So what you and the fact-check are saying is that the vaccine is not safe and effective but risky and kinda effective, perhaps:A raft of medications carry risk, everyone with a brain understands so and to underestimate such an inherent part of medicine is grossly naive. Foisted directives are another subject and @HMGovt’s Glorious Return! only cares about the global south when its population enters British waters as ‘wastemen’ on dinghy’s - such an irony can’t be lost even on you
I’m more cautious than the people who ‘notice things’ and the paper clearly needs far more peer reviews - 3 citations is a low ish trending figure in itself for such apparently magnanimous data, or we could drink from another well:
![]()
The Impact of the Global COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign on All-Cause Mortality
Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.www.nber.org
Remember you're not interacting with Rupert where you draw a vulnerable ‘at-risk’ person into a prolonged game of ‘guess which rubik’s cube colour side I’m completing today’ merry-go-round
![]()
Report falsely claims Covid vaccines killed 17 million worldwide
Public health authorities say the Covid-19 vaccines have saved lives, but a Canadian report shared across platforms estimates the shots have killed 17 million people globally. This is false; government agencies and independent experts worldwide told AFP the findings are flawed and that only a...factcheck.afp.com
I wonder if there's more to this story than what we can see from just the headline?
The article said the study was a meta analysis of air filter research before Covid, but there didn't seem to be any reason why they would be more effective for Covid as their ineffectiveness is said to be because they don't do much for the passage of virus from an infected person to people right next to them.I wonder if there's more to this story than what we can see from just the headline?
What was I getting at is that a study showing that air filtration reduces viral spread by (say) 90% is not contradicted by a headline saying "Filtration does not stop viral spread", although that sentence by itself could dishonestly be used to imply that filtration is completely ineffective.The article said the study was a meta analysis of air filter research before Covid, but there didn't seem to be any reason why they would be more effective for Covid as their ineffectiveness is said to be because they don't do much for the passage of virus from an infected person to people right next to them.
The article says that there's not much point in using filters, for the reason I've already relaid.What was I getting at is that a study showing that air filtration reduces viral spread by (say) 90% is not contradicted by a headline saying "Filtration does not stop viral spread", although that sentence by itself could dishonestly be used to imply that filtration is completely ineffective.