Spread of Covid, will vaccines stop it, will you get vaccines forever?

[johnofgwent]

And yet no one wants to define 'unvaccinated', or provide evidence of this claim.

So what's this then

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

Probably bullshit is the answer, but this is what the ONS are saying and PRESUMABLY forms the basis for what cromwell said .

Now I don't have time to take it apart now, - i might find time later.

I do note statements that the methods in this differ from other mortality documents and that raises my hackles for a start.

[Scott777]

I just have to point out, it's not a question of whether the jabs protect vulnerable people from Covid.  That's seems true, and not really in dispute.  But it's a false argument if the risks are ignored.  Just because it helps Covid does not mean it won't cause harm, and that is unknown.  It's also very likely most people have had Covid in the last 20 months.  That would mean they have a degree of natural immunity, either from antibodies or T-cell & B-cell immunity.  These people should not be at much risk, and in that case, the jab does nothing to protect them.  And Ivermectin works, so that should be made available.  The fact remains, the jab has a negligible effect on transmission.

[Barry]

Thousands of double jabbed over 50s died from Covid [Video] (aol.co.uk)
We have been following the science guv, sure you have.

OK. I can work with those figures using the back of a fag packet calculations:
2683 vaccinated died
511 unvaccinated died
Now, 90% of over 60s are vaccinated.
So to weight that sample, either divide the 2683 by 9 or multiply the 511 by 9.
First method will do
2683/9 = 298 proportion of vaccinated
511 proportion of unvaccinated.
Therefore the chance of death is reduced by 41.7%, which is far less than the government have been saying.

It's almost as if people are dying of old age and other natural causes, just happening to have had a positive test within the last 28 days of their lives.

[Scott777]

but the unvaccinated are dying at a much higher rate.

And yet no one wants to define 'unvaccinated', or provide evidence of this claim.

[cromwell]

Thousands of double jabbed over 50s died from Covid [Video] (aol.co.uk)
We have been following the science guv, sure you have.

Well no vaccine gives 100% protection but the unvaccinated are dying at a much higher rate.

[Sheepy]

Thousands of double jabbed over 50s died from Covid [Video] (aol.co.uk)
We have been following the science guv, sure you have.

[Scott777]

That's odd since no-one recognised it. Proof?

I'm saying it's a virus.

[T00ts]

If you're right, and we have no evidence either way, it makes it quite simple.  Should we take a completely unknown risk with:

A.  A new virus.
B.  An experimental treatment, which (without a public health emergency being declared) was not safe to authorise, which is in stage 3 trials until 2023.

Let me give you a clue.
One of these is an EXPERIMENT which you inject.  The other one is a thing which humans have lived with since the dawn of man, for which we have evolved natural immune systems.

That's odd since no-one recognised it. Proof?

[Scott777]

There is no real evidence on either side. The numbers are too huge for any decent %age of investigation. It will take years to assess what has really happened here. I just wonder what would have happened if your opinion had held sway world wide. Perhaps you have forgotten the very real panic when China was building hospitals in days trying to cope with the sick and dying and then across Europe when hospitals and medics were swamped and desperate. From your avowed position of having got through it with no problem it is so easy to say look at me. Let's look at the poor unfortunates who didn't make it, or never truly recovered. A caring society makes an effort to protect not sit back holding the few survivors as an example that the virus is not dangerous. I can't discuss this with you any longer.

If you're right, and we have no evidence either way, it makes it quite simple.  Should we take a completely unknown risk with:

A.  A new virus.
B.  An experimental treatment, which (without a public health emergency being declared) was not safe to authorise, which is in stage 3 trials until 2023.

Let me give you a clue.
One of these is an EXPERIMENT which you inject.  The other one is a thing which humans have lived with since the dawn of man, for which we have evolved natural immune systems.

[Sheepy]

I'm happy to listen to your explanation for why you think there's a significant risk (i.e. hospitalisation or death) of Covid to healthy people under 50.  As for risk of the jab, it is unknown, but again, you are welcome to look into a crystal ball to provide stats.  We cannot know until AT LEAST 2023 when the trials are finished, and an estimated 99% of cases of vaccine harm (so far) are not reported, so how do you know?

They don't because they have been taken in by lies and now, they have no way back, anyway you are all welcome to question the real scientists but I bet you don't. Like the Chinese fella said they are fecked anyway.

[Scott777]

There is no significant risk, that is a ridiculous thing to say. How many people have died as an effect of the jab compared to the amount administered. I bet you we are looking at millionths of percentage.

I'm happy to listen to your explanation for why you think there's a significant risk (i.e. hospitalisation or death) of Covid to healthy people under 50.  As for risk of the jab, it is unknown, but again, you are welcome to look into a crystal ball to provide stats.  We cannot know until AT LEAST 2023 when the trials are finished, and an estimated 99% of cases of vaccine harm (so far) are not reported, so how do you know?

[Sheepy]

You've not pointed to any scientific material. You linked some crackpot homegrown webpage.

Only from MIT and Harvard, as well as giving them open time on youtube. So don't talk down to me. 

[Nick]

How about you go and call the real scientist a liar and spreader of misinformation and I will point you to hundreds of others around the world saying exactly the same thing. Every single one a scientist. We have even opened the comments up so you can answer live.

You've not pointed to any scientific material. You linked some crackpot homegrown webpage. 

[Sheepy]

How about I give you a page on here? You can fill it with all kinds of non-information and we'll put that forward as scientific evidence.

How about you go and call the real scientist a liar and spreader of misinformation and I will point you to hundreds of others around the world saying exactly the same thing. Every single one a scientist. We have even opened the comments up so you can answer live.

[Nick]

Would he, well in the interest of science I have also put-up pure science with pretty pictures and the most basic way of explaining it. What difference does it make if I use wordpress over the media mafia?

How about I give you a page on here? You can fill it with all kinds of non-information and we'll put that forward as scientific evidence.