It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Breakthestreak
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: anonentity
"Dying soon after the vaccine was received" is not necessarily the same thing as "dying from the vaccine". Other existing cuases may have been in play already.
The irony of this comment is clear. To some.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Sudan has a CFR of 7.54% (and a high use of Ivermectin and HQC due to river blindness).
originally posted by: chr0naut
Viral adaption to a host makes a virus more infectious.
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
This is mostly a myth, if anything people covered up covid deaths, not exaggerated them. For example the new york care home deaths.
Where there was over reporting this was corrected, such as in the UK where they knocked 5000 deaths off of the total in 2020.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut
Sudan has a CFR of 7.54% (and a high use of Ivermectin and HQC due to river blindness). Eritrea, which borders on Sudan, and is culturally and ethnically similar, has a CFR of 0.62%. Go figure.
chr0naut
Ah, another source of ivermectin as a positive effect.
And may I ask... does Eritrea also use ivermectin ?
Yes, in about similar amounts, as river blindness is just as prevalent in Eritrea as it is in Sudan.
Also, vaccination in Sudan and Eritrea is similarly really low.
So the reason for the difference in case fatality ratio is probably that Eritrea locked down fairly quickly after their first case, and then eased things afterwards.
Somalia didn't lock down, nor did it implement any social distancing, or masking, or do anything much to limit the spread. It has purchased some Chinese COVAX and AstraZeneca vaccines, but the country is war-torn and the rollout has been slow.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
Viral adaption to a host makes a virus more infectious.
More infectious does not equate to more virulent. In fact, virulence is on its way down, so bring on (natural, and the only real) herd immunity, and let's be done with the madness already.
originally posted by: MindBody
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: CupcakeKarma
a reply to: chr0naut
Sudan has a CFR of 7.54% (and a high use of Ivermectin and HQC due to river blindness). Eritrea, which borders on Sudan, and is culturally and ethnically similar, has a CFR of 0.62%. Go figure.
chr0naut
Ah, another source of ivermectin as a positive effect.
And may I ask... does Eritrea also use ivermectin ?
Yes, in about similar amounts, as river blindness is just as prevalent in Eritrea as it is in Sudan.
Also, vaccination in Sudan and Eritrea is similarly really low.
So the reason for the difference in case fatality ratio is probably that Eritrea locked down fairly quickly after their first case, and then eased things afterwards.
Somalia didn't lock down, nor did it implement any social distancing, or masking, or do anything much to limit the spread. It has purchased some Chinese COVAX and AstraZeneca vaccines, but the country is war-torn and the rollout has been slow.
undernutrition in both nations badly affects host resistance
originally posted by: MDDoxs
originally posted by: myselfaswell
originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity
Lol based on the numbers presented, it was a more deadly period of time for those unvaccinated. 65,000 unvaccinated dead, or 37%.
Not sure what the article is trying to conclude here
Pretty straight forward;
30,305 people died within 21 days of having a Covid-19 Vaccine in England during the first 6 months of 2021.
And that you find this in any way funny indicates to me that you have serious mental health issues that need professional help.
And what about the 65,000 unvaccinated deaths, want to ignore those? Poor people. Just seems like one would be better off being vaccinated compared to not based on those numbers.
I will forgive your direct attack on me.
originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: MDDoxs
65,000 out of 214,000 deaths were not covid related and unvaccinated.
So 149,000 out of 214,000 deaths were not covid related and vaccinated.
Seems like the unvaccinated were healthier.
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
originally posted by: myselfaswell
originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: anonentity
Lol based on the numbers presented, it was a more deadly period of time for those unvaccinated. 65,000 unvaccinated dead, or 37%.
Not sure what the article is trying to conclude here
Pretty straight forward;
30,305 people died within 21 days of having a Covid-19 Vaccine in England during the first 6 months of 2021.
And that you find this in any way funny indicates to me that you have serious mental health issues that need professional help.
During that period the elderly and vulnerable were vaxxed first. People who might simply die from old age regardless of the vax.
What you need to do is to look at excess mortality in this group, not total mortality. People who would have lived otherwise.
When you do that you realise that not much has changed.
The vax has killed a handful of people world wide, the Ops numbers are simply death rates within 28 days of the vax and not vax related deaths. The data needs processing and context.
Just look at the actual causes of death, how many of them are related to known vax problems, and how many are thing like pneumonia or two or more self inflicted gun shot wounds.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
a reply to: DISRAELI
too bad nobody applied that logic to the covid figures.
ONS figures are based on cause of death on the death certificate.
That seems a pretty logical way of recording covid deaths.
originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut
So what are you referring to? she says that have "not done that when asked about setting sanctions against people". perhaps if you put the actual copy of the transcript you have for everyone to see and then we can decide without your bias 2020 hindsight interpretation
She did say "that if you don't take up a effective and tested and erm SAFE when one becomes available it will come at a risk to them." So wasn't there an effective, tested and safe vaccine at the time of her remarks?
You seem to be very good at not finding any information then having the critical transcript of an interview which in your bias opinion of the intent of the remarks is completely different from the people reporting.
If it the CFR were only 1%, and everyone had at least one bout of the disease, then COVID-19 would kill 79 million people worldwide. That's more than the 1918 (Spanish) flu killed.
Very strange semantic game you play.
But hey if you right 20% of the current world population will be dead for not getting the shot in the next 20-30 years.
originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut
Where is the misreported version? her talking and the quotes are word for word your the one misreporting the event.
Who said and thing about the disease I said from not getting the shot -see you are misreporting on what is said and what the intent of the comment was.
Got to the video transcribe her words and then compare to the misreported quotes. should be easy if you are not misreporting.