UK releases report confirming the fully vaccinated now account for 9 in every 10 Covid-19 deaths in England

submitted by iamonlyoneman from sott.net

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It cannot be argued that the vaccines were anything but a failure at this point

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It cannot be argued that you understand statistics.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It cannot be argued you read the article

[–]filbs111 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It would be interesting to see the statistic for probability of death when correcting for risk factors, for example age.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The handwave is "young people aren't vaxd and young people dont die from covid" but its funny how you look at percentages vaxed and percentages of deaths and it's the same

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1283986/covid-19-vaccinations-in-england-by-gender-and-age/

Like 95%+ of 50+ are vaccinated and 50+ make up like 100% of those deaths. If vaccines did nothing we'd see around 19/20, not 9/10. So if the risk of death from covid with no vaccine is 1%, in 2000 people we'd have 20 deaths. But instead we vaccinate 95% of people and we end up with 9 in 10 deaths being in vaccinated people. Or in other worlds, 100 people are unvaccinated and 1 dies (1%), and 9 vaccinated people die (so that 9 in 10 deaths are from those vaccinated). So 95% being vaccinated means around half as many people die! If 100% were vaccinated, we'd have 9+9/1900 deaths = 9.47 deaths.

It's okay to not be very smart! Relative risk and absolute risk reduction is a difficult concept!

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Absolute risk reduction, you say? LOL https://drjessesantiano.com/know-the-absolute-risk-reduction-of-the-covid-19-vaccines/

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That article you have linked is not about death rates or hospitalization.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I'd! be! more! impressed! with! your! attempts! to! explain! confounding! if! you! used! fewer! exclamation! points!

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

WHAT?!

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ad hominem! Nice!

[–]IridescentAnaconda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not really an ad-hominem. I didn't criticize you the person, but rather your delivery (which is in scope, in my opinion). Also, I upvoted your other comment, which was delivered normally. Confounding is an important issue when looking at these data. I still think safety is a problem with the Vx, as well as autonomy (especially in the face of uncertainty about safety). But if one is going to present epidemiological evidence of harm, one should at least acknowledge important confounders. So I salute your efforts.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

oh and: for someone who claims to be good at statistics you didn't do so good with the "like 100% of those deaths" bit since table 12 is illustrated in the linked article which you surely perused and didn't only read the title

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(3000+1000+500+200)/(3000+1000+500+200+100+50+10+10)=96.5%

So, yeah. Like 100% of the deaths. It's okay you're stupid!!!

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I guarantee the vaccination rate among those dying for COVID (meaning controlling for age) is around 99%. In other words I would bet that taking the vaccine reduces the probability of death considerably for all age groups. This is obvious if you know statistics.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1283986/covid-19-vaccinations-in-england-by-gender-and-age/

80+ has 90%, 75-79 is 100% (probably 99.5% and rounded up or something). In fact the oldest age group with vaccination rate lower than 9 in 10 is 45-49.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

  • If the people dying are all vaccinated

  • then the vaccine is a colossal failure as a measure to prevent death

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

One dimensional thinking. If the vaccine prevented deaths then they work. If 100% of people were vaccinated some would die, and 100% of them would be vaccinated. From the numbers I gave with a 1% base rate of deaths among elderly, 95% vaccinated, and 9 in 10 deaths being vaccinated, would mean 50% reduction in deaths.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://jamescintolo.substack.com/p/new-bombshell-study-shows-mrna-vaccines?s=r

vaccines didn't work

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ah yes, you have no rebuttal to my point that by the numbers, you provided, vaccination cut deaths in half. So you link to a video which has to include the disclaimer:

*THIS VIDEO IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS SUCH. CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN IF YOU HAVE MEDICAL NEEDS/QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED

Anyway, not only does that video not say "vaccines dont work" the article they use to claim myocarditis, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

is an observational study which really does not impress me. Regardless, as that paper itself says:

In summary, this population-based study quantifies for the first time the risk of several rare cardiac adverse events associated with three COVID-19 vaccines as well as SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in adults was associated with a small increase in the risk of myocarditis within a week of receiving the first dose of both adenovirus and mRNA vaccines, and after the second dose of both mRNA vaccines. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia.*

Given the exponential growth of viruses, and the fact that all the numbers show vaccines reduce deaths and slow the spread of covid. Even if it a small reduction, given exponential growth, a small change in growth rate makes a big difference. For example the difference between 1 person giving 9 people covid and 10 is 59,000 versus 100,000 by 5 generations . It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that vaccinating everyone has caused a reduction in deaths from COVID, that exceeds any adverse effects resulting from the vaccine..

Have fun with your schizophrenic paranoia though.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

wordswordswords

but I'm the schizo ok

maybe tell people "I'm neurodivergent please be kind" and you'll get less pushback from people you can't comprehend what they're saying

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lmao the irony. At least I know one of us is capable of doing math.

Check your numbers. 3000 deaths over 80, and 240 of them were unvaxxed meanwhile the vax rate is 95% for that age group. 1000 deaths for 70-79 and 129 were unvaxed while their vax rate is 99.5%+. Do the math yourself and maybe people will think you're smart.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only maths I needed to do for myself was to wait and look at the safety numbers on the illness itself. BEFORE accounting for confounding variables like being a fatass with diabetes, my demographic had a 0.0008 chance of dying and 0.09% of going to the hospital. That's not enough to persuade me to do literally anything, but especially not take a new gene therapy with zero safety record or even marginally-adequate short term testing LOL

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Where does freedom of choice factor in?

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That depends, do you choose to do what the tyrant says or nah

[–]send_nasty_stuff 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Freedom has always been an illusion. People are only free to the degree they are strong enough to resist those that would wish them to be unfree. Strength flows from groups of people circling the wagons around racial commonality which in turn grants: shared culture, religion, history, and values. Reject your nation and your race and you become impotent and weak. Nobody in power is threatened by individualists begging for their freedom back.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We're not individualists.
We're a "small fringe minority with unacceptable views."

Those views include wider considerations than just some flu.