
What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
mko9 said:
jshell said:
Ed Dowd in the 'States has been looking into the disability numbers of which the rise has been staggering!
He has also taken a different 'tack' in terms of analysis by looking at the insurance claim numbers which are perhaps a better and more accurate methodology.
The numbers are terrifying! https://phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/...
No matter what the subject is, if someone is showing you a chart with two different Y-Axis, it is total bullsHe has also taken a different 'tack' in terms of analysis by looking at the insurance claim numbers which are perhaps a better and more accurate methodology.
The numbers are terrifying! https://phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/...
t. Both sets of numbers have been specifically chose so that they will overlay and look like correlation=causation. How could you have -150% of the population vaccinated??ChocolateFrog said:
On The Rest is Politics podcast they asked a question in their survey.
What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
US politicians when asked how much co2 was in the atmosphere replied between 5 and 7%!! It's 0.042%. All of this is easy to scam because people really neither know nor care!What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
mko9 said:
No matter what the subject is, if someone is showing you a chart with two different Y-Axis, it is total bullst. Both sets of numbers have been specifically chose so that they will overlay and look like correlation=causation. How could you have -150% of the population vaccinated??
Nonsense. It's quite common to have two charts overlayed with different origins and each with Y-axis values, to demonstrate a trend or otherwise corroborative data. If data set A is trending at a steady 3% around a small deviation, showing the origin would reduce the resolution of the graph. If data set B starts from a zero position at some later time, how would you have shown it graphically? t. Both sets of numbers have been specifically chose so that they will overlay and look like correlation=causation. How could you have -150% of the population vaccinated??r3g said:
Elysium said:
No that is the statistic. COVID doubled everyone’s risk of dying in a given year.
OK.
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-ri...
The Case Fatality Rate for COVID for those over 90 was 30% at the beginning of the pandemic.
If I was 90 and was faced with that risk or the option of a vaccine with a 1 in 10,000 risk, I would take the vaccine.
If the vaccine risk is actually 1 in 800, for the very elderly and infirm the maths remains compelling. But it was never that compelling for the under 30’s. And it’s not compelling at all for someone who had COVID before vaccines came along.
andyA700 said:
Well thanks for your last piece of advice, I shall put it where it deserves to be - in the bin.
The Facebook group I belong to, is a registered charity, set up to help the victims and families of the bereaved who have been injured and sadly died. None of the injured and bereaved were anti vaxxers, they were injured by the vaccine. We are not Covid deniers either and we also recognise that Long Covid exists.
Sorry, I was not criticising your use of facebook in its entirety, for many, its a lifeline where they can find support and solace.The Facebook group I belong to, is a registered charity, set up to help the victims and families of the bereaved who have been injured and sadly died. None of the injured and bereaved were anti vaxxers, they were injured by the vaccine. We are not Covid deniers either and we also recognise that Long Covid exists.
jshell said:
US politicians when asked how much co2 was in the atmosphere replied between 5 and 7%!! It's 0.042%. All of this is easy to scam because people really neither know nor care!
If you are talking about the scene I think, that was not just "politicians" BUT those who were in charge of "Environmental" departments etc and they were bidding against each other as in one said five and another said oh if he has gone with five I think it must be higher......etc. ChocolateFrog said:
On The Rest is Politics podcast they asked a question in their survey.
What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
They should've asked Spode, seems like everyone he knows are dropping like fliesWhat percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
RSTurboPaul said:
Rollin said:
Surely you can see that non of that relates to recording or investigation of ADRs...Just a load of flannel
If people have died shortly after injection but the injection and any reactions to it are not recorded as even a potential cause of death 'because unvaccinated', that would seem to relate to recording and investigation of ADRs.jshell said:
ChocolateFrog said:
On The Rest is Politics podcast they asked a question in their survey.
What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
US politicians when asked how much co2 was in the atmosphere replied between 5 and 7%!! It's 0.042%. All of this is easy to scam because people really neither know nor care!What percentage of the population died of Covid?
The average answer? 5%
Or should that be
The real answer being 0.03% (although i suspect they're including with Covid in that number) I would have guessed under 0.1 at any rate.
The general public are thick. Do they not question the notion of 1 in 20 people they know dying suddenly and what that would actually look like.
Roderick Spode said:
mko9 said:
No matter what the subject is, if someone is showing you a chart with two different Y-Axis, it is total bullst. Both sets of numbers have been specifically chose so that they will overlay and look like correlation=causation. How could you have -150% of the population vaccinated??
Nonsense. It's quite common to have two charts overlayed with different origins and each with Y-axis values, to demonstrate a trend or otherwise corroborative data. If data set A is trending at a steady 3% around a small deviation, showing the origin would reduce the resolution of the graph. If data set B starts from a zero position at some later time, how would you have shown it graphically? t. Both sets of numbers have been specifically chose so that they will overlay and look like correlation=causation. How could you have -150% of the population vaccinated??t. Take the chart in question. Change the right side y-axis to have 0 at the bottom, because as I said how can you have -150% of the population vaccinated?? You could still make it go to 250%, or whatever. Is there still any correlation? What about the other side? Change the scale, double it, halve it, make it arbitrarily go from 2-5% instead of 2.5 to 4.3% (WTF?). The ONLY reason those nonsensical scales were chosen is so the lines would overlay each other. ZOMG, it is an exact match!!!1! Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff