Fully vaccinated to dominate deaths - allegedly

[Dave-G]

22 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

That's what the government report is saying, which is fair enough. But what Spanner McTriflehead who wrote this article has made it into is (and I quote, despite the fact that reading it makes my eyes bleed) 'what we have here is an admittance that these experimental vaccines are essentially redundant and do not work.' It's a singularly catastrophic example of how he's failed to comprehend the basic understanding behind vaccination, vulnerability and percentages. Look at how he quotes 56:

56. 'This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines'. He quotes that because it fits in with his narrative and means he doesn't have to explain THE VERY NEXT SENTENCES.

This is how 56 actually reads:

'56. This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines. This is because vaccine uptake has been so high in the oldest age groups (modelled here at 95% in the over 50-year olds). There are therefore 5% of over 50-year olds who have not been vaccinated, and 95% x 10% = 9.5% of over 50-year olds who are vaccinated but, nevertheless, not protected against death. This is not the result of vaccines being ineffective, merely uptake being so high.' (The bold and italics are part of the original text, not my work... as if that bit was somehow of great importance. Perhaps not the bit to leave out then?)

So, if the vaccination rate is so high, you will inevitably have a large number of hospital cases of people who are double vaccinated and they will come from that group of vulnerable people. Look at the specific wording. 'vaccinated but, nevertheless, not protected against death.' We've always known vaccines aren't 100% effective and don't give 100% invulnerability. As I've pointed out before, someone who's vulnerable is still vulnerable even if they've had the vaccine. and those vulnerable people will end up in hospital. as the raw numbers of vaccinated vulnerable dramatically outweigh the numbers of non-vaccinated vulnerable, it's inevitable and entirely logical that their hospitalisations and mortality will dramatically outweigh the non vaccinated vulnerable too. The same relationship will be seen in the non-vulnerable too, it's just the overall risk of hospitalisation and mortality is lower too. 

I do feel a fair amount of sympathy for those who get sucked in because of social vulnerabilities. That is how the virus of conspiracy theories spread. They give the isolated personal connection, the uneducated a sense of knowing, and the desperate hope. The ones I truly cannot stand are the people like this creature from Daily Expose who make money out of other people's vulnerabilities.

Thanks all but especially for the effort put into your posts Chris - that go beyond mere comments.

[SpringDon]

On 17/05/2021 at 08:37, stuartc44 said:

This, the point of the original post.

Still don’t understand. It reads to me that most deaths occur in amongst old people, most old people have had 2 vaccinations therefore the majority of deaths will be people who have had two vaccinations.

Not claptrap but pretty rudimentary logic. I’m struggling to be outraged.

[Dave-G]

17 hours ago, henry d said:

They would be very much rarer if you hit the block button on the next one.

pan widget

You are missing the point of my posts of this nature Henry - I accept I don't really manage to say what I mean all the time.

I lack the wordsmithing to try to get him to see he's reading some wrong >sheet< Its much better to copy paste him some of the better replies I get from here whilst also clearing up any vague doubts for my fairly reclusive semi autistic self whose main contact with the world is via 'tinternet.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Dave-G

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

There is a new expression "Vacci-morons", to describe these people.

Great.  More divisive language used.  That'll help get the cynical on board.

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

My mate Nick is one of those, he is totally convinced that 128,000 people in Britain have been run over by a bus within 28 days of a positive covid test.

The point is we don't know what the proportion is of those people is who've actually been hit by the metaphorical bus.

Conservative* Government estimates put that proportion at 25%.

So if the government's own figures are telling us that 128k figure is out by a quarter...the real proportion is likely much higher.

But you know, call your mate a moron.

*as in playing it safe, not Tory.

 

[henry d]

8 hours ago, Dave-G said:

You are missing the point of my posts of this nature Henry - I accept I don't really manage to say what I mean all the time.

I lack the wordsmithing to try to get him to see he's reading some wrong >sheet< Its much better to copy paste him some of the better replies I get from here whilst also clearing up any vague doubts for my fairly reclusive semi autistic self whose main contact with the world is via 'tinternet.

The problem with this though Dave is that there is a loss of understanding when passed from one place to another, similar to syntax errors. The way someone creates a sentence may seem correct and logical to them but may mean something different to someone else, the error may be compounded by passing it to someone else. The best way for humans to communicate is face to face so that people can ask for clarification or simply to see their gestures and facial expressions which helps deliver the idea that they are trying to explain.

If the person is a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist then you are wasting your time, they will have assimilated ideas into armour plating and nothing gets past except similar ideas.

[Dave-G]

4 minutes ago, henry d said:

The problem with this though Dave is that there is a loss of understanding when passed from one place to another, similar to syntax errors. The way someone creates a sentence may seem correct and logical to them but may mean something different to someone else, the error may be compounded by passing it to someone else. The best way for humans to communicate is face to face so that people can ask for clarification or simply to see their gestures and facial expressions which helps deliver the idea that they are trying to explain.

If the person is a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist then you are wasting your time, they will have assimilated ideas into armour plating and nothing gets past except similar ideas.

Very well put Henry. 

[Rewulf]

15 hours ago, henry d said:

If the person is a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist then you are wasting your time

The problem with that is this , anyone now days who questions the 'official' narrative, who like Dave , asked the question 'What do you think of this ?' , gets shot down in flames, and thrown on the pyre of nutcase conspiracy freaks, along with the lizard people and flat earthers.

Critical thinking, means examining every angle, every what if, it doesnt mean you believe it, but you consider the possibilities of.....?
The trouble is , we are increasingly put down in society for thinking outside the box.
Why ?

Covid has without doubt , bought out some truly outrageous conspiracy theories, like the 5 G thing ect.
But its unsurprising , due to the serious inconsistencies in the passage of the disease, and the way its been handled by government, and reported by media.
Its got to the point where mentioning doubts about official lines, or questioning those inconsistencies, has lead to ridicule and 'shaming'

'You arent wearing a mask - youre killing people'
'Youre going abroad on holiday - super spreader'
'Youre going to the pub - irresponsible !'

Yet at some point or other in time , our own government has been perfectly happy to encourage these things, but the average Joe , in their frenzy to become covid compliant , and be the good citizen, condemns this reckless behaviour out of turn.
There is a huge percentage of the populace who feel that our governments are not being truthful, and maybe the whole covid thing is not quite what it seems, they are going along with it because, we are , for the most part , law abiding people.
There is also another section, who , being the good citizen , would happily dob you in to the authorities , and see you sent off for re-education for your covid crimes.
Its a division of the compliant and the non compliant, the fearful and the reckless.

Believing the official narrative , without questioning , for some, is a more comfortable option, its easy.
You can convince yourself that you are doing the 'right' thing.
Others within this rank and file will take a more militant approach to people who disagree , who question the narrative...

But surely there is nothing wrong with questioning ?
Are we all lunatics if we cast doubt on some things we are told?

Heres an article  , no its not a conspiracy site.
I dont agree with everything he says , and I dont personally think of it as conspiracy, it feels a little over the top in its summary, but an interesting take none the less.
However , the main point is not to dismiss it out of hand just because it may not agree with your point of view, and not be outraged because its a different narrative.
Just see it as a different point of view,

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-are-we-being-lied-to-about-covid-theres-no-good-reason/?utm_content=buffer0fb9e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3BcbcsABmepz5qXhedT4K1nSXsjyBSI4in0c0SAENxMmg-NeK5e973Z_Y

[serrac]

Sorry, Michael Yeadon has already been labelled a vacci-moron around here so publishing anything from him instantly makes conservative woman a conspiracy site in the eyes of the vaccine true believers rationalists around here.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, serrac said:

Sorry, Michael Yeadon has already been labelled a vacci-moron around here so publishing anything from him instantly makes conservative woman a conspiracy site in the eyes of the vaccine true believers rationalists around here.

What do you mean 'round here' ?
Are 'we' the yardstick by which all else is measured, and do you not see the irony in what you are saying after reading  what I posted before the link ?

Whatever you think of Yeadon, hes probably forgotton more about vaccines and immunology than you will ever know, but because he doesnt agree with YOUR way of thinking and the general narrative , he must be dismissed as a crank ?
And now , because Conservative Woman hosted a piece by him , they are now a conspiracy site ?

Critical thinking must be discouraged, put down , and defamed as heresy it seems ?

You dont have to agree with what he says , just analyse his angle, try and see his point of view and how he arrived there.
Then get on with your life.

The interesting bit is , if he agreed with the official narrative , you would believe every word he said, with no need whatsoever to examine his argument.

[serrac]

Um, read some of my previous posts and you might realise I was being sarcastic ☺️
Conservative Woman is one of my regular visits.
 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, serrac said:

Um, read some of my previous posts and you might realise I was being sarcastic ☺️
Conservative Woman is one of my regular visits.
 

[chrisjpainter]

33 minutes ago, serrac said:

Sorry, Michael Yeadon has already been labelled a vacci-moron around here so publishing anything from him instantly makes conservative woman a conspiracy site in the eyes of the vaccine true believers rationalists around here.

Ah yes. Michael Yeadon. This would be the same Michael Yeadon that said that covid was going away, right before the second wave hit? The same Michael Yeadon who said that it was going to 'fizzle out' when fatalities were at 45,000? This would be the Michael Yeadon who said facemasks don't work, despite the shed load of papers in the BMJ, the Lancet, from the WHO and just about every other scientific institute that proves they do? This would be the same Michael Yeadon who said that transmissions aren't slowed by lockdowns, despite the fact that it was clear that with every lockdown measure brought in, cases fell and rose again after they were relaxed? The same Michael Yeadon who said you don't need to be vaccinated from an untested vaccine and that vaccines aren't useful for healthy people, despite the fact that the vaccines were rigorously tested, don't cause miscarriages/infertility and that covid cases and fatalities drastically fell once a full scale vaccination campaign is rolled out?

He is fundamentally unreliable. And if you're going to reply by saying that's because he doesn't agree with my opinions, then it's worth bearing in mind that this is the same Michael Yeadon who also said in March 2020 '“Covid 19 is not going away. Until we have a vaccine or herd immunity”'. And the same Michael Yeadon who said 'A vaccine might be along towards the end of 2021, if we’re really lucky.' Also the same Michael Yeadon who replied to an antivaxxer who said they wouldn't be getting it, 'Do not impede [the vaccine's] flow to neutrals or those keen to get it, thanks.' And congratulated Johnson & Johnson on getting their vaccine onto the clinical testing phase. 

It's one thing to believe a crazy theory. Fair enough go do that thing if you really feel (just don't suck other people in). But when someone is proved to be wrong with empirical evidence, it's tough to find a reason to support him, especially when it turns out he's disagreeing with himself. His ex-colleagues at Pfizer have gone on record to say they barely recognise him from how he was.

Edited May 19, 2021 by chrisjpainter

[Vince Green]

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What do you mean 'round here' ?
Are 'we' the yardstick by which all else is measured, and do you not see the irony in what you are saying after reading  what I posted before the link ?

Whatever you think of Yeadon, hes probably forgotton more about vaccines and immunology than you will ever know, but because he doesnt agree with YOUR way of thinking and the general narrative , he must be dismissed as a crank ?
And now , because Conservative Woman hosted a piece by him , they are now a conspiracy site ?

Critical thinking must be discouraged, put down , and defamed as heresy it seems ?

You dont have to agree with what he says , just analyse his angle, try and see his point of view and how he arrived there.
Then get on with your life.

The interesting bit is , if he agreed with the official narrative , you would believe every word he said, with no need whatsoever to examine his argument.

Mike Yeadon is a fruit cake though isn't he? he said there wouldn't be a second wave because everybody was already immune. He also said the vaccine would destroy fertility in women. He did more to put people off being vaccinated with his unfounded claims. All because he has some sort of grievance against his former employer Pfiser.

[Gordon R]

When 100% of the population has been vaccinated, anyone who dies will have had the vaccine. Cue the loonies saying that the vaccine is 100% fatal.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Gordon R

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

He is fundamentally unreliable. And if you're going to reply by saying that's because he doesn't agree with my opinions, then it's worth bearing in mind that this is the same Michael Yeadon who also said in March 2020 '“Covid 19 is not going away. Until we have a vaccine or herd immunity”'. And the same Michael Yeadon who said 'A vaccine might be along towards the end of 2021, if we’re really lucky.' Also the same Michael Yeadon who replied to an antivaxxer who said they wouldn't be getting it, 'Do not impede [the vaccine's] flow to neutrals or those keen to get it, thanks.' And congratulated Johnson & Johnson on getting their vaccine onto the clinical testing phase

Like I said, I dont agree with everything he says, but do we dismiss the entirety of his argument because of this ?

Its worth thinking about what it could have been that fundamentally changed his viewpoint is it not ?
This is important , because by stepping out and saying the things hes saying , he has effectively ended his career prospects within the pharma industry.
Unless hes had a mental breakdown (and I dont rule this out) why would he do this , for no material gain whatsoever?

9 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Mike Yeadon is a fruit cake though isn't he?

I dont know , is he ?
Because he now goes against accepted doctrine, there are plenty who would like you to think this, and once his credibility has been sent to gulag, his words are no longer a threat.
He can then be effectively de platformed...cancelled.

Ill be honest , until very recently , Id never heard of him, and Im sceptical of some of his claims, but what he says about others ring true.
Invermectin HAS been used officially , and effectively by some governments , South  Africa for one, poorer countries who struggle to afford vaccines use it , its used as a cattle wormer in many countries , including the UK , and costs pennies.
It makes perfect sense that big pharma wouldnt like it , as it takes a chunk out of the massive profits covid has bought to them.

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

When 100% of the population has been vaccinated, anyone who dies will have had the vaccine. Cue the loonies saying that the vaccine is 100% fatal.

Its highly doubtful 100 % will ever be reached, even if 1 % dont or cant have it , Ill guarantee that 1% will take the blame for any further deaths.
But with our rather porous border situation , especially the dinghy express, theres plenty of scope for new variants ect.

Theres a reason why the Kent variant came about (called the British variant in the EU )
Hint - It didnt come from Kent.

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

Its highly doubtful 100 % will ever be reached, even if 1 % dont or cant have it , Ill guarantee that 1% will take the blame for any further deaths.
But with our rather porous border situation , especially the dinghy express, theres plenty of scope for new variants ect.

Theres a reason why the Kent variant came about (called the British variant in the EU )
Hint - It didnt come from Kent.

 

100% agreement has just been reached. 🙂

[chrisjpainter]

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Like I said, I dont agree with everything he says, but do we dismiss the entirety of his argument because of this ?

Its worth thinking about what it could have been that fundamentally changed his viewpoint is it not ?
This is important , because by stepping out and saying the things hes saying , he has effectively ended his career prospects within the pharma industry.
Unless hes had a mental breakdown (and I dont rule this out) why would he do this , for no material gain whatsoever?

 

There's nothing official, or obvious and a breakdown or some kind of cognitive impairment condition might have something to do with it, but other than the bizarre and sudden change in deep-rooted pharmacological convictions, there's no evidence to say this is the reason.

He may just be incredibly bitter. After leaving pfizer 10 years ago he set up a new biotech company, Ziarco. That seemed to go very well indeed and he was happy to boast about how he'd 'made millions from founding and growing a biotech company'. In 2017 it was bought out by Novartis for an upfront fee of $325 million, with a promise of an extra $95 million if Ziarco's new anti eczema drug ZPL389 proved to be as game-changing as hoped. Last summer, Novartis pulled the plug and took a $485 million write down. It was a complete disaster. Ziarco were just about to move on to stage 2b when Novartis dumped it, but it was based on pretty rubbish test results and Novartis saw it as unlikely to get anywhere. It's made more galling by positive data coming from a Pfizer equivalent, abrocitinib. It passed all the tests that ZPL389 failed. Such personal and (within the profession) public failure could hit someone pretty hard. It must have been hideous for Yeadon.

I've got no idea whether this was a contributing factor, a catalyst for something more deep-rooted to be released or just coincidence, but it is at least context. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by chrisjpainter

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

I've got no idea whether this was a contributing factor, a catalyst for something more deep-rooted to be released or just coincidence, but it is at least context. 

Interesting , Im assuming though , that professional kudos aside, he still made a lot of money ?
Hardly a reason to trash the entire pharma industry, and possibly cost lives, plus without doubt destroy his own reputation.

Its good that youve taken the time to examine this aspect though 

6 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

I've got no idea whether this was a contributing factor, a catalyst for something more deep-rooted to be released or just coincidence, but it is at least context. 

This is the crux though , has Yeadon lost the plot, or had some kind of change of heart, maybe he learned something that disturbed him enough to completely change his attitude ?
Coming from the upper echelons and being a card carrying member of 'big pharma' , what has turned him into the polar opposite anti pharma, anti vaxxer ?
Chances are , we shall never know.

[Vince Green]

22 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 what has turned him into the polar opposite anti pharma, anti vaxxer ?
Chances are , we shall never know.

falling out with Pfiser might have had a lot to do with it?

Edited May 19, 2021 by Vince Green

[serrac]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

This is the crux though , has Yeadon lost the plot, or had some kind of change of heart, maybe he learned something that disturbed him enough to completely change his attitude ?
Coming from the upper echelons and being a card carrying member of 'big pharma' , what has turned him into the polar opposite anti pharma, anti vaxxer ?
Chances are , we shall never know.

Yeadon is not exactly alone either

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Might take a while to character-assassinate all these folks.

[chrisjpainter]

6 minutes ago, serrac said:

Yeadon is not exactly alone either

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Might take a while to character-assassinate all these folks.

What aspersions have I cast on his character? I've shown him to be unreliable in his convictions. I've shown that he's made obvious mistakes in predictions, and how his claims have not been backed up by empirical evidence. I've not gone into his character at all. I've made hypotheses about the reasons for his wildly contrasting opinions, but I've also expressed sympathy for his apparent pharmaceutical downfall.

What's your response to the obvious contradictions and shortcomings in his statements? 

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, serrac said:

Yeadon is not exactly alone either

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Might take a while to character-assassinate all these folks.

Good find - that has a lorra lorra signatories. 

[chrisjpainter]

15 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Good find - that has a lorra lorra signatories. 

It does...but what is it actually doing? What's its point? 

'As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues'

They're asking for information. That's perfectly legitimate and how science should work. That is entirely proper. A worldwide vaccination plan should not be implemented at short notice if it's not been rigorously researched. What it is not doing is saying that covid vaccines are unsafe and should be cancelled.  They want answers to their reasonable questions. As it happens, European Medicines Agency replied to every single point, in full detail with all relevant data. 

COVID-19 vaccines questions (europa.eu) 

Is the response available on Doctors for Covid Ethics' website? I looked and couldn't find it, which is why I got it straight from the European Medicines Agency

 

[Dave-G]

2 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

It does...but what is it actually doing? What's its point? 

'As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues'

They're asking for information. That's perfectly legitimate and how science should work. That is entirely proper. A worldwide vaccination plan should not be implemented at short notice if it's not been rigorously researched. What it is not doing is saying that covid vaccines are unsafe and should be cancelled.  They want answers to their reasonable questions. As it happens, European Medicines Agency replied to every single point, in full detail with all relevant data. 

COVID-19 vaccines questions (europa.eu) 

Is the response available on Doctors for Covid Ethics' website? I looked and couldn't find it, which is why I got it straight from the European Medicines Agency

 

Its way above my pay grade Chris - I read and take in some of it - much as I read some of your extensive posts that I simply could not engage with. Dare I say long blocks of text just don't sink into my brain. 

[chrisjpainter]

2 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Its way above my pay grade Chris - I read and take in some of it - much as I read some of your extensive posts that I simply could not engage with. Dare I say long blocks of text just don't sink into my brain. 

So you'll engage with the questions, but not the answers? That is how conspiracies get so much traction. People refuse to listen to the answers they claim to be wanting. 

Like the crazies who refuse to admit Trump lost.

'FRAUD!' 'SHOW US THE FRAUD!!!'

'Look, here's the evidence there is no fraud.'
'...SHOW US THE FRAUD!!!'