You are talking about a totally unimportant statistic. The statistic which should be highlighted is the death rate from those who have had Covid is a massive 0.8%. If you factor in that 90% of the 0.8 % are over the age of 70 then the only conclusion you can possibly draw is that the world went absolutely insane to prevent the spread of a virus that is dangerous to virtually no one under the age of 70.
The world has been conned . As an exercise in how spreading fear makes the masses easy to control it was a blinding success.
Given that covid outcomes are so heavily age stratified and the vaccines seemingly do not have any meaningful impact on transmission - can you make an argument that rolling out (and indeed coercing) the vaccines onto the whole population was still a good decision?
Have you read anything into the concept of "original antigenic sin" and why the idea of vaccinating a whole population with a narrow and out of date spike may cause more issues than it solves in the long run?
Does the ONS define unvaccinated as someone who has never taken a COVID vaccine? Or is it everyone who isn't two weeks post a second dose? If it is the latter, it will inevitably catch some of the cases of the verified harms of the vaccine and lump them incorrectly with the unvaccinated category.
In hindsight, would a better strategy have been to offer the vaccine to all over 65s and clinically vulnerable and let the rest of the population acquire immunity from a natural infection?
There are a number of highly qualified clinical researchers sounding vaccine caution, some of whom say they have been vaccinated themselves, some not. They suggest all cause mortality is showing higher than usual death rates from a number of causes including heart related conditions and cancers in younger people, and additionally reduced fertility in both males and females and higher than usual rates of emergence and re-emergence of autoimmune conditions and conditions such as shingles caused by dormant viruses in the body since mass Covid vaccination, and they provide scientific explanations of the reasons why they believe vaccine harm may be involved. The vaccines being questioned are the MRNA versions which are the only ones used in the US and now the preferred (and much more expensive) ones here in the UK. The suggestion is that repeated doses make these latent longer term issues more likely. Against this background, and the reality that most people now have some level of immunity acquired either by vaccination or infection or both, do you not believe we should exercise much greater caution about promoting repeated doses, particularly in young people, until significantly more research and evidence gathering has been undertaken by parties not beholden to the big pharmaceutical companies. Pretty much all these companies have been previously fined multiple times for malpractice, Covid has been a bonanza, the gift which keeps on giving. I don’t believe in conspiracies but I do believe in greed leading to adverse events being swept under the proverbial carpet.
It seems from the latest leaked messages between Hancock and Johnson etc that they knew that the risk from this virus was negligible to the majority of us and yet we were all subjected to the nonsense of masks vaccines and myriad stupid rules of congregation. Was the ruination of the world economy intentional? I struggle to come up with an alternative answer.
Thanks for the explanation. What I am still not clear on is what factors are at play to reconcile the age standardised data to the raw data *by age band* that was quoted by Zuby and others.
Is it simply that the 10 year age bands are too wide and therefore age is still a factor *within* those bands?
The dataset in the ONS spreadsheet does not appear to have sufficient detail to recalculate the age standardized chart that you and the ONS quoted, so presumably there is an additional dataset somewhere that supplements this one, that would provide the answer?
You are talking about a totally unimportant statistic. The statistic which should be highlighted is the death rate from those who have had Covid is a massive 0.8%. If you factor in that 90% of the 0.8 % are over the age of 70 then the only conclusion you can possibly draw is that the world went absolutely insane to prevent the spread of a virus that is dangerous to virtually no one under the age of 70.
The world has been conned . As an exercise in how spreading fear makes the masses easy to control it was a blinding success.
A few thoughts:
Given that covid outcomes are so heavily age stratified and the vaccines seemingly do not have any meaningful impact on transmission - can you make an argument that rolling out (and indeed coercing) the vaccines onto the whole population was still a good decision?
Have you read anything into the concept of "original antigenic sin" and why the idea of vaccinating a whole population with a narrow and out of date spike may cause more issues than it solves in the long run?
Does the ONS define unvaccinated as someone who has never taken a COVID vaccine? Or is it everyone who isn't two weeks post a second dose? If it is the latter, it will inevitably catch some of the cases of the verified harms of the vaccine and lump them incorrectly with the unvaccinated category.
In hindsight, would a better strategy have been to offer the vaccine to all over 65s and clinically vulnerable and let the rest of the population acquire immunity from a natural infection?
There are a number of highly qualified clinical researchers sounding vaccine caution, some of whom say they have been vaccinated themselves, some not. They suggest all cause mortality is showing higher than usual death rates from a number of causes including heart related conditions and cancers in younger people, and additionally reduced fertility in both males and females and higher than usual rates of emergence and re-emergence of autoimmune conditions and conditions such as shingles caused by dormant viruses in the body since mass Covid vaccination, and they provide scientific explanations of the reasons why they believe vaccine harm may be involved. The vaccines being questioned are the MRNA versions which are the only ones used in the US and now the preferred (and much more expensive) ones here in the UK. The suggestion is that repeated doses make these latent longer term issues more likely. Against this background, and the reality that most people now have some level of immunity acquired either by vaccination or infection or both, do you not believe we should exercise much greater caution about promoting repeated doses, particularly in young people, until significantly more research and evidence gathering has been undertaken by parties not beholden to the big pharmaceutical companies. Pretty much all these companies have been previously fined multiple times for malpractice, Covid has been a bonanza, the gift which keeps on giving. I don’t believe in conspiracies but I do believe in greed leading to adverse events being swept under the proverbial carpet.
Have you changed your mind on this yet ?
It seems from the latest leaked messages between Hancock and Johnson etc that they knew that the risk from this virus was negligible to the majority of us and yet we were all subjected to the nonsense of masks vaccines and myriad stupid rules of congregation. Was the ruination of the world economy intentional? I struggle to come up with an alternative answer.
What is a "smiley"?
Thanks for the explanation. What I am still not clear on is what factors are at play to reconcile the age standardised data to the raw data *by age band* that was quoted by Zuby and others.
Is it simply that the 10 year age bands are too wide and therefore age is still a factor *within* those bands?
The dataset in the ONS spreadsheet does not appear to have sufficient detail to recalculate the age standardized chart that you and the ONS quoted, so presumably there is an additional dataset somewhere that supplements this one, that would provide the answer?