Stop using the term 'Anti Vaxx'

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Excess deaths are still excess deaths.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Excess deaths are still excess deaths.

Yes. Because of Covid a lot of routine Ops were put off and diagnoses not made in time. It's all in the article.

From the article;

the vaccinated accounted for 61% of all cases, 66% of all hospitalisations, and 81% of all deaths.

Not trending well, right?

from Week 43 to Week 46 of 2021 (October 25th – November 21st).

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
What is going on?
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Too funny so the vaccines, which began being administered in Dec of 2020 has shown zero decrease in our infection and death rates...wait in fact the have gone up and you think that the vaccines are working...
Oh boy, how do you function each day?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
The year is not even over yet...get your head out of your ass.The vaccines started being administered in December of 2020

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The actual research overwhelmingly shows the benefits of vaccination. Claiming otherwise is the lie.

Riddle me this batman;
Why have there been more deaths from covid-19 in 2021 with the vaccine roll-out (free donuts and gift cards)
Than in 2020 without a vaccine?

Que the jeopardy music....

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the virus wasn't here around for the full year in 2020, and certainly not as well spread.

Stricter restrictions in 2020.

Vaccine roll out takes time so well in to 2021 before the majority vaccinated.

Not really much of a riddle.

Started yes.

Saying that changes absolutely nothing about my post.

Not true here in the UK.

I'd post the figures but you won't accept them so I won't bother.

Alarm grows as mortuaries fill with thousands of extra non-Covid deaths
www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Where does the UKHSA actually say any of this?

It was removed or it hasn't been removed, you decide.
The friendly rueters news group is called upon to explain why. I'm not surprised.
www.google.com...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Manipulation, Disinfo and lies by antivaxxers, then. Not surprised.

So bottom line is that the UKHSA didn't say what you claimed.

Ok, whatever. Time will tell.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Manipulation, Disinfo and lies by antivaxxers, then. Not surprised.

So bottom line is that the UKHSA didn't say what you claimed.

You should look into the rueters/pfizer connection while you're at it.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Manipulation, Disinfo and lies by antivaxxers, then. Not surprised.

So bottom line is that the UKHSA didn't say what you claimed.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Ok, whatever. Time will tell.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Manipulation, Disinfo and lies by antivaxxers, then. Not surprised.

So bottom line is that the UKHSA didn't say what you claimed.

It already has.

Now that's funny, less than a year in.

Firstly, as was explained in this previous Reuters fact check (here), accurately calculating the COVID-19 infection rate for unvaccinated people is problematic because the exact population in England is not known, and different population estimates produce significantly different rates.

Lol, trust Reuters?
According to Reuters, there is no way to be sure, without knowing the population they cannot confirm....
WTF? Crazy to trust Reuters.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Ok, whatever. Time will tell.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Manipulation, Disinfo and lies by antivaxxers, then. Not surprised.

So bottom line is that the UKHSA didn't say what you claimed.

It already has.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Then don't trust Reuters. Read what the UKHSA actually said. Oh. You won't trust them, either.

So Reuters is saying the chart wasn't removed from the report...ok this helps your point how?

An article has claimed that a chart showing higher COVID-19 infection rates in vaccinated people than unvaccinated people has been removed from the UK government’s vaccine surveillance report. This is not true.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
From the article;

the vaccinated accounted for 61% of all cases, 66% of all hospitalisations, and 81% of all deaths.

Not trending well, right?

from Week 43 to Week 46 of 2021 (October 25th – November 21st).

It is hard to figure numbers as people manipulate them at will to meet an agenda. As of current reports there is about 57,000 COVID patients in American hospitals. Unvacc still are running close to 6 times more likely to get it and 14 times more likely to die from it than Vac, plain and simple. About 30% of our population is unvac, but they account for the vast majority in the hospitals. The state of Origon near me has had a running 90% unvacc in their hospitals.

The Guardian 5 days ago had a Oxford professor say this...

Covid patients in ICU now almost all unvaccinated, says Oxford scientist
Exclusive: Prof Sir Andrew Pollard says most of those infected who are fully vaccinated will experience only mild symptoms.

Covid-19 is no longer a disease of the vaccinated, the head of the Oxford jab programme has said.

The “ongoing horror” of patients gasping for breath in hospital is now “largely restricted” to people who are unvaccinated, according to Prof Sir Andrew Pollard.

If we look at a good populated city like Detroit Michigan here is last week for them.

This surge is seemingly unending’: Hospitals are at breaking point with unvaccinated patients.

They are also pushing 90% unvac in their hospitals, and it is even worst than that when you ratio it out, which most do not. About 45% of Michigan are unvacced and they account for 90% of the illness...hmmm

I can repeat this over and over with other states, so you can dig for numbers that support you confirmation bias, but the reality is much different.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
So Reuters is saying the chart wasn't removed from the report...ok this helps your point how?

An article has claimed that a chart showing higher COVID-19 infection rates in vaccinated people than unvaccinated people has been removed from the UK government’s vaccine surveillance report. This is not true.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Because it says it was moved, not removed.

If we look at a good populated city like Detroit Michigan here is last week for them.

Why not plug in Florida instead of Michigan

Funny thing is Prof Pollard led the team that created the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. How'd that work out?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I can't resist, moved where?
It does say removed...but I'd still be interested in hearing just where you think it was moved to.
Lol I can't stop laughing

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
So Reuters is saying the chart wasn't removed from the report...ok this helps your point how?

An article has claimed that a chart showing higher COVID-19 infection rates in vaccinated people than unvaccinated people has been removed from the UK government’s vaccine surveillance report. This is not true.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Because it says it was moved, not removed.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I can't resist, moved where?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
So Reuters is saying the chart wasn't removed from the report...ok this helps your point how?

An article has claimed that a chart showing higher COVID-19 infection rates in vaccinated people than unvaccinated people has been removed from the UK government’s vaccine surveillance report. This is not true.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Because it says it was moved, not removed.

Read your own source and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

It does say removed...but I'd still be interested in hearing just where you think it was moved to.
Lol I can't stop laughing

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I can't resist, moved where?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
So Reuters is saying the chart wasn't removed from the report...ok this helps your point how?

An article has claimed that a chart showing higher COVID-19 infection rates in vaccinated people than unvaccinated people has been removed from the UK government’s vaccine surveillance report. This is not true.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Because it says it was moved, not removed.

Read your own source and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Well, I guess the old adage is true. You can lead a horse to water.......etc.

Right, so it says removed and you say it doesn’t. It is just above a few posts. Enjoy

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Well, I guess the old adage is true. You can lead a horse to water.......etc.