Why most people who now die with Covid in England have had a vaccination

originally posted by: LordAhriman
It's actually the polar opposite of what you claim.

Yeah ok ROFLMAO! Coming to you soon, a viral challenge ;-) Try not to leave a mess....

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: slatesteam

Fair. Let's get back on topic.

Covid is real, it is deadly, the vaccines work, and OP is a flat out lie.

Pffft debone “work”.

Did you not read this thread’s OP, or you still deflecting?

Sucks to suck bruh

a reply to: HawkEyi

The exact opposite in America.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

That's the thing that gets me, plenty of us who are not taking this vaccine have taken plenty of others. The risk vs reward is not high enough in this situation to warrant taking it. Additionally if you are vaccinated why should you be afraid of those who are not?

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Are you going to claim or suggest that the unvaccinated red states are now causing more issues compared to the blue states that are mostly fully vaccinated yeah?

IMO Covid19 with this concept of COVID19 passports is the beginning which will lead to the Mark of the Beast, a computer chip or tattoo.


a reply to: Nathan-D

20 min video discussing all that this thread addresses with scientific support and data.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: LordAhriman

You also seem to be ignoring the tweet i posted in the post.
Source

vaccine, but surprising. Most deaths there are among those over 50, who are more likely to be vaccinated than those under 50, who rarely die whether vaccinated or not. We should see similar data here, if not now, then soon.

Before the vaccine was invented most of the people dying were over 50. Was that because of the vaccine?

a reply to: HawkEyi
Yes. Fact.

a reply to: HawkEyi

Die with cobid, or die of covid?

A vaxxed senior who has asymptomatic covid is more likely to die of a heart attack than a young healthy unvaxxed person.

That doesn't mean that the vaccine is ineffective, it means that old people die more than young people.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: LordAhriman

You also seem to be ignoring the tweet i posted in the post.
Source

vaccine, but surprising. Most deaths there are among those over 50, who are more likely to be vaccinated than those under 50, who rarely die whether vaccinated or not. We should see similar data here, if not now, then soon.

Before the vaccine was invented most of the people dying were over 50. Was that because of the vaccine?

So would you say the vaccine is effective at saving the lives of those over 50?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

We were told that getting the vaccine will keep you from getting sick enough to be hospitalized. I have read it so many times on this site alone.

A vaxxed senior who has asymptomatic covid is more likely to die of a heart attack than a young healthy unvaxxed person.

That doesn't mean that the vaccine is ineffective

Sure seems that the vaccine was ineffective for the vaxxed people that end up dying of COVID.

Think about it people.
Do you see a lot of people dying of polio?
How about smallpox?

No?

That's because the vaccines for those diseases were actually effective.

COVID vaccine... not so much.
The professionals in charge admit that you can get COVID after you are vaccinated and you can spread it.
Now they are in the position of being forced to admit that the vaccinated are still dying of the disease.

That doesn't amount to what I call an effective vaccine.

a reply to: HawkEyi
Hypothetically:
If everyone had been vaccinated, it could only be the vaccinated that die......because there would be no unvaccinated in that hypothetical world.

Vaccines rarely provide full protection from disease. Nevertheless, partially effective (imperfect) vaccines may be used to protect both individuals and whole populations. We studied the potential impact of different types of imperfect vaccines on the evolution of pathogen virulence (induced host mortality) and the consequences for public health. Here we show that vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage. In contrast, infection-blocking vaccines induce no such effects, and can even select for lower virulence.

Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: LordAhriman

You also seem to be ignoring the tweet i posted in the post.
Source

vaccine, but surprising. Most deaths there are among those over 50, who are more likely to be vaccinated than those under 50, who rarely die whether vaccinated or not. We should see similar data here, if not now, then soon.

Before the vaccine was invented most of the people dying were over 50. Was that because of the vaccine?

So would you say the vaccine is effective at saving the lives of those over 50?

Being in that group i certainly hope so, but i have no idea.

What i am saying is that since over-50s were already the high risk category the fact that they are still high risk in no way proves it's because of the vaccine.

All that's ever been claimed is that the vaccine lowers the risk, but that lowered risk may well remain higher than that of people under 50.

Now, if there were more over-50 vaccinated people dying than before the vaccine, then that may indicate something awry. However, even that could be attributed to vaccinated idiots acting carelessly because they've misunderstood, or not paid attention and assume the vaccine makes you immune.

At some point when there's much larger figures a trend - a cause and effect - may become discernible. But surely making assumptions at this stage is an exercise in confirmation bias.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

I'm sorry.

I didn't realise anyone from Cali would be reading this.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

This is a backhanded derision. You called another poster a guinea pig and used the word oinking in the same sentence, that is open derision.

So why are you so hostile to those that took the vax? Its a simple question.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

I'm sorry.

I didn't realise anyone from Cali would be reading this.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

Nope, im a tough cookie. but you didnt answer my question. Why the hate?

No hate brother. I haven't called you any names.

I'm sorry.

I didn't realise anyone from Cali would be reading this.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

This is a backhanded derision. You called another poster a guinea pig and used the word oinking in the same sentence, that is open derision.

So why are you so hostile to those that took the vax? Its a simple question.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
I'm sorry.

I didn't realise anyone from Cali would be reading this.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

This is a backhanded derision. You called another poster a guinea pig and used the word oinking in the same sentence, that is open derision.

So why are you so hostile to those that took the vax? Its a simple question.