The journey that COVID-19 will take us on

[speedpro]

Thank goodness for the vax or it could have been a lot worse

[neels]

Thank goodness for the vax or it could have been a lot worse

Unfortunately there is not a duplicate unvaxed control me, so can't provide any answers on effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing covid or reducing the effects.

As with any medical intervention there is a risk that there will be undesirable outcomes for some people, it does help to have sciency people in the family who have a sound understanding of the subject and no particular agenda to have a rational discussion.

[george formby]

A study of 67 million and the efficacy, or otherwise, of vaccines.

https://newatlas.com/medical/uk-wide...dervaccinated/

[speedpro]

Ahhhh! Mathematical modelling, the sort that Neil Ferguson has done and who was probably involved in some way with this lot. He has such a great track record with all his predictions/modelling, and not just in the case of covid. No mention of the efficacy value used but if it's similar to modelling done here in NZ I've seen values of 95% or so used. With such an effective vax of course patients would have been saved from dying of covid if everybody had been vax'd. I see a claim that being vax'd reduces the risk of infection to something like 16%. The last data from the UKHSA had infection "rates" of 4-5 times greater for the vax'd in nearly all age groups so apparently it has completely reversed over a year or so which is interesting.

[F5 Dave]

The whole point of science is to peer review anything published. If it is rubbish it gets revoked. Take for example that Charleton (not a doctor) Andrew Wakefield. He tried to claim MMR vax gave kids autism. Using a study of 12 kids. . . FFS!

Anyway that was kicked out of scientific lexicon. But sadly it grew legs and people who knew no better ran with it.

So that is the reason big data and working out the outlier studies from the properly controlled ones.

Can't remember who said this, but if in one fell swoop, you took away all the religious documents and all the scientific documents: given time the scientific ones would come back exactly the same and the religious ones would likely take on new forms (just as they have all around the world if we look outside our 4 waĺls).

So the question is; do you want to believe the soothsayers, or the scientists as a collective?

[pritch]

A study found some 17,000 people died of complications arising from Hydroxychloroquine use as a COVID treatment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...5333222301853X

[speedpro]

"The third quarter of 2021, when maternal deaths peaked, is infamous for the start of another worrisome trend, first reported by OneAmerica insurance company, of a 40 percent increase in deaths among 18- to 64-year-olds. “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business—not just at OneAmerica,” CEO Scott Davison said then."

No research required. This is a simple statement of fact. Similar statements have been made by actuaries in many countries. This trend has not gone away. There's a strange lack of interest in what may be causing this trend. Applying "Bradford Hill" criteria narrows the possibilities, the same as was done with smoking and lung cancer.

[george formby]

"The third quarter of 2021, when maternal deaths peaked, is infamous for the start of another worrisome trend, first reported by OneAmerica insurance company, of a 40 percent increase in deaths among 18- to 64-year-olds. “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business—not just at OneAmerica,” CEO Scott Davison said then."

No research required. This is a simple statement of fact. Similar statements have been made by actuaries in many countries. This trend has not gone away. There's a strange lack of interest in what may be causing this trend. Applying "Bradford Hill" criteria narrows the possibilities, the same as was done with smoking and lung cancer.

I would like to read your source material for that.

[BMWST?]

Unfortunately there is not a duplicate unvaxed control me, so can't provide any answers on effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing covid or reducing the effects.

As with any medical intervention there is a risk that there will be undesirable outcomes for some people, it does help to have sciency people in the family who have a sound understanding of the subject and no particular agenda to have a rational discussion.

and the "control group" in the initial vaccine studies have since been vaccinated so no help there for camparisons

[speedpro]

I would like to read your source material for that.

https://rescue.substack.com/p/ask-wh...l=true&r=ch1ue

[speedpro]

and the "control group" in the initial vaccine studies have since been vaccinated so no help there for camparisons

As with a lot of things, individual experiences may be of little significance. Individuals experience many medical events, heart attacks, cancer, etc. However, studying the experiences of a large number of individuals will illuminate trends in the cohort(s). If one cohort is experiencing an elevated incidence of certain conditions then it behoves those responsible to investigate the cause. Once the cause is identified a remedy can be applied.

Given the various theories about vaccines, a study could be done of a population which is divided into cohorts based on vax status. This would quickly eliminate the false idea that vaccines are a contributor, or the sole contributor, to the current excess all-cause mortality affecting many countries. A study of brain cancer patients in NZ, given the recent reported rise in cases, would help to reduce vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious problem.

[husaberg]

As with a lot of things, individual experiences may be of little significance. Individuals experience many medical events, heart attacks, cancer, etc. However, studying the experiences of a large number of individuals will illuminate trends in the cohort(s). If one cohort is experiencing an elevated incidence of certain conditions then it behoves those responsible to investigate the cause. Once the cause is identified a remedy can be applied.

Given the various theories about vaccines, a study could be done of a population which is divided into cohorts based on vax status. This would quickly eliminate the false idea that vaccines are a contributor, or the sole contributor, to the current excess all-cause mortality affecting many countries. A study of brain cancer patients in NZ, given the recent reported rise in cases, would help to reduce vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious problem.

If you go back a few pages you will find the excess deaths were debunked in a reply. it's just a lag period as countries like us and other had less seasonal deaths the year before die to isolation mask wearing etc knocking out seasonal flues etc.
Much the same the increased deaths in the group that had been vaccinated theory, of course more people died that had actually received the vaccination . As the vaccinated group of people was 85% larger. this was always going to happen.
If you compare the number of vaccinated vs unvaccinated with rate of death you will see the real stats. ie apple with apples.
Science doesn't have to many various theories about vaccination.

And of those that were vaccinated and didn't die? or better still and far more relevant the real actual increased rate of death for the unvaccinated?





Or the reduced surge having high rates of vaccination prevent?



I am afraid your supposition actually a reverse of logic
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.htm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...inated-people/
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccinationhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8

What you really need to ask is if this information is so easily found and refuted why is it being spread around? why are people using real data incorrectly or attempting to mislead using official statements completely out of context
Are these people unable to use simple logic and look or are people actively spreading misinformation

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...le/4856504001/

[speedpro]

All good theories, except that the UKHSA data was reported "per 100,000" of each age and vax status. Even with the incredibly biased manner of recording, the data was still taking a decidedly bad turn for one particular cohort. The biased manner I mention is for example where a young boy goes to hospital with a concussion after playing football. He tests +ve and is recorded as a covid hospitalisation despite it being 100% incidental. Closer to home, getting shot dead in a motel driveway, but testing +ve, will get you recorded as a covid death

As reported in the Lancet by Doctor Jonathon Pearson-Stuttard, Head of Health Analytics at Lane Clark & Peacock, the UK has recently had a number of consecutive years of excess all-cause mortality. The recent peak year rivalling 1940 for excess deaths. Doctor Pearson-Stuttard is also on the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at Imperial Collage London so I'm not going to consider suggestions that he has misunderstood the data.

It seems that heart disease of various types is a major issue with more than a few not being aware of a problem and dying at home/suddenly.

The UK ONS has supposedly also misinterpreted the data. Quote from the linked article - "The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has calculated that there were 7.2% or 44,255 more deaths registered in the UK in 2022 based on comparison with the five-year average (excluding 2020). This persisted into 2023 with 8.6% or 28,024 more deaths registered in the first six months of the year than expected".

28,024 extra deaths in the first "SIX" months of 2023, according to ONS.

Many will not have died, not everybody does of course. There will be many who suffer illness without dying.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...221-1/fulltext

[husaberg]

All good theories, except that the UKHSA data was reported "per 100,000" of each age and vax status. Even with the incredibly biased manner of recording, the data was still taking a decidedly bad turn for one particular cohort. The biased manner I mention is for example where a young boy goes to hospital with a concussion after playing football. He tests +ve and is recorded as a covid hospitalisation despite it being 100% incidental. Closer to home, getting shot dead in a motel driveway, but testing +ve, will get you recorded as a covid death

As reported in the Lancet by Doctor Jonathon Pearson-Stuttard, Head of Health Analytics at Lane Clark & Peacock, the UK has recently had a number of consecutive years of excess all-cause mortality. The recent peak year rivalling 1940 for excess deaths. Doctor Pearson-Stuttard is also on the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at Imperial Collage London so I'm not going to consider suggestions that he has misunderstood the data.

It seems that heart disease of various types is a major issue with more than a few not being aware of a problem and dying at home/suddenly.

The UK ONS has supposedly also misinterpreted the data. Quote from the linked article - "The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has calculated that there were 7.2% or 44,255 more deaths registered in the UK in 2022 based on comparison with the five-year average (excluding 2020). This persisted into 2023 with 8.6% or 28,024 more deaths registered in the first six months of the year than expected".

28,024 extra deaths in the first "SIX" months of 2023, according to ONS.

Many will not have died, not everybody does of course. There will be many who suffer illness without dying.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...221-1/fulltext

Mike i have explained and give multiple links to why there more deaths now rather than before,were they somehow not credible?
I have not seen any data that gives higher rates of covid death in unvaccinated vs vaccinated?
can you post it?
Because when i put in the study the very first thing that came up was this
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2VK15E/

UK data does not show COVID-19 vaccination increases chance of death from virusn article published by a site that has previously been found by Reuters Fact Check to have shared health misinformation suggests COVID-19 vaccines make people more likely to die from the virus. However, it has misrepresented UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data on deaths by COVID-19 vaccination status and overlooks context about high vaccine coverage.

The blog, published on March 4 and shared online more than 1,750 times (here), states: “The latest data published by the UK Health Security Agency confirms fully vaccinated individuals in England are up to 3.2 times more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated individuals based on Covid-19 death-rates per 100,000 population.
Social media users have circulated the story’s claims here, here and here.
However, it is misleading to claim these figures show vaccinated individuals are far more likely to die with COVID-19 than the unvaccinated – and Reuters has addressed similar claims previously here, here and here.
The UKHSA’s March 3 COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report shows that the rates of death concerning COVID-19, adjusted to represent cases per 100,000 people, are consistently lower for the triple-vaccinated in all age groups in comparison to the unvaccinated (hereEditSign).

[speedpro]

I haven't suggested that the excess deaths, as per the linked Lancet article and ONS, are vaccine related. The article makes no such ascertion either. I can see where you might suspect the vaccine, given the near 100% compliance with the Bradford Hill criteria for coming to that conclusion. If anyone is making a claim that excess deaths aren't actually a thing then they need to educate Dr Jonathon Pearson-Stuttard, the author. In the ONS's own words there are excess deaths happening in the UK, but as per the "Reuters" fact check, they have obviously misinterpreted their own data. Kinda strange, given their name - Office for National Statistics, that they would get it wrong. They obviously got it wrong in 1940 as well, and every year since.