Conspiracy theories

[trueblue84]

Disagree, the evidence of the numbers of deaths/hospitalisations/case-numbers suggest the vaccines are no longer effective, at least in terms of rolling them out for all.

I agree the old, ill and willing should still have the option to take them.

I agree on vaccines generally (pre-Covid-19) having been a significant profound net-benefit for mankind. My kid has all the usuals.



Have you? Compare using this years' data...2022. Let me know what you've found.



As i've said multiple times...my issue is the demonisation & the limiting of freedoms of people who choose not to get vaccinated. This isn't based on evidence (despite claims it is). What exactly this demonisation is based on remains a matter of debate. Conspiracy? Or something else?

But if that improves (i.e. it becomes acceptable for folk to choose not to get jabbed), then i've got no issue with the vaccine anymore. People should be free to take it...or not to take it. Like the flu jab.

For a start, you've posted some very misleading mortality rates for the UK (vaccinated Vs unvaccinated). Here is a chart from 4th march which shows % of the population that have had 1st, 2nd and booster jab...



Your assertion that more vaccinated people have died is simply because most people are vaccinated.

 

[kev]

What do you want?

What have you got?

 

[PKwalnuts]

How much you got

 

[trueblue84]

we may be talking about the biggest conspiracy in history here.

so on-topic.


what's yr take, luv?

What is the conspiracy?

 

[dholliday]

@dholliday- i don`t think that posting all the data you have collected will be understood by the NPC members here, they don`t have critical thinking and react to anything and everything their programming tells them.

I'm sure you've noticed, oddlad, that many on here claim i get my info from randoms on Facebook or 'far-right' forums...yet i always link my sources, and those sources are often official government info.

You'll also see plenty of labelism...lattery the hilariously-mild "dork".


But what's that about? This instictive dismissal must be coming from somewhere.


Here's a link that'll get laughed at by some on here, but it's an interesting discussion between Russell Brand and journo Aaron Maté. More about why Corbyn & Assange (for e.g.) got demonised, and generally why/how those with anti-establishment views get shut down before their arguments get proper responses:

 

[Lobster Johnson]

you're gonna have to be more specific. What would you like to know, why can't you find this data and how does it relate to my post?

There are more vaccinated people than non-vaccinated people. Therefore, more of them are going to be admitted to hospital with COVID. Therefore, more of them are going to die from it.

we may be talking about the biggest conspiracy in history here.

so on-topic.


what's yr take, luv?

You'd probably wanna find a better place to blow the whistle, in that case.

 

[LostLegend]

Good grief! ?

 

[dholliday]

For a start, you've posted some very misleading mortality rates for the UK (vaccinated Vs unvaccinated). Here is a chart from 4th march which shows % of the population that have had 1st, 2nd and booster jab... which shows % of the population that have had 1st, 2nd and booster jab...

View attachment 175014

Your assertion that more vaccinated people have died is simply because most people are vaccinated.

You just proved my point.

I've said this multiple-times: the vaccine no longer appears to protect folk from Covid as the vaccinated account for roughly 90% of deaths/hospitalisations. The unvaxxed only 10%.

You now say that i'm being misleading, and to prove it you show me a graph that says 90% are vaccinated. Ergo, 10% are unvaccinated.


So...this means that statistically it appears to make no difference if you're jabbed or not.


So...how is my argument in any way misleading? You've just posted data which backs it up.

 

[PKwalnuts]

There are more vaccinated people than non-vaccinated people. Therefore, more of them are going to be admitted to hospital with COVID. Therefore, more of them are going to die from it.


You'd probably wanna find a better place to blow the whistle, in that case.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FP_20211108_influencer_operations_dawson_weinberg_v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFrrPw9Jj5AhWThFwKHTonA2AQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3BMmCqMUYazhNCPRs3KkO9

Hey @dholliday what do you think of this?

When I see some of your posts I can't help but wonder what your reasons are for taking so much time on an Everton Ale House forum to push your Agenda(21)

 

[Lobster Johnson]

You just proved my point.

I've said this multiple-times: the vaccine no longer appears to protect folk from Covid as the vaccinated account for roughly 90% of deaths/hospitalisations. The unvaxxed only 10%.

You now say that i'm being misleading, and to prove it you show me a graph that says 90% are vaccinated. Ergo, 10% are unvaccinated.


So...this means that statistically it appears to make no difference if you're jabbed or not.


So...how is my argument in any way misleading? You've just posted data which backs it up.

TO my eye, you're only comparing the raw number of deaths and not adjusting for the fact that one population is 9 times larger than the other. Or comparing other indicators such as co-morbidities

 

[Lobster Johnson]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FP_20211108_influencer_operations_dawson_weinberg_v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFrrPw9Jj5AhWThFwKHTonA2AQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3BMmCqMUYazhNCPRs3KkO9

Hey @dholliday what do you think of this?

When I see some of your posts I can't help but wonder what your reasons are for taking so much time on an Everton Ale House forum to push your Agenda(21)

Cos he's banned from teh Everton current affairs forum

 

[Goat]

You cant beat delusion with facts.

Its impossible.

 

[trueblue84]

You just proved my point.

I've said this multiple-times: the vaccine no longer appears to protect folk from Covid as the vaccinated account for roughly 90% of deaths/hospitalisations. The unvaxxed only 10%.

You now say that i'm being misleading, and to prove it you show me a graph that says 90% are vaccinated. Ergo, 10% are unvaccinated.


So...this means that statistically it appears to make no difference if you're jabbed or not.


So...how is my argument in any way misleading? You've just posted data which backs it up.

Here's a scenario...

I put a thousand people in a room, 999 have blue eyes and 1 has green eyes.

2 people in the room who have blue eyes die.

That does not mean that, statistically, blue eyed people are more likely to die than green eyed people.

 

[dholliday]

.

TO my eye, you're only comparing the raw number of deaths and not adjusting for the fact that one population is 9 times larger than the other. Or comparing other indicators such as co-morbidities

9 times larger, and about 12 times more likely to die. You would assume, if the vax worked, the number of likely to die would be less than the times-larger number...not more. And unvaxxed folk also have co-morbidities.

The boosted death-rate is a worry. @trueblue84 noted around 60-70% are boosted, yet account for 85% of deaths.

month-of-May boosted deaths: 1155
other-vaccinated deaths: 127
unvaccinated deaths: 82


Should we be concerned about this?


And if you're not...why not?

 

[Amw79]

You haven't, but have now. I appreciate the detail. I understand your argument, but it reads like skirting away from vax-issues rather than facing them.

I don’t think it does. I’ve probably spent more time looking at the yellow card system than most on here, so it bugs me when I see it misused. I’m advocating rigorous and responsible usage of data. I think you often do the opposite.

In the real-world, victims of the vaccine have no other option than to self-report, as the alternatives are logistically & technically too complex. That these reports can then be dismissed as 'unsubstantiated' comes across as quite convenient.

People who suspect a side effect should absolutely report it to the appropriate systems.

But until they are substantiated, they remain unsubstantiated by definition. That’s not “convenient”, that’s just how it is. It probably wasn’t convenient for Astra Zeneca that the serious blood clot issue was investigated and substantiated by further evidence, and as a result pretty much shelved in the UK, but that’s what happened.

Nothing specific to say relating to the rest of your post other than that the “long term effect/lack of long term MRNA testing” arguments which you make in reference to menstrual cycle issues and heart issues, can be a bit of a double edged sword.

It’s obviously true that we don’t have “long term data” on this specific MRNA vaccine. But how long term is long term? This is a can which could be kicked down the road for a lifetime - in the year 2035 - “Sure the vaccines are safe for the first 15 years, but in year 16 everyone could drop dead”. This is technically true, but science is necessarily based on inductive evidence.

The other point is that we don’t have long term data in relation to Covid 19 yet, and what the differential would be between negative long term Covid effects between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Maybe anyone unvaccinated who gets Covid drops dead in year 16, but everyone vaccinated is fine. Any can that you kick down the road in relation to long term effects of a vaccine, you could do the same in terms of the virus itself.