Has anyone asked the 5 Million what their reason is to not be Vaccinated, not just assume it's because they think they have natural immunity. Surely there are many reasons ranging from fear of needles to can't be bothered don't trust the Vaccine for not complying. They're all making their own decision after being bombarded with Facts or fiction to decide what's best for them.
I think their reasons would be more relevant, if they were only able to kill themselves. Unfortunately this is not the case.
probability theory, a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. The outcome of a random event cannot be determined before it occurs, but it may be any one of several possible outcomes. The actual outcome is considered to be determined by chance.
By chance you know the out come for which group vac'd un-vac'd kill the most in the future. no guesses please.
This is genuinely interesting. But I think it is important also to hear the other side of this particular coin,
1. She has clearly received advice that says it is in her best interests to have the vaccine 2. She is a midwife, not a heart or virology specialist. Would love to see her reaction if a Heart specialist tried to tell her the best way of delivering babies 3. Suppose there are 4 Midwives in her particular area. How many pregnant women would choose to have their baby delivered by someone who is unvaccinated? 4. Do you think that it is the same 8% who choose not to be vaccinated themselves? Or do you think the figure is rather lower-because the number of people who choose not to vaccinate is not the same as the number who are happy for other people to do so, when it is their wife or child at risk 5. If, for example, there are 4 midwives. And 2 are unvaccinated. And 95% of expectant mothers expect the delivery etc to be attended by only the other 2.
What should the NHS do?
Difficult choices have to be made. There is no 1 simple answer. Because you cannot just look at the "right" of 1 midwife. And ignore 200 patients.
This is genuinely interesting. But I think it is important also to hear the other side of this particular coin,
1. She has clearly received advice that says it is in her best interests to have the vaccine 2. She is a midwife, not a heart or virology specialist. Would love to see her reaction if a Heart specialist tried to tell her the best way of delivering babies 3. Suppose there are 4 Midwives in her particular area. How many pregnant women would choose to have their baby delivered by someone who is unvaccinated? 4. Do you think that it is the same 8% who choose not to be vaccinated themselves? Or do you think the figure is rather lower-because the number of people who choose not to vaccinate is not the same as the number who are happy for other people to do so, when it is their wife or child at risk 5. If, for example, there are 4 midwives. And 2 are unvaccinated. And 95% of expectant mothers expect the delivery etc to be attended by only the other 2.
What should the NHS do?
Difficult choices have to be made. There is no 1 simple answer. Because you cannot just look at the "right" of 1 midwife. And ignore 200 patients.
Could you sue the NHS for sending unvaccinated staff to your home if you suffered a loss?
This is genuinely interesting. But I think it is important also to hear the other side of this particular coin,
1. She has clearly received advice that says it is in her best interests to have the vaccine 2. She is a midwife, not a heart or virology specialist. Would love to see her reaction if a Heart specialist tried to tell her the best way of delivering babies 3. Suppose there are 4 Midwives in her particular area. How many pregnant women would choose to have their baby delivered by someone who is unvaccinated? 4. Do you think that it is the same 8% who choose not to be vaccinated themselves? Or do you think the figure is rather lower-because the number of people who choose not to vaccinate is not the same as the number who are happy for other people to do so, when it is their wife or child at risk 5. If, for example, there are 4 midwives. And 2 are unvaccinated. And 95% of expectant mothers expect the delivery etc to be attended by only the other 2.
What should the NHS do?
Difficult choices have to be made. There is no 1 simple answer. Because you cannot just look at the "right" of 1 midwife. And ignore 200 patients.
Could you sue the NHS for sending unvaccinated staff to your home if you suffered a loss?
Massively difficult. Proving Causation would be next to impossible. For a start, the NHS has decreed that it is fine for NHS staff not to be fully vaccinated until April. Which means no need for any jab before February.
In the meantime, unaware of major measures to try and redistribute the workload of the unvaccinated now. Which, for me, is at least as daft as using an all-or-nothing approach afterwards.
I am sure there are very complex answers to that question. Which may take many years to answer. But the simple answer is "no"
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
probability theory, a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. The outcome of a random event cannot be determined before it occurs, but it may be any one of several possible outcomes. The actual outcome is considered to be determined by chance.
By chance you know the out come for which group vac'd un-vac'd kill the most in the future. no guesses please.
Why bother with vaccines at all then? --------------------------------------------------------------------
Think that has already been covered Pharmaceutical industry.
Does the Vaccine stop you from giving the virus to other people.
No. If everyone had refused the vaccine we would be in a terrible state, I would assume that the NHS has a responsibility to offer patients the maximum possible protection. I am not sure that allowing unvaccinated staff to treat the elderly, vulnerable, or pregnant women would fulfil this responsibility.
It seems clear that the vaccinated are less likely than the unvaccinated to need hospital care, get seriously ill, or die.
I dont know if there is a difference in the severity of catching the virus from an unvaccinated, or vaccinated person.
I could see some court cases generated by the families of those that had died, or developed long covid, etc, after contracting the virus from unvaccinated NHS staff. Where they may set out to prove that the NHS may have been negligent in this respect.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
Dont the numbers of deaths attributed to covid that the government publish, pretty much fall in line with the excess deaths totals. We therefore know that the total covid deaths amount to the extra deaths that we dont get on a normal year.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
Dont the numbers of deaths attributed to covid that the government publish, pretty much fall in line with the excess deaths totals. We therefore know that the total covid deaths amount to the extra deaths that we dont get on a normal year.
I haven't looked at this in a while. But the last time I did, I was rather surprised to discover that the answer was no.
So-for example-Covid has had a dramatic effect on the number of flu deaths in the last 2 Winters. Covid is nothing like an influenza medically-but it does seem to have temporarily displaced the usual flu deaths in the UK.
So-are there additional deaths? Undoubtedly. Are the 3 yardsticks used in the figures less scientific than one would wish? Yes. But-at least the last time I looked-additional deaths was not an accurate indicator as to total Covid deaths either. It understates the true figure.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
It is just like trying to create a conspiracy theory. As an example you could say, we had 50,000 more deaths last year, than the year before. The government says there were 49,800 deaths from covid. The conspiracy theorist say no there werent, there were categorically only 3,000. They are not disputing that the people are dead, just the fact that they died from covid. So despite the fact that there were 50,000 more deaths than the year before, and 50,300 more than the year before that, they will be adamant only 3,000 died from covid. So what the f..k did the rest die of.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
It is just like trying to create a conspiracy theory. As an example you could say, we had 50,000 more deaths last year, than the year before. The government says there were 49,800 deaths from covid. The conspiracy theorist say no there werent, there were categorically only 3,000. They are not disputing that the people are dead, just the fact that they died from covid. So despite the fact that there were 50,000 more deaths than the year before, and 50,300 more than the year before that, they will be adamant only 3,000 died from covid. So what the f..k did the rest die of.
That was the point. It is what James Melville does. He asks questions designed to support his particular point of view.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
Dont the numbers of deaths attributed to covid that the government publish, pretty much fall in line with the excess deaths totals. We therefore know that the total covid deaths amount to the extra deaths that we dont get on a normal year.
I haven't looked at this in a while. But the last time I did, I was rather surprised to discover that the answer was no.
So-for example-Covid has had a dramatic effect on the number of flu deaths in the last 2 Winters. Covid is nothing like an influenza medically-but it does seem to have temporarily displaced the usual flu deaths in the UK.
So-are there additional deaths? Undoubtedly. Are the 3 yardsticks used in the figures less scientific than one would wish? Yes. But-at least the last time I looked-additional deaths was not an accurate indicator as to total Covid deaths either. It understates the true figure.
I could only find this. It doesnt include Scotland and NI. It doesnt include the full period. I dont think it is far out.
Using the most up-to-date data from Figure 3 of Deaths Registered Weekly in England and Wales, the number of deaths from the week ending 13 March 2020 up to 4 June 2021 was 764,444 in England and Wales. During this period, the number of excess deaths above the five-year average was 103,857 deaths.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
Dont the numbers of deaths attributed to covid that the government publish, pretty much fall in line with the excess deaths totals. We therefore know that the total covid deaths amount to the extra deaths that we dont get on a normal year.
I haven't looked at this in a while. But the last time I did, I was rather surprised to discover that the answer was no.
So-for example-Covid has had a dramatic effect on the number of flu deaths in the last 2 Winters. Covid is nothing like an influenza medically-but it does seem to have temporarily displaced the usual flu deaths in the UK.
So-are there additional deaths? Undoubtedly. Are the 3 yardsticks used in the figures less scientific than one would wish? Yes. But-at least the last time I looked-additional deaths was not an accurate indicator as to total Covid deaths either. It understates the true figure.
I could only find this. It doesnt include Scotland and NI. It doesnt include the full period. I dont think it is far out.
Using the most up-to-date data from Figure 3 of Deaths Registered Weekly in England and Wales, the number of deaths from the week ending 13 March 2020 up to 4 June 2021 was 764,444 in England and Wales. During this period, the number of excess deaths above the five-year average was 103,857 deaths.
But it is also relevant that deaths have been rising quite sharply over the 5 year period they use for the calculation prior to Covid. So-extra 30,000 deaths 2019 compared to 2014. It seems logical that the figure would in any event be more than the 5-year average.
The trouble with these statistics is that people do not understand what they actually mean.
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
Dont the numbers of deaths attributed to covid that the government publish, pretty much fall in line with the excess deaths totals. We therefore know that the total covid deaths amount to the extra deaths that we dont get on a normal year.
I haven't looked at this in a while. But the last time I did, I was rather surprised to discover that the answer was no.
So-for example-Covid has had a dramatic effect on the number of flu deaths in the last 2 Winters. Covid is nothing like an influenza medically-but it does seem to have temporarily displaced the usual flu deaths in the UK.
So-are there additional deaths? Undoubtedly. Are the 3 yardsticks used in the figures less scientific than one would wish? Yes. But-at least the last time I looked-additional deaths was not an accurate indicator as to total Covid deaths either. It understates the true figure.
I could only find this. It doesnt include Scotland and NI. It doesnt include the full period. I dont think it is far out.
Using the most up-to-date data from Figure 3 of Deaths Registered Weekly in England and Wales, the number of deaths from the week ending 13 March 2020 up to 4 June 2021 was 764,444 in England and Wales. During this period, the number of excess deaths above the five-year average was 103,857 deaths.
But it is also relevant that deaths have been rising quite sharply over the 5 year period they use for the calculation prior to Covid. So-extra 30,000 deaths 2019 compared to 2014. It seems logical that the figure would in any event be more than the 5-year average.
Yes but the 30,000 would be averaged out over the 5 years.
I am sure I can recall at the beginning of the pandemic, when the way the figures were being calculated was being discussed, they were quoting the monthly excess death figures, and they pretty much lined up with the covid deaths.
Anyway I only got involved in this because you seemed to be going along the conspiracy stats above. I know its just a headline. But its a headline trying to promote an unrealistic covid deaths figure. They post the same articles and stats over and over. They get mixed up over which thread their on.
Was anyone really going to look at those stats and say "Oh, less than 18,000 covid deaths in England and Wales. Wow thats a lot less than I thought!
Has anyone asked the 5 Million what their reason is to not be Vaccinated, not just assume it's because they think they have natural immunity. Surely there are many reasons ranging from fear of needles to can't be bothered don't trust the Vaccine for not complying. They're all making their own decision after being bombarded with Facts or fiction to decide what's best for them.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10405625/Unjabbed-midwife-fears-losing-job-compulsory-vaccines-NHS-staff.html
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19withnootherunderlyingcauses?s=08
1. She has clearly received advice that says it is in her best interests to have the vaccine
2. She is a midwife, not a heart or virology specialist. Would love to see her reaction if a Heart specialist tried to tell her the best way of delivering babies
3. Suppose there are 4 Midwives in her particular area. How many pregnant women would choose to have their baby delivered by someone who is unvaccinated?
4. Do you think that it is the same 8% who choose not to be vaccinated themselves? Or do you think the figure is rather lower-because the number of people who choose not to vaccinate is not the same as the number who are happy for other people to do so, when it is their wife or child at risk
5. If, for example, there are 4 midwives. And 2 are unvaccinated. And 95% of expectant mothers expect the delivery etc to be attended by only the other 2.
What should the NHS do?
Difficult choices have to be made. There is no 1 simple answer. Because you cannot just look at the "right" of 1 midwife. And ignore 200 patients.
In the meantime, unaware of major measures to try and redistribute the workload of the unvaccinated now. Which, for me, is at least as daft as using an all-or-nothing approach afterwards.
I am sure there are very complex answers to that question. Which may take many years to answer. But the simple answer is "no"
If you click on to your link, you will see that what the ONS means by this is that Covid was the sole reason for death listed on the Death Cert.
I have seen a fair few in my time. They almost always (on any death, not just Covid ones) list at least 1 primary cause of death. And at least 1 secondary.
So-the reason for the low numbers is this. Firstly, there would need to be no comorbidity that was relevant and pre-existing.
And secondly, that the disease did not of itself create a comorbidity. So-it did not cause massive lung damage, or a heart attack, or pneumonia or sepsis.
Whereas, in reality Covid is a major cause, even the major cause in many deaths. But, in medical terms, the sole cause in far fewer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
result for probability theory
probability theory, a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. The outcome of a random event cannot be determined before it occurs, but it may be any one of several possible outcomes. The actual outcome is considered to be determined by chance.
By chance you know the out come for which group vac'd un-vac'd kill the most in the future. no guesses please.
Why bother with vaccines at all then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Think that has already been covered Pharmaceutical industry.
No.
If everyone had refused the vaccine we would be in a terrible state,
I would assume that the NHS has a responsibility to offer patients the maximum possible protection.
I am not sure that allowing unvaccinated staff to treat the elderly, vulnerable, or pregnant women would fulfil this responsibility.
It seems clear that the vaccinated are less likely than the unvaccinated to need hospital care, get seriously ill, or die.
I dont know if there is a difference in the severity of catching the virus from an unvaccinated, or vaccinated person.
I could see some court cases generated by the families of those that had died, or developed long covid, etc, after contracting the virus from unvaccinated NHS staff.
Where they may set out to prove that the NHS may have been negligent in this respect.
Vaccines still have an effect in reducing spread. But, like "immunity" less than before.
Why take vaccines? Because it dramatically reduces your chance of dying.
We therefore know that the total covid deaths amount to the extra deaths that we dont get on a normal year.
But the last time I did, I was rather surprised to discover that the answer was no.
So-for example-Covid has had a dramatic effect on the number of flu deaths in the last 2 Winters. Covid is nothing like an influenza medically-but it does seem to have temporarily displaced the usual flu deaths in the UK.
So-are there additional deaths? Undoubtedly. Are the 3 yardsticks used in the figures less scientific than one would wish? Yes. But-at least the last time I looked-additional deaths was not an accurate indicator as to total Covid deaths either. It understates the true figure.
As an example you could say, we had 50,000 more deaths last year, than the year before.
The government says there were 49,800 deaths from covid.
The conspiracy theorist say no there werent, there were categorically only 3,000.
They are not disputing that the people are dead, just the fact that they died from covid.
So despite the fact that there were 50,000 more deaths than the year before, and 50,300 more than the year before that, they will be adamant only 3,000 died from covid.
So what the f..k did the rest die of.
He asks questions designed to support his particular point of view.
It doesnt include Scotland and NI.
It doesnt include the full period.
I dont think it is far out.
Using the most up-to-date data from Figure 3 of Deaths Registered Weekly in England and Wales, the number of deaths from the week ending 13 March 2020 up to 4 June 2021 was 764,444 in England and Wales. During this period, the number of excess deaths above the five-year average was 103,857 deaths.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/excessdeathssofarin2021
20/21 Scotland is just over 13,000.
But it is also relevant that deaths have been rising quite sharply over the 5 year period they use for the calculation prior to Covid. So-extra 30,000 deaths 2019 compared to 2014. It seems logical that the figure would in any event be more than the 5-year average.
I am sure I can recall at the beginning of the pandemic, when the way the figures were being calculated was being discussed, they were quoting the monthly excess death figures, and they pretty much lined up with the covid deaths.
Anyway I only got involved in this because you seemed to be going along the conspiracy stats above.
I know its just a headline.
But its a headline trying to promote an unrealistic covid deaths figure.
They post the same articles and stats over and over.
They get mixed up over which thread their on.
Was anyone really going to look at those stats and say "Oh, less than 18,000 covid deaths in England and Wales. Wow thats a lot less than I thought!