Jump to content

Morrisandmoo

Member
  • Content Count

    488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah I said this ages ago in this thread, that thankfully the government have recognised the relative risks (quoting the exact study that I'm also concerned by) - looked at the overall maths and went....shiiiitt is tight....let's avoid giving this vaccine to young people. So not sure why folk think what I'm saying is that controversial to be honest. I'm just pointing out the world is probably round and every cunt is going all flat-earther - WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE! Guess it's just that there is one acceptable position on the internet and if you have any points that contradict that then it'
  2. Yes I take your point, it's not as simple as some of my (slightly provocative) statements makes out. But I also stand by the key argument I'm making.
  3. Sorry 2nd column is last four weeks (9 deaths) and first column is last two weeks - typo (will see if i can edit). I didn't include <20s because it would be (on balance) unfair for you - it would make the mortality rates significantly lower. We are not proposing yet to vaccinate <18s, but obviously given covid rate is zero (or as close as you can get) whereas side-effects of vaccine likely to be >0 then there will be no argument that my assertion holds true for that group (which seems unfair given we are not yet proposing to vaccinate <18s). However for info there been 1
  4. Completely accept the time limitations. All it shows us is that after 4 months more people will have suffered serious harm from the vaccine than would have suffered serious harm has they not taken the vaccine, at current infection rates. We don't yet know (or can estimate) what this might look like after say 12mths, given uncertainty over how long the vaccine will offer immunity. I am assuming that more instances of ICU = higher deaths. I don't think this is unreasonable. Also I am considering the judgement in the context of mortality rates (rigged maths above) - meaning that overall I a
  5. The rigged maths: Last Two weeks Last two weeks Last 3 months 20-29 deaths 2 9 73 Estimated annualised deaths 52 117 292 Population 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 Mortality risk 0.0006% 0.0013% 0.0032% Deaths per 100,000 0.58 1.30 3.24 (sou
  6. Yeah you have misinterpreted it. I got it from the Financial Times: Covid kills, but do we overestimate the risk? | Financial Times (ft.com). The reason I said 10x-100x is because those are the generous side of how you might interpret the results (a rabid anti-vaxxer fact deniers would go for 100x; the rabid TAMB fact-deniers would go with 10x). Look choose to believe whatever you want. Donald Trump has given you permission to do that. To my original point, I'm assuming you are going to continue to blanket deny the argument I presented, without saying why or presenting your ow
  7. I literally posted a link to the evidence, then explained my logic for reaching the conclusion I have on the basis of that evidence. There is plenty in there for you to shoot at if you want to actually make a counter-argument against the specific points I've made (i've got plenty of points myself!), rather than just making dumb comments all the time. The reality is I'm not saying anything controversial at all. And the revealing thing is how violently people are denying that the earth is round, because it doesn't fit their narrative. Folk need to get out of their entrenched position
  8. Fair enough. There is no point me spoon feeding you the science if you to refuse to look at it and think critically.
  9. I know what it is. I'm assuming the researchers have chosen 16weeks as the appropriate time frame over which to accrue benefits given the uncertainty over how long the vaccine grants immunity. I think the research shows that after 16 weeks more people will be in ICU as a result of taking the vaccine than if they hadn't bothered. I believe the researchers have used this measure as a proxy for harm (they certainly say that). I don't think it is a leap to say more people in ICU = more deaths. So I will say it again - at current infection rates more young people would be killed by the
  10. Tyder63 has already made a very compelling argument for why an alternative approach might be considered.
  11. I understand that, but it doesn't refute the point I made. Which is at current infection rates more young people would be killed by the AZ vaccine than protected by it. Which is not what young people would expect to be true given the narrative. Also active infections are going down as a greater proportion of the population get vaccinated, not up. So the reverse of your point is also true - that where active infections reduce (as they are) you observe greater excess deaths in the vaccinated population Vs unvaccinated.
×
×
  • Create New...