Andrew Bridgen MP

[serrac]

22 hours ago, oowee said:

This is not correct. The CDC have ample evidence that the vaccinnes are effective. They have been rogorously tested on the population. 

Sorry, we are talking proof here.
There are so many confounding factors it is impossible to prove either way whether the vaccines are effective, just as it is impossible to prove either way whether they cause large numbers of deaths.  The discussion however is interesting 😀

 

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

Wiki eh?

How about Reuters?

The Reuters article does not state that the rollout of vaccines on 4th June was the first.
In fact a link from that article, published on the 4th of June states:

"The Thai government had used the Sinovac (SVA.O) brand for early inoculations but this week said 11 million more of those had been ordered.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-says-has-enough-supplies-start-covid-19-vaccinations-2021-06-04/

Therefore vaccination had been going on in Thailand prior to June 4th

[timps]

2 hours ago, serrac said:

The Reuters article does not state that the rollout of vaccines on 4th June was the first.
In fact a link from that article, published on the 4th of June states:

"The Thai government had used the Sinovac (SVA.O) brand for early inoculations but this week said 11 million more of those had been ordered.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-says-has-enough-supplies-start-covid-19-vaccinations-2021-06-04/

Therefore vaccination had been going on in Thailand prior to June 4th

Your original premise was to look at data for countries that did not have high numbers of Covid -19 deaths prior to MASS vaccination because they afford the simplest comparison. 
Now you change the goalpost to SOME vaccination? What does that prove?

Your original point was:
1. They had very low rates of death attributed to COVID-19. (correct)
2. Then they commenced mass vaccination. (Factually incorrect)
3. Then they experienced huge increases in deaths attributed to COVID-19. (Factually incorrect)

The true timeline was:
1. They had very low rates of death attributed to COVID-19. (correct)
2. Then they experienced huge increases in deaths attributed to COVID-19 (correct)
3. Then they commenced mass vaccination. (correct)

Which doesn’t provide the smoking gun proof you tried to claim.

Whoever created the chart clearly labelled MASS vaccination starting several months earlier than it did, in a flat spot, a blatant lie to mislead those that didn’t bother to actually check. When you put MASS vaccination in its correct timeline its impact is lost. The death rate is already increasing. 

Secondly it doesn’t go into other causes or factors.

https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/thailand-begins-mass-vaccination-campaign-amid-reported-supply-shortages/

"The country’s death toll now stands at 1,269. More than 80 percent of these infections and deaths have come since the beginning of this third wave in April, a surge that has had a disproportionate impact on the country’s overcrowded prisons."

I would speculate Covid 19 entering the unsanitary conditions  and overcrowding in Thailand’s prisons more of a smoking gun to the spike in deaths than a mass vaccine rollout that has just started so impact at this point in time would be minimal but that is just speculation on my part without all the data.

Without correlating all the data points (including were the dead in this spike actually vaccinated) the charts you posted offer no proof of anything.

The original question you asked “ If you don't agree, what standard of proof would satisfy you?” 

1.Well for a start a chart that is factually correct and doesn't lie by making things up.

2. A chart that shows actual causation not just coincidence, there is a global pandemic, deaths are going to rise directly or indirectly due to Covid, those indirect factors have to be discounted first.  

Edited January 18, 2023 by timps

[discobob]

2 hours ago, henry d said:

Wiki eh?

How about Reuters?

But that was Mass Vaccination - i.e. Everyone - perhaps vaccination for the over xx's started earlier as @serrac has put?? Just playing Devils Advocate

[timps]

4 minutes ago, discobob said:

But that was Mass Vaccination - i.e. Everyone - perhaps vaccination for the over xx's started earlier as @serrac has put?? Just playing Devils Advocate

Answered in my post above. The whole point of the charts was mass vaccination and its alleged correlation to an increase in deaths. Take the mass out of it and the charts are meaningless.

[discobob]

2 minutes ago, timps said:

Answered in my post above. The whole point of the charts was mass vaccination and its alleged correlation to an increase in deaths. Take the mass out of it and the charts are meaningless.

that will teach me to check there is another page with answers on....😉

[serrac]

5 hours ago, timps said:

The true timeline was:

1. They had very low rates of death attributed to COVID-19. (correct)
2. Then they experienced huge increases in deaths attributed to COVID-19 (correct)
3. Then they commenced mass vaccination. (correct)

The 2nd Reuters article states that 2.7 Million Thai citizens had been vaccinated against Covid-19 by 4th June.  Some might call that a mass vaccination program but since 2.7 million is only ~3.85% of the population of Thailand, let's just call it a  quasi-mass vaccination for the sake of argument.

The actual timeline was:
1. Feb 2021, Thailand commenced a quasi-mass vaccination program in the face of minimal cases and zero daily deaths.
2. This was followed by a modest surge of covid cases and deaths
3. June 2021, Thailand began a proper mass vaccination program of most of its populace, in the face of the aforementioned surge of covid cases and deaths, which had already begun to plateau.
4. This was followed by a massive upsurge in covid cases and deaths

Each rollout was followed by a proportionately sized surge in cases and deaths, which supports the case for temporal (and "dose" dependent) association.

 

[timps]

3 hours ago, serrac said:

The 2nd Reuters article states that 2.7 Million Thai citizens had been vaccinated against Covid-19 by 4th June.  Some might call that a mass vaccination program but since 2.7 million is only ~3.85% of the population of Thailand, let's just call it a  quasi-mass vaccination for the sake of argument.

The actual timeline was:
1. Feb 2021, Thailand commenced a quasi-mass vaccination program in the face of minimal cases and zero daily deaths.
2. This was followed by a modest surge of covid cases and deaths
3. June 2021, Thailand began a proper mass vaccination program of most of its populace, in the face of the aforementioned surge of covid cases and deaths, which had already begun to plateau.
4. This was followed by a massive upsurge in covid cases and deaths

Each rollout was followed by a proportionately sized surge in cases and deaths, which supports the case for temporal (and "dose" dependent) association.

Our discussion is about the question you originally asked:- 
“I believe the John Hopkins charts in themselves are very close to that standard of proof.  If you don't agree, what standard of proof would satisfy you?”

I’m not going to convince you or change your mind on other things but nowhere in the charts posted does it say any of above you have just posted, which was my reasoning for discounting them.

3.85% of the population (and I’ve not checked the accuracy of those figures or dates) is not mass vaccination by anybody’s definition, calling it something else doesn’t alter that fact, what was written on the chart was "Mass Vaccination Begins".

According to Reuters, The Finical Times (should you want a broad sheet), The Guardian (should you want woke), Russia Today (if you have a VPN to read it and seeing that there are some alleged Russian moles on PW, joke by the way) and plenty more sources all state mass vaccination began on the 7 June 2021. If the author of the chart wants to be believed then that is the day they should state.

The mass vaccination may have started on the 7 June but they did not vaccinate the entire population in one day and the vaccine needs weeks to become effective, as more people are vaccinated the deaths began to decline which goes against your point. 

Where does the chart you posted mention “each roll out”, regardless of that point, if you look at the surge starting June 2021 the number of cases mirror the number of deaths, the graphs look similar.

If you look at the surge starting Jan 2022 the number of cases far exceed the number of deaths, the death graph is shallower than the cases graph. 

By this time more people are vaccinated, it has had time to work, so on the face of it with no other data input considered, the vaccine seems to be preventing deaths not causing them by comparisons of those 2 graphs alone.

Regarding temporal association, as I stated in my other post regarding the June 2021 surge   “a surge that has had a disproportionate impact on the country’s overcrowded prisons.” The prisoners were not at that time vaccinated, but you are happy to include their disproportionate  number of deaths in the figures via temporal association to prove vaccines are unsafe.

You cannot use disproportionate unvaccinated deaths in this way if you want to be taken seriously. An unvaccinated prisoner cannot be killed by a vaccine he hasn’t been given yet, you have to remove his death from the data, which hasn’t been done. The same goes for all other deaths not related to the vaccine. 

What you are suggesting is the same as the king of Thailand stubbing his toe in June then again in January, overlaying it on the John Hopkins graph and saying it’s temporal association, look, each time the king stubs his toe the cases rise.

The above is a flippant remark I know, but without knowing how many people who died were actually vaccinated or why they died means you cannot have any meaningful association at all.
 

Edited January 18, 2023 by timps

[henry d]

23 hours ago, serrac said:

Therefore some  vaccination had been going on

Updated for you. 

[Gordon R]

henry d - excellent point. I expect a mass of cut and paste, with a number of meaningless graphs to follow. 🙂

[serrac]

4 hours ago, henry d said:

Updated for you. 

That's a fair and accurate correction which does not alter my argument in any way.

[serrac]

18 hours ago, timps said:

If you look at the surge starting Jan 2022 the number of cases far exceed the number of deaths, the death graph is shallower than the cases graph. 

The mRNA vax promotes production of spike protein mimicking that on the cov-19 virus and has been shown to be itself pathogenic.  It has not been quantified to what extent  symptoms arising from the synthetic spike protein injection are misdiagnosed as natural Covid cases.  Instances of this would naturally be most prevalent during and shortly after mass vaccination, as is the case in the charts under discussion.

Regarding temporal association, as I stated in my other post regarding the June 2021 surge   “a surge that has had a disproportionate impact on the country’s overcrowded prisons.” The prisoners were not at that time vaccinated, but you are happy to include their disproportionate  number of deaths in the figures via temporal association to prove vaccines are unsafe.

We'd really need to know actual numbers here.  If the prison population of Thailand equalled 0.5% yet prisoner deaths constituted 1.25% of total deaths, this could correctly be described as a disproportionate impact but would be little more than noise in terms of total deaths recorded.

 

 

[Walker570]

YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN  !!!!!

[Dave-G]

4 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN  !!!!!

Indeed: 

noun

 

1. the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

   • the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.

     plural noun: semantics

     "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

[oowee]

1 minute ago, Dave-G said:

Indeed: 

noun

 

1. the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

   • the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.

     plural noun: semantics

     "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

Indeed 🥱

[timps]

1 hour ago, serrac said:

The mRNA vax promotes production of spike protein mimicking that on the cov-19 virus and has been shown to be itself pathogenic.

All very interesting but Thailand used   

Oxford–AstraZeneca: ~36.606 million doses (43.78%)

CoronaVac: ~25.508 million doses (30.50%)

Sinopharm BIBP: ~13.231 million doses (15.82%)

Which are not mRNA vaccines   

 

Pfizer–BioNTech: ~8.199 million doses (9.8%)

Moderna: ~0.07 million doses (0.01%)

Which are the mRNA vaccines and only account for just 10% in Thailand If Wikipedia is to be believed, but it’s irrelevant and not important really, I was just pointing out the John Hopkins charts are not conclusive proof of anything without more data inputs.

This is something you seem to accept when rebutting me but something you didn’t accept when you stated they were proof to support your claims.

If you now accept the charts posted earlier on by themselves prove neither one way or the other without more data and clarification then we are now in agreement.

If you don’t, well I’ve answered your question “what standard of proof would satisfy you” the same you require when the charts don’t show what you believe.

Edited January 19, 2023 by timps

[serrac]

22 hours ago, timps said:

If you now accept the charts posted earlier on by themselves prove neither one way or the other without more data and clarification then we are now in agreement.

Yes, I think you've made a sound case for that premise now.
I've enjoyed the debate and learned some things from it so thanks for the effort you put into your responses 👍

[timps]

3 hours ago, serrac said:

I've enjoyed the debate and learned some things from it so thanks for the effort you put into your responses 👍

👍