Study shows 29% of the 42 people who have died after catching the new strain had BOTH vaccinations

If I'm reading this right, would that equate to 29% of 50million vaccinated?? If so, that means the vaccines aren't really working as they were supposed to. 29% of 42 people is 12, so if 50 million people died and 29% had both vaccines, that would equate to 14,500,000. Also 23 of the 42 were unvaccinated whilst 7 had recieved their first Jab. This would mean 58% or so dying of 50 million people without the vaccine or 29Million people.

Looking at the data I guess having both jabs would make a huge difference but still 14.5 million of those who chose to be vaccinated could or would still die, so I guess the question is : Is it worth having both Jabs?? 7 died who had only 1 jab, so to me it would seem 1 jab is better than 2 jabs?? Or risk having no jab at all because you can also die from taking the vaccine but not the virus?? Or is "FEAR" still the main objective here and lies are a plenty??

Almost a third of the 42 Britons who have so far died from the Indian (Delta) Covid had been double jabbed, a new report has revealed. With the Prime Minister on the verge of delaying 'Freedom Day' by up to four weeks, new analysis by Public Health England (PHE) has revealed that 29 per cent of Covid deaths from the B.1.617.2 strain had received two injections. And, in a further blow, the PHE report suggests the Delta variant has a 64 per cent increased risk of household transmission compared to the Kent (Alpha) variant. It is also believed to be 40 per cent more transmissible outdoors, according to the PHE figures. The Delta strain is now the UK's most dominant, with more than 90 per cent of Covid cases in the UK now the Indian variant, according to PHE. Amid rising case numbers, the new report has raised fears among some scientists that the UK could be swamped with a third Covid wave.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

If it wasn’t for the vaccines, we wouldn’t even be talking about this scamdemic anymore. One lie being perpetuated into infinite lies.

I’m sick of the sh!t.

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

If it wasn’t for the vaccines, we wouldn’t even be talking about this scamdemic anymore. One lie being perpetuated into infinite lies.

I’m sick of the sh!t.

Just think... Our fearless leaders at the G7 decided we need to be able to make new vaccines within 100 days now... Gonna need those vaccines more often. Guess they are expecting more pandemics...

Or is "FEAR" still the main objective here and lies are a plenty??

Yup!

My personal, non-virologist, non- immunologist but Clinical physical therapist view is: I am pretty certain those who are vaccinated (whether once or twice will only make a marginal difference) are going to have a hell of a job fighting off ANY type of infection while their immune system is churning out anti-bodies 24/7/365 for a virus that
a. they have probably either already had (therefore already naturally immune to so vaccine is 'multiplying' their immune response)
or
b. if they hadn't already contracted C19 their vaccine will compromise their immune system from recognising 'new' variants.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

I am pretty certain those who are vaccinated (whether once or twice will only make a marginal difference) are going to have a hell of a job fighting off ANY type of infection while their immune system is churning out anti-bodies 24/7/365 for a virus that

I'm pretty sure thats not what it does, not 365 days a year forever, and ever. They keep talking about booster shots..if this was 365 days a year..why boosters?

a reply to: vonclod

if this was 365 days a year..why boosters?

To ensure the victory. Can’t have people’s own immune systems operating properly.

a reply to: vonclod

The Pfizer vaccine was reported as 95% effective. Which is true, but it's only 95% effective at decreasing risk of COVID-19 by 0.8%.

As well, in the trials, people who had negative reactions were removed from the study numbers and a whole number of other factors were basicall ynot reported. This clouds the whole study as it doesn't reflect reality. So the numbers presented are essentially pointless. But they used the RRR instead of the ARR/ NNV because the % numbers are more impressive looking.

The 95% number is the Relative Risk Reduction not the Absoloute Risk Reduction which is used to calculate the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV), which then dictates the true efficacy of the vaccine. It is represented as x/ARR...ideally 1/ ARR is the number we all want. Pfizer vaccine is 119/ARR. So you need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent the infection of one other person and reduce their risk by 0.8%.

Basically the vaccines are pretty useless at doing what we expect it to do...other than print money for Pfizer.

The Lancet

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

If it wasn’t for the vaccines, we wouldn’t even be talking about this scamdemic anymore. One lie being perpetuated into infinite lies.

I’m sick of the sh!t.

I saw a woman with a mask on today, and suddenly realized, that no one else was wearing one.

Strangely, it felt odd.

How quickly I forgot.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: angelchemuel

I am pretty certain those who are vaccinated (whether once or twice will only make a marginal difference) are going to have a hell of a job fighting off ANY type of infection while their immune system is churning out anti-bodies 24/7/365 for a virus that

I'm pretty sure thats not what it does, not 365 days a year forever, and ever. They keep talking about booster shots..if this was 365 days a year..why boosters?

Did I mention a time frame? Erm, no I didn't. They still don't know if this jab will make T & B cells, all they talk about is antibodies. If T & B cells ARE produced from the vaccine ('old fashioned vaccines make your body produce T & B cells which then lay dormant in your immune system until needed), then there would be absolutely no need for booster shots. What research is starting to show is the NK cells (Natural Killers) are being 'killed off' by the jabs. Time and research will confirm or deny that. If the vaccine is indeed proven to be killing off the NK cells...everyone who has had a jab is completely buggered as far as their immune system goes and associated problems with that.

You want to add the booster shots, fine. They will no doubt (like the flu shot) be adapted to new variants. Any new variant from any virus is less than 1% different from the original. If you have been infected with the original C19 you are well placed to fight it off yourself. There is also research now which says if you caught the original SARS (Cov-1) 2002/2003 they are the people (like myself) who are having no problem with SARS Cov-2.

Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: angelchemuel

I am pretty certain those who are vaccinated (whether once or twice will only make a marginal difference) are going to have a hell of a job fighting off ANY type of infection while their immune system is churning out anti-bodies 24/7/365 for a virus that

I'm pretty sure thats not what it does, not 365 days a year forever, and ever. They keep talking about booster shots..if this was 365 days a year..why boosters?

Just think of it as a software upgrade,
or a patch...(for passage on that ark).

# 1401

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: vonclod

The Pfizer vaccine was reported as 95% effective. Which is true, but it's only 95% effective at decreasing risk of COVID-19 by 0.8%.

As well, in the trials, people who had negative reactions were removed from the study numbers and a whole number of other factors were basicall ynot reported. This clouds the whole study as it doesn't reflect reality. So the numbers presented are essentially pointless. But they used the RRR instead of the ARR/ NNV because the % numbers are more impressive looking.

The 95% number is the Relative Risk Reduction not the Absoloute Risk Reduction which is used to calculate the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV), which then dictates the true efficacy of the vaccine. It is represented as x/ARR...ideally 1/ ARR is the number we all want. Pfizer vaccine is 119/ARR. So you need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent the infection of one other person and reduce their risk by 0.8%.

Basically the vaccines are pretty useless at doing what we expect it to do...other than print money for Pfizer.

The Lancet

No, I think you’re reading that wrong. If you need to vaccinate 119 people with a vaccine that has an RRR of 95% in order to prevent the infection of one additional hypothetical person, you have, by definition, reduced that hypothetical person’s risk of getting infected by 100%.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: vonclod

The Pfizer vaccine was reported as 95% effective. Which is true, but it's only 95% effective at decreasing risk of COVID-19 by 0.8%.

As well, in the trials, people who had negative reactions were removed from the study numbers and a whole number of other factors were basicall ynot reported. This clouds the whole study as it doesn't reflect reality. So the numbers presented are essentially pointless. But they used the RRR instead of the ARR/ NNV because the % numbers are more impressive looking.

The 95% number is the Relative Risk Reduction not the Absoloute Risk Reduction which is used to calculate the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV), which then dictates the true efficacy of the vaccine. It is represented as x/ARR...ideally 1/ ARR is the number we all want. Pfizer vaccine is 119/ARR. So you need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent the infection of one other person and reduce their risk by 0.8%.

Basically the vaccines are pretty useless at doing what we expect it to do...other than print money for Pfizer.

The Lancet

I'm neither pro, nor against, kind of in the middle. It's a personal choice to take, or not. I don't believe anyone anymore..lol. The cheerleaders, or the "you are going to die" doom porn clowns.

originally posted by: angelchemuel

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: angelchemuel

I am pretty certain those who are vaccinated (whether once or twice will only make a marginal difference) are going to have a hell of a job fighting off ANY type of infection while their immune system is churning out anti-bodies 24/7/365 for a virus that

I'm pretty sure thats not what it does, not 365 days a year forever, and ever. They keep talking about booster shots..if this was 365 days a year..why boosters?

Did I mention a time frame? Erm, no I didn't. They still don't know if this jab will make T & B cells, all they talk about is antibodies. If T & B cells ARE produced from the vaccine ('old fashioned vaccines make your body produce T & B cells which then lay dormant in your immune system until needed), then there would be absolutely no need for booster shots. What research is starting to show is the NK cells (Natural Killers) are being 'killed off' by the jabs. Time and research will confirm or deny that. If the vaccine is indeed proven to be killing off the NK cells...everyone who has had a jab is completely buggered as far as their immune system goes and associated problems with that.

You want to add the booster shots, fine. They will no doubt (like the flu shot) be adapted to new variants. Any new variant from any virus is less than 1% different from the original. If you have been infected with the original C19 you are well placed to fight it off yourself. There is also research now which says if you caught the original SARS (Cov-1) 2002/2003 they are the people (like myself) who are having no problem with SARS Cov-2.

Rainbows
Jane

I'm not interested in any booster shot myself, I don't do the flu shot..ever. I'm not turning this into some yearly ritual either. I was just commenting on the idea your immune system would be permanently damaged, or permanently causing issues, on a shot they say might cover one, for less than a year. There are 2 different types though, MRNA, and the more traditional type.

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777
They got the astra-zeneca vaccine didn't they? I've always seen it as an inferior vaccine to the mRNA vaccines.

originally posted by: CrazeeWorld777
If I'm reading this right, would that equate to 29% of 50million vaccinated??

No.

The 12 people who died with both shots would be 0.000024% of 50M.

Can I ask a couple dumb questions???...

a.) What percentage of the overall population has died from the Delta variant? Pick any random sample group size. And...

b.) What percentage of those (unvaccinated) exposed to the Delta variant have died? And lastly, ...

c.) What percentage of (unvaccinated) persons symptomatic with the Delta variant have died?

Answer these questions, and THEN the statistic in the OP might be a whole lot more meaningful.

a reply to: ByteChanger

I think most of us knew that the first wave of mRNA gene therapy would entail. A slippery slope that has no end in sight.

Just wait, another year tops and the fully "vaccinated" will require constant one-ups and boosters.

The fear porn is just rediculous at this point. I know dozens of people who refuse to even be within 6 feet of me, despite the reality that I'm physically in-shape and they are ignorant, sweaty double-masked greaseball's who live on diets consisting of fast food and tv dinners and only form of excersize consists of shoving food into their faces.

This plandemic is just getting excessively mind-numbing and I can't fathom how we are even living in reality anymore.

This is just getting sad at this point to the point that I can barely even comprehend it, this is Idiocracy on steroids.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: CrazeeWorld777
If I'm reading this right, would that equate to 29% of 50million vaccinated??

No.

The 12 people who died with both shots would be 0.000024% of 50M.

no.. I don't mean 12 people at all... I mean 29% of people

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777
But the 29% isn't of all people or all vaccinated people, just the ones who have died with this variant, so far.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: CrazeeWorld777
But the 29% isn't of all people or all vaccinated people, just the ones who have died with this variant, so far.

No its not, it's 29% of 42 people which equated to 12 people dying out of 42, so I was saying if you took 50 million people and the same 29% died who had been vaccinated twice, the maths would work out at 14.5 million people dying out of 50 million and the rest would be split between those had been vaccinated once (around 7 million) and those who hadn't been vaccinated.