CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

Gadgetmac said:

172 million shots administered worldwide and still nobody has grown a second head, mutated into a zombie, died instantly or felt the need to vote for Bill Gates for president of the Planet.

They'll need to invent an anti-disappointment jab for the anti-vaxxers if this keeps on...not that they'd take it, obvs.

By that reckoning I can drink a bottle of whisky every night for six months and if I don't have anything wrong with me in the seventh or eighth month then I never will right?

How about demolishing an old asbestos garage, I worked with a builder who smashed one up a couple of years ago and then buried the broken sheets in the footings of a new build, he didn't wear any sort of protection as he was 60 and said it didn't matter anymore. How right he was, he is still fine so that must prove that everyone can now get rid of old asbestos stuff without any protection from it at all and all the experts have been wrong about it for 30 years.

What a stupid analogy. Whisky and Asbestos are known and have been known for a long time to kill people. The reasons for it are also well known.

Only an ardent anti vaxxer could make such comparisons.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 14th February 15:02

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

People have died shortly after receiving the vaccination (some within hours). However, those deaths have been attributed to other health conditions. I do wish the same logic would be applied to Covid. It seems that any death within 28 days of a positive test by any cause is a Covid death, according to the stats.

You need to pay attention to the reasons why they don't count deaths within 28 days of vaccination it's been explained at least a dozen times and on here over the last 3 days.

But it doesn't matter how many times it's explained you'll still come back with it within a few days

172 million vs 1 suspected but not proven miscarriage. Jesus, it's that your best anti vax argument.

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Gadgetmac said:

died instantly

Um, I've read a few reports of deaths within minutes including one who dropped in the car park leaving. A few within days and the odd one a week or so later. I believe a young nurse died (assuming twitter is to be believed) having slipped into a coma within an hour or so then they switched off her life support yesterday accordingly to her husband leaving him with a young child. Of course the problem is verification with the internet being what it is.

On average 1,370 people die in the UK each day. That’s 57 per hour EVERY hour on average. Do you expect nobody to die shortly after taking the vaccine that day?

How many died in an accident shortly after taking the jab?

Not one instance has been linked to the vaccine.

Even if the reports you’ve read and the twitter post is confirmed as death from the vaccine that’s still a miniscule amount of deaths by comparison with deaths from the disease itself. If you stood the 2 figures together in a bar graph you’d need a scanning electron microscope to make out the bar for deaths from the vaccine.

Just think about that for a minute.

15 million jabs in the UK alone...172 million worldwide.

[Gadgetmac]

Northernboy said:

scottyp123 said:

I actually did an online course in asbestos awareness a few years ago to get the cert but I didn't really pay attention and just had all the answer lined up on a second PC so I could just tick the boxes and get on with life so it all went in one ear and out the other. I actually did the course 3 times as it wasn't viable for all 3 of us to waste time doing it and by the 3rd time I didn't even need the answer sheet but alas nothing sunk in.

Is this attitude to learning why you seem to have so little understanding of vaccinations and statistics?

^^^ This.

[Gadgetmac]

Scolmore said:

Boxer4 said:

In the UK the MHRA should be informed of any complications with medical treatments via the yellow card system.

The COVID vaccines are no exception and those practitioners giving the vaccine are specifically reminded to use the system if their patients have problems. Same for any clinician who suspects that a medical problem is the result of vaccination.

The MHRA issues a weekly summary of its yellow card reported cases following COVID vaccinations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

Needless to say no deaths reported. The question really is do you believe the MHRA or someone who posted something somewhere on Twitter?

The European Medicines Agency are very much reporting deaths from the Pfizer vaccine. They are also reporting multiple spontaneous abortions, along with other mundane and expected side effects such as soreness around the injection site.
Anyone electing to have one of the vaccines should do so on informed balance of risk. That informed decision can only be made by transparent publishing of data. For example, my Covid risk is so low that I will not be having the vaccine. My parents have a different Covid risk and are having a vaccine.

Christ not this garbage again...

European Medicines Agency confirms no deaths have been linked to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine

https://www.thejournal.ie/pfizer-biontech-covid19-...

EMA finds no safety concerns with Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-01/30/c_1397...

[Gadgetmac]

djc206 said:

Scolmore said:

The European Medicines Agency are very much reporting deaths from the Pfizer vaccine

” European Medicines Agency confirms no deaths have been linked to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine”

Like most anti-vaxxers on here he’ll be back again with this one next week.

That’s 2 today who’ve brought up things that have been disproven in the recent past.

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

Our new rule as well is any potential new customer that mentions masks or covid secure permanently goes on the blocked call list.

With every post you make yourself look more and more ridiculous.

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

funkyrobot said:

People have died shortly after receiving the vaccination (some within hours). However, those deaths have been attributed to other health conditions. I do wish the same logic would be applied to Covid. It seems that any death within 28 days of a positive test by any cause is a Covid death, according to the stats.

You need to pay attention to the reasons why they don't count deaths within 28 days of vaccination it's been explained at least a dozen times and on here over the last 3 days.

But it doesn't matter how many times it's explained you'll still come back with it within a few days

172 million vs 1 suspected but not proven miscarriage. Jesus, it's that your best anti vax argument.

You have missed my point.

Anyone who has died after recently getting the vaccine has been said to have done so due to other causes or health problems.

[b]Anyone who dies within a 28 day period from testing positive from Covid is listed as being a Covid death. Regardless of what they die from.

There seems to be a blanket usage of Covid when it comes to this, but it's other causes and never the vaccine when it's so close to inoculation.[/b]

In relation to the miscarriage, I said it would be useful to find out what happened. But I doubt we will never know. I haven't blamed it on the vaccine at all.

FFS we get it and it’s been explained dozens of times why you can’t compare deaths within 28 days of getting covid with deaths within 28 days of having the vaccine.

Even ardent anti-vaxxers aren’t arguing that this is a valid comparison....everyone except for you.

Seriously, stop and have a think about it or if it still escapes you look back on this thread for the last couple of days.

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Boxer4 said:

Needless to say no deaths reported. The question really is do you believe the MHRA or someone who posted something somewhere on Twitter?

Um, ok then. Oh wait, except for the fact you are talking rubbish.

The MHRA has received 143 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 90 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine and 3 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

Why didn’t you post the whole paragrapgh?

Typical anti-vaxxer deliberate misinformation.

OK I’ll do it for you...

The MHRA has received 143 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 90 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine and 3 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death.

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Biglips said:

You truncated the quote. No deaths attributed to the vaccine:

The question was reported. The answer is over 140 have been reported.

Correlation, coincidence and/or causation are other questions entirely.

Yes, questions answered by the reviews and reports conducted which suggested no links to the vaccination.

[Gadgetmac]

Lily the Pink said:

Tin foil hatters will of course claim that any such cases showing a link between jab and death will be hushed up.

As if by magic...

Scolmore said:

Trust will not be built by sweeping adverse reaction reports under the nearest rug though.

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

funkyrobot said:

People have died shortly after receiving the vaccination (some within hours). However, those deaths have been attributed to other health conditions. I do wish the same logic would be applied to Covid. It seems that any death within 28 days of a positive test by any cause is a Covid death, according to the stats.

You need to pay attention to the reasons why they don't count deaths within 28 days of vaccination it's been explained at least a dozen times and on here over the last 3 days.

But it doesn't matter how many times it's explained you'll still come back with it within a few days

172 million vs 1 suspected but not proven miscarriage. Jesus, it's that your best anti vax argument.

You have missed my point.

Anyone who has died after recently getting the vaccine has been said to have done so due to other causes or health problems.

[b]Anyone who dies within a 28 day period from testing positive from Covid is listed as being a Covid death. Regardless of what they die from.

There seems to be a blanket usage of Covid when it comes to this, but it's other causes and never the vaccine when it's so close to inoculation.[/b]

In relation to the miscarriage, I said it would be useful to find out what happened. But I doubt we will never know. I haven't blamed it on the vaccine at all.

FFS we get it and it’s been explained dozens of times why you can’t compare deaths within 28 days of getting covid with deaths within 28 days of having the vaccine.

Even ardent anti-vaxxers aren’t arguing that this is a valid comparison....everyone except for you.

Seriously, stop and have a think about it or if it still escapes you look back on this thread for the last couple of days.

Go on, explain it.

I've looked back and all I can see is use of 28 days to give an idea of deaths, then 60 days to mop things up. All based on Covid being popped on the death cert.

There are a hell of a lot of assumptions being used with the death records.

Then consider deaths after vaccination. Straight up labelled as something else. They had health conditions etc. That's it. No assumption that the vaccine could have killed them, like the assumption that Covid killed people with a positive test.

If you can’t work out why 2 entirely different things, a living virus (which can kill you) and a vaccine (which is designed to protect you) aren’t comparable then I can’t help you. You may as well compare it with deaths within 28 days of eating a shredded wheat.

The deaths within 28 days also aren’t the final figure - they are given out as a headline number as they are quick to ascertain and are roughly in-line with the gold standard for ascertaining deaths from covid namely the excess deaths which take longer to produce. They also generally underreport the true figure dying from Covid as they don’t include those that died after 28 days of catching Covid, which is a considerable amount.

Professional Statisticians have also confirmed that this is an entirely valid way to produce a headline approximation.

Unfortunately for you this means that you can’t say that either:

(a) The 28 days figure is false and nobody is actually dying from covid or

(b) The figure for deaths within 28 days is true but then Thousands must also be dying from the vaccine.

Deaths after vaccination are also not out-of-line with deaths before vaccination.

Try and think this stuff through for yourself and then ask “why is nobody else seeing this basic problem?”

[Gadgetmac]

Harrison Bergeron said:

Gadgetmac said:

172 million shots administered worldwide and still nobody has grown a second head, mutated into a zombie, died instantly or felt the need to vote for Bill Gates for president of the Planet.

They'll need to invent an anti-disappointment jab for the anti-vaxxers if this keeps on...not that they'd take it, obvs.

I've got a rock that keeps away tigers. Do you want it?

Oh goody, you’re going to furnish us with evidence to the contrary yes?

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

Do you actually read anything I post?

I said the 28 day figure is used to give an idea. I then said 60 days is used to mop up.

I'm not comparing how Covid could kill you with how a vaccine could kill you.

I'm saying that it looks like deaths from recent vaccination are all being stated as caused something else, yet deaths within a 28 day or even 60 day period after a positive test assume Covid killed or helped to kill you.

This is also all based on accurate death certification.

Which is correct. What’s the problem?

[Gadgetmac]

Electro1980 said:

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

funkyrobot said:

Do you actually read anything I post?

I said the 28 day figure is used to give an idea. I then said 60 days is used to mop up.

I'm not comparing how Covid could kill you with how a vaccine could kill you.

I'm saying that it looks like deaths from recent vaccination are all being stated as caused something else, yet deaths within a 28 day or even 60 day period after a positive test assume Covid killed or helped to kill you.

This is also all based on accurate death certification.

Which is correct. What’s the problem?

The blanket response that it was something else, in relation to death close to vaccine administration (despite the article you posted stating docs should consider the health of elderly and frail).

Yet the assumption that Covid killed a positive tester, despite it possibly being something else.

Different rules for recording of each. Both of which fit the agenda the government is peddling.

It’s been explained a hundred times that it’s a statistical tool which gives a broadly correct number which is useful for comparison of deaths and death trends to be able to track, at a national level, what is happening.

It’s not complicated, but it doesn’t fit your agenda.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell him our how many different ways it's explained he's just not bright enough to understand it.

He'll be saying it again next week.

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

I see them as nothing more than simple statements of facts.

Death within 28 of a positive covid test is just 2 separate facts corelated together.

Also death within 28 days of a vaccine is also just 2 separate facts, nothing more, nothing less.

You could just as easily write death with 10 toes after a positive test but usually the public are only interested in certain facts and coincidences. Dont you think the public would be interested in who dies within 28 days of being vaccinated? They certainly are with positive tests.

If within 28 days of a positive test is a good average of reality they could always improve on that by actually publishing the truthful correct figures if there is ambiguity.

You're wrong for reasons that have now been explained now over a dozen times.

There is no outcry from the general public for the figures for deaths within 28 days of vaccination because the general public are smarter than you and understand why it's not relevant.

It's just you and one or two other anti vaxxers.

If they published that ridiculous figure and it turned out that in the UK 200 per week die after taking the vaccination would you be arguing that they all died from taking the vaccine even though 200 per week we're dying before taking the vaccine?

There is no uptick in deaths post vaccination, anywhere and there's over 172 million now been jabbed worldwide.

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

Electro1980 said:

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

funkyrobot said:

Do you actually read anything I post?

I said the 28 day figure is used to give an idea. I then said 60 days is used to mop up.

I'm not comparing how Covid could kill you with how a vaccine could kill you.

I'm saying that it looks like deaths from recent vaccination are all being stated as caused something else, yet deaths within a 28 day or even 60 day period after a positive test assume Covid killed or helped to kill you.

This is also all based on accurate death certification.

Which is correct. What’s the problem?

The blanket response that it was something else, in relation to death close to vaccine administration (despite the article you posted stating docs should consider the health of elderly and frail).

Yet the assumption that Covid killed a positive tester, despite it possibly being something else.

Different rules for recording of each. Both of which fit the agenda the government is peddling.

It’s been explained a hundred times that it’s a statistical tool which gives a broadly correct number which is useful for comparison of deaths and death trends to be able to track, at a national level, what is happening.

It’s not complicated, but it doesn’t fit your agenda.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell him our how many different ways it's explained he's just not bright enough to understand it.

He'll be saying it again next week.

I acknowledge the way it is used, yet you still state I dont get it.

It's a statistical tool being used to drive very, very destructive policies. Policies that are most probably responsible for many, many deaths.

Why dont they do the same with deaths shortly after vaccine? Why dont they make assumptions that deaths close to inoculation are a result of the vaccine?

Come on. Anyone willing to answer? I have asked multiple times and people in this thread cannot seem to answer that.

Is it because everything has been gambled on these vaccines? If they are killing people, that cant be mentioned because it makes our leaders look bad.

Because it would be wrong to do so as it doesn't equate to deaths from the vaccine. Nobody is dying from the vaccine.

Deaths within 28 days of a positive test will actually include people who died from Covid. The number of deaths will, when the excess deaths are calculated, roughly correspond to that.

It's also not the definitive figure for deaths but a pointer.

And yes, you clearly still don't get it. You've asked multiple times and it's been explained multiple times. Fortunately the rest of the world does. You're like the kid in class who always needed to stay behind for one-on-one tuition when the rest of us had gone home.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 15th February 10:21

[Gadgetmac]

320d is all you need said:

Northernboy said:

Hoink said:

There is a big difference between being a true anti vaxxer and not wanting this one vaccine. Anti vaxxer is just yet another label being used these days.

There could be a difference, but I’ve not seen anything to suggest that that’s the case.

Those pushing the anti-vax agenda do seem to match the stereotype of conspiracy theorists, and they are using the classic arguments and tactics, which doesn’t really suggest a rational, evidence-based concern about the vaccine.

You and Gadgetmac really seem like the arbiters of what everyone thinks.

You are wrong.

Hoink is correct.



I have had all my vaccinations, and additional ones. I'm not having this one, because it's too new for my personal liking with insufficient testing in my personal opinion.

That makes me an anti vaxxer in your books.

You are mis representing many posters (and by proxy hundreds of thousands of peoples viewpoints).

That's fine if you are not taking the vaccine for personal reasons but not fine when you start pedalling misinformation about the facts/stats as you in particular are prone to do.

Weren't you the one pedalling the Canada email yesterday? "When will people wake up to it" or some such comment.

Try keeping your theories out of it and just stating what is known to be true and nobody will have an issue with it.

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

Gadgetmac said:

That's fine if you are not taking the vaccine for personal reasons but not fine when you start pedalling misinformation about the facts/stats as you in particular are prone to do.

Weren't you the one pedalling the Canada email yesterday? "When will people wake up to it" or some such comment.

Try keeping your theories out of it and just stating what is known to be true and nobody will have an issue with it.

Says the person that guarantees the vaccine is safe.

You have data to the contrary? I'm all ears

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

Gadgetmac said:

scottyp123 said:

Gadgetmac said:

That's fine if you are not taking the vaccine for personal reasons but not fine when you start pedalling misinformation about the facts/stats as you in particular are prone to do.

Weren't you the one pedalling the Canada email yesterday? "When will people wake up to it" or some such comment.

Try keeping your theories out of it and just stating what is known to be true and nobody will have an issue with it.

Says the person that guarantees the vaccine is safe.

You have data to the contrary? I'm all ears

Not yet but I haven't got a time machine, then again neither have you.

I do however have molecular biologists together with whole depts of assorted other biologists/chemists/researchers and PhD endowed consultants who've worked on it. You have who got?

Oh, and a peer review system.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 15th February 12:45