Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

[Mr. Tea]

@Mr. Tea what's good for the goose is good for the gander: deaths within 28 days of the vaccine is the equivalent of deaths within 28 days of a positive Covid test (which positive can itself be weeks after illness)

Well where are these "off the charts" charts for post-vaccine deaths? Normalized, it goes without saying, against the fact that it's mostly old and/or already ill people who've been given them already.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Let's look at these "off the charts" deaths, shall we?

Coronavirus vaccine - summary of Yellow Card reporting

www.gov.uk

This safety update report is based on detailed analysis of data up to 14 March 2021. At this date, an estimated 10.9 million first doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 13.7 million doses of the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine had been administered

So 24,600,000 in total.

The MHRA has received 259 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 326 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine and 9 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.

Now lets assume every single one of those deaths was caused by the vaccine, which probably isn't true, but whatever. So 594 in total.

That gives a death rate of 0.0024%.

Now covid-19 has an IFR of about 1% (in developed countries like the UK, with a sizeable elderly population). This means that getting vaccinated is about 400 times less hazardous than catching the bug (your preferred immunity "solution").

"Off the charts", indeed. GTFOOH, you absolute clown.

 

[IdleRich]

I think he meant off the bottom of the charts.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@Mr. Tea I'm referring to the deaths within 28 days of vaccination as with the dodgy Covid accounting; you're not comparing like with like.

Realise that 66 million x your 0.0024% fatality rate means over 150,000 Brits would perish from vaccination - which is more than the of/with Covid deaths!

And note that the adverse events reporting system typically fails to miss a good proportion of adverse events.

 

[Mr. Tea]

@Mr. Tea I'm referring to the deaths within 28 days of vaccination as with the dodgy Covid accounting; you're not comparing like with like.

Realise that 66 million x your 0.0024% fatality rate means over 150,000 Brits would perish from vaccination - which is more than the of/with Covid deaths!

And note that the adverse events reporting system typically fails to miss a good proportion of adverse events.

Your sums are out by a factor of 100.

Utter fucking clown.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@Mr. Tea denying deaths within 28 days of vaccination

What are you going to do with those who can't have the vaccine btw? Do you have some sort of large pit prepared for them?

 

[IdleRich]

Not acknowledging that error either?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Not acknowledging that error either?

Mate, every one of your contributions here has been either contentless or incorrect.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But even ignoring that embarrassing howler, your reasoning is dogshit, since nearly all the serious adverse effects have been seen in elderly and/or already sick people, nearly all of whom have already been vaccinated.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But even ignoring that embarrassing howler, your reason is dogshit, since nearly all the serious adverse effects have been seen in elderly and/or already sick people, nearly all of whom have already been vaccinated.

You're sounding very much like the covid-deniers, I'm afraid.

Anyway, have you got your pit ready or are you too busy shaking your stick at youngsters gathering in parks or going to school?

 

[Mr. Tea]

@Mr. Tea denying deaths within 28 days of vaccination

What are you going to do with those who can't have the vaccine btw? Do you have some sort of large pit prepared for them?

Well "let's expunge the Untermenschen" is clearly your philosophy, not mine, so I'm putting this mad textual spasm down to an extreme case of projection.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But since you ask, those who are unable to take the vaccine will be protected by herd immunity once a sufficient percentage of the population have had their jabs.

It's a great concept, perhaps you should learn a little about it?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Well "let's expunge the Untermenschen" is clearly your philosophy, not mine, so I'm putting this man textual spasm down to an extreme case of projection.

You realise that the unvaccinated 'scum' include people with health conditions that preclude their vaccination...is that not a tad eugenecist?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But since you ask, those who are unable to take the vaccine will be protected by herd immunity once a sufficient percentage of the population had had their jabs.

It's a great concept, perhaps you should learn a little about it?

Herd immunity works on averages and does not preclude those people falling ill

 

[IdleRich]

Mate, every one of your contributions here has been either contentless or incorrect.

In other words "no".
I get you find percentages difficult but surely even with that handicap you should be able to spot that if 24m doses 'kill' 500 odd, then when you scale it up to 66m it won't annihilate 150,000... however much you want it to. Quick get to the edit button!
Or better idea, why don't you just not write this shite in the first place?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Or better idea, why don't you just not write this shite in the first place?

You first?

 

[IdleRich]

OK deal. I will stop writing in this thread and you do the same.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@IdleRich Can you point out one new piece of information you've brought to this thread?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Too many posters here are like the polystyrene filler surrounding my Faberge eggs, which glint all the more beautifully for being thrown into such stark relief.

 

[IdleRich]

This thread is pulling information from elsewhere and interpreting it. I'm interpreting it correctly, you can't do very basic maths, that makes my contribution far more valuable.