Chilling attempting to talk about medical science and virology from some level of authority, yet can't even quote posts properly on a forum.
Him and his ilk are thick as mince.
Hello Chump.
The tinternet is an amazing piece of kit. You can even use it for verification of what has been said by experts. Some even use it to further their education.
For example, if you type in anything to do with medicine , information appears every time. I reckon this way of learning will catch on. How much medical science and virology information is not on the tinternet? Bear in mind that new information is added on a daily basis.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don’t have any medical degrees, I believe. They do have the honorary drop out degrees though.
Chilling attempting to talk about medical science and virology from some level of authority, yet can't even quote posts properly on a forum.
Him and his ilk are thick as mince.
Hello Chump.
The tinternet is an amazing piece of kit. You can even use it for verification of what has been said by experts. Some even use it to further their education.
For example, if you type in anything to do with medicine , information appears every time. I reckon this way of learning will catch on. How much medical science and virology information is not on the tinternet? Bear in mind that new information is added on a daily basis.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don’t have any medical degrees, I believe. They do have the honorary drop out degrees though.
This is both accurate and spectacularly wrong at the same time.
The internet is an amazing piece of kit. You can use it to verify what others have said. It can be a part of (but not all of) furthering your education.
But there are limits to this. The internet has no filter-it does not differentiate between accurate fact, and wild speculation. It does not remove supposed "facts" that have subsequently been proven to be wrong.
People are quick to leap on anything by an expert that has later been proved to be wrong if they believe that furthers their case. But are unable to see when clinical trials have shown their pet project/drug to be irrelevant.
1 of the main reasons I gave up Law and retired early was this. 15-20 years ago, if your opponent was a Litigant in Person, it was always incumbent on a Solicitor to do certain things to assist the other side. From (for example) showing someone how to correctly bundle info for a Court, to giving heavy hints as to what key points of your case the other side should be addressing. For some of us, that was due to a sense of fair play. For others, it was the knowledge that, if you did not, the Judge would. Let's not overstate this-it only made it less unfair.
Now? People come in with all sorts of stuff they have downloaded off the internet. They do not appreciate that (even before the internet) it was possible to find an "expert" who would say just about anything. They tell the Judge why he has no alternative but to agree with them. They don't abide by the old rule that you have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason-they never listen to the other side. And it is all rather sad.
There is a reason why it takes many years to become a professional. It is because it takes that long to acquire not only the knowledge, but how to apply it to real life situations. So-a GP normally has about 5 minutes per patient. I'm not saying never tell him what your "research" tells you it might be. I am saying don't spend the 1st 3 minutes banging on about it, or telling him why you are right. Because that 5 minutes might be needed.
Chilling attempting to talk about medical science and virology from some level of authority, yet can't even quote posts properly on a forum.
Him and his ilk are thick as mince.
Hello Chump.
The tinternet is an amazing piece of kit. You can even use it for verification of what has been said by experts. Some even use it to further their education.
For example, if you type in anything to do with medicine , information appears every time. I reckon this way of learning will catch on. How much medical science and virology information is not on the tinternet? Bear in mind that new information is added on a daily basis.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don’t have any medical degrees, I believe. They do have the honorary drop out degrees though.
Well done Dr Chilling, you managed to quote a post correctly.
Well, considering I’ve read PDF’s for medical students,latest research,noted what the silenced experts have said( and backed up with science)PDF’s from early on in Italy from doctors actually treating patients,( who again were silenced) etc etc,then I think I’m quite well placed to comment. When the truth comes out,I think you’ll find some of us are spectacularly correct. It’s never been about a virus,it’s been about a passport.Mr Whitty has actually stated that.
I’ll give you something to analyse later,and anybody else that likes a bit of unraveling.
Chilling attempting to talk about medical science and virology from some level of authority, yet can't even quote posts properly on a forum.
Him and his ilk are thick as mince.
Hello Chump.
The tinternet is an amazing piece of kit. You can even use it for verification of what has been said by experts. Some even use it to further their education.
For example, if you type in anything to do with medicine , information appears every time. I reckon this way of learning will catch on. How much medical science and virology information is not on the tinternet? Bear in mind that new information is added on a daily basis.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don’t have any medical degrees, I believe. They do have the honorary drop out degrees though.
Well done Dr Chilling, you managed to quote a post correctly.
It’s why Chris Whitty said most wont catch it or develop symptoms. This is just basic knowledge obv,data manipulation to come. And let’s not forget that the WHO,Gates,Blair etc,said nobody is safe until everybody is safe. But that can only be achieved if every person in the world is ‘ offered’ a jab.
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the blue line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
The deception is with what’s classed as unvaccinated. I know you would wish unvaccinated to equal refuseniks,but it does not.
The graph rises as the vaccine uptake increases. Simple enough to understand.
People already had immunity, Chris Whitty had stated that. That was one of the ‘ good bits’ that flew over your head. You were probably watching the news at that time,so I may forgive you. May.
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the blue line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
The deception is with what’s classed as unvaccinated. I know you would wish unvaccinated to equal refuseniks,but it does not.
Oh and the posts move again. Everytime sense is added to the argument the C.T. brigade shift the direction of their misinformation.
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
Go and find out who had immunity before any jabs were rolled out.
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the blue line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
The deception is with what’s classed as unvaccinated. I know you would wish unvaccinated to equal refuseniks,but it does not.
Oh and the posts move again. Everytime sense is added to the argument the C.T. brigade shift the direction of their misinformation.
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
Go and find out who had immunity before any jabs were rolled out.
Really? Where to begin.
Firstly, when Doctors talk about immunity, they do not mean the same as you do. Immunity in this instance is an ability from the body's own immune system to seek to fight a virus in a manner better than other people. It does not mean that someone is immune from any disease.
I tried to explain the role of T-cells on 1 of these threads a while back. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and T-cells were irrelevant. You now believe they are relevant-you just don't understand them.
For your theory to have substance, the following need to apply:-
1. Only unvaccinated people are fat 2. Only unvaccinated people have comorbidities 3. You understand what immunity means; and ultimately 4. It is the case that people who are susceptible to severe effects from Covid are overwhelmingly susceptible for some reason other than the only thing that clearly separates them from the other group, namely that they are unvaccinated
Listen to yourself, man. Then look at the red line.
People will die very day, jabbed or unjabbed, and die through various illnesses and causes. If a patient has a positive test within 28 days of death,those will be included in the stats.And they are. ‘ With’ or ‘of’ is the grey area,and in some cases not even relevant .
People will die very day, jabbed or unjabbed, and die through various illnesses and causes. If a patient has a positive test within 28 days of death,those will be included in the stats.And they are. ‘ With’ or ‘of’ is the grey area,and in some cases not even relevant .
All true. And none of it explains that red line at all. Look at the ONS table I showed you before. Or do you believe every single death over 10 months, analysed and fully interpreted by Actuaries is somehow irrelevant?
Don't forget-you are relying on someone's opinion who doesn't know the difference between "September" and "November/December"...
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
Go and find out who had immunity before any jabs were rolled out.
Really? Where to begin.
Firstly, when Doctors talk about immunity, they do not mean the same as you do. Immunity in this instance is an ability from the body's own immune system to seek to fight a virus in a manner better than other people. It does not mean that someone is immune from any disease.
I tried to explain the role of T-cells on 1 of these threads a while back. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and T-cells were irrelevant. You now believe they are relevant-you just don't understand them.
For your theory to have substance, the following need to apply:-
1. Only unvaccinated people are fat 2. Only unvaccinated people have comorbidities 3. You understand what immunity means; and ultimately 4. It is the case that people who are susceptible to severe effects from Covid are overwhelmingly susceptible for some reason other than the only thing that clearly separates them from the other group, namely that they are unvaccinated
Listen to yourself, man. Then look at the red line.
That’s the point, you have a fascination with the red line as if it’s a true reflection of anything. This is a typically vague chart, which leaves out any data. You can obviously go with want you want,your choice,I’m merely pointing out the lack of data,and from where I’m sitting, that’s a totally misleading chart. Give me five.
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
Go and find out who had immunity before any jabs were rolled out.
Really? Where to begin.
Firstly, when Doctors talk about immunity, they do not mean the same as you do. Immunity in this instance is an ability from the body's own immune system to seek to fight a virus in a manner better than other people. It does not mean that someone is immune from any disease.
I tried to explain the role of T-cells on 1 of these threads a while back. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and T-cells were irrelevant. You now believe they are relevant-you just don't understand them.
For your theory to have substance, the following need to apply:-
1. Only unvaccinated people are fat 2. Only unvaccinated people have comorbidities 3. You understand what immunity means; and ultimately 4. It is the case that people who are susceptible to severe effects from Covid are overwhelmingly susceptible for some reason other than the only thing that clearly separates them from the other group, namely that they are unvaccinated
Listen to yourself, man. Then look at the red line.
That’s the point, you have a fascination with the red line as if it’s a true reflection of anything. This is a typically vague chart, which leaves out any data. You can obviously go with want you want,your choice,I’m merely pointing out the lack of data,and from where I’m sitting, that’s a totally misleading chart. Give me five.
No-it is not as bad as that. While the multiples on chances of dying from Covid are massive, the overall effect is less.
If last year's ONS stats are correct, you will only have a (before age-adjustment) 3% chance of dying, rather than a 1% chance.
I'm sure the 97% left will all still be sure they are right. The 3%? Not so much.
Look at all the points I have raised that you fail to answer. And ask yourself-why?
This chart gives no precise data whatsoever. Intended for hyyf I suspect.
This is a classic example of how somebody tries to use statistics only for their own ends, and ignores the bits they don't like.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
Go and find out who had immunity before any jabs were rolled out.
Really? Where to begin.
Firstly, when Doctors talk about immunity, they do not mean the same as you do. Immunity in this instance is an ability from the body's own immune system to seek to fight a virus in a manner better than other people. It does not mean that someone is immune from any disease.
I tried to explain the role of T-cells on 1 of these threads a while back. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and T-cells were irrelevant. You now believe they are relevant-you just don't understand them.
For your theory to have substance, the following need to apply:-
1. Only unvaccinated people are fat 2. Only unvaccinated people have comorbidities 3. You understand what immunity means; and ultimately 4. It is the case that people who are susceptible to severe effects from Covid are overwhelmingly susceptible for some reason other than the only thing that clearly separates them from the other group, namely that they are unvaccinated
Listen to yourself, man. Then look at the red line.
That’s the point, you have a fascination with the red line as if it’s a true reflection of anything. This is a typically vague chart, which leaves out any data. You can obviously go with want you want,your choice,I’m merely pointing out the lack of data,and from where I’m sitting, that’s a totally misleading chart. Give me five.
No-it is not as bad as that. While the multiples on chances of dying from Covid are massive, the overall effect is less.
If last year's ONS stats are correct, you will only have a (before age-adjustment) 3% chance of dying, rather than a 1% chance.
I'm sure the 97% left will all still be sure they are right. The 3%? Not so much.
Look at all the points I have raised that you fail to answer. And ask yourself-why?
I’ll read and answer them in a minute,but maybe I won’t need to.
Comments
The tinternet is an amazing piece of kit.
You can even use it for verification of what has been said by experts.
Some even use it to further their education.
For example, if you type in anything to do with medicine , information appears every time. I reckon this way of learning will catch on.
How much medical science and virology information is not on the tinternet?
Bear in mind that new information is added on a daily basis.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg don’t have any medical degrees, I believe.
They do have the honorary drop out degrees though.
The internet is an amazing piece of kit. You can use it to verify what others have said. It can be a part of (but not all of) furthering your education.
But there are limits to this. The internet has no filter-it does not differentiate between accurate fact, and wild speculation. It does not remove supposed "facts" that have subsequently been proven to be wrong.
People are quick to leap on anything by an expert that has later been proved to be wrong if they believe that furthers their case. But are unable to see when clinical trials have shown their pet project/drug to be irrelevant.
1 of the main reasons I gave up Law and retired early was this. 15-20 years ago, if your opponent was a Litigant in Person, it was always incumbent on a Solicitor to do certain things to assist the other side. From (for example) showing someone how to correctly bundle info for a Court, to giving heavy hints as to what key points of your case the other side should be addressing. For some of us, that was due to a sense of fair play. For others, it was the knowledge that, if you did not, the Judge would. Let's not overstate this-it only made it less unfair.
Now? People come in with all sorts of stuff they have downloaded off the internet. They do not appreciate that (even before the internet) it was possible to find an "expert" who would say just about anything. They tell the Judge why he has no alternative but to agree with them. They don't abide by the old rule that you have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason-they never listen to the other side. And it is all rather sad.
There is a reason why it takes many years to become a professional. It is because it takes that long to acquire not only the knowledge, but how to apply it to real life situations. So-a GP normally has about 5 minutes per patient. I'm not saying never tell him what your "research" tells you it might be. I am saying don't spend the 1st 3 minutes banging on about it, or telling him why you are right. Because that 5 minutes might be needed.
Might have mince for tea.
When the truth comes out,I think you’ll find some of us are spectacularly correct.
It’s never been about a virus,it’s been about a passport.Mr Whitty has actually stated that.
I’ll give you something to analyse later,and anybody else that likes a bit of unraveling.
This is just basic knowledge obv,data manipulation to come.
And let’s not forget that the WHO,Gates,Blair etc,said nobody is safe until everybody is safe.
But that can only be achieved if every person in the world is ‘ offered’ a jab.
Intended for hyyf I suspect.
Let's start with the bits @chilling wants to use. Firstly, it is true to say that boosters have not been available for the whole period. That is certainly going to have an impact on those figures. That is relevant. Then that is followed by a total lie. "Boosters were not available until Nov/Dec 2021.." No. Boosters were recommended by the JCVI on 14th September. The rollout started on 16th September. By 15th October 3 million boosters had been administered. That first 3 million would largely have been in the 70-plus bracket. So-the figures there (and, to a lesser extent the 50/60-plus groups are relevant.
To be fair, we should also include another piece of evidence that is lacking. The single jabbed appear to be missing. Not as statistically important now, but certainly far more important at the beginning of the original time period in these stats.
The "vulnerabilities" bit. No stats do everything. Take the stats for what they are. What they do say. Judge them on that.
But-and it is a big but-it is nonsense to suggest that there is "no precise data whatsoever". The statistics clearly show the massive extra risk unvaccinated people are taking. To say otherwise is faintly ridiculous. It also give a very clear indication that being double vaccinated provides considerable (not total) protection for all age groups, and that being boosted gives extra protection for at least some age groups.
You can try and pick holes in the green line if you wish. But don't ignore the massive red line...
I know you would wish unvaccinated to equal refuseniks,but it does not.
That was one of the ‘ good bits’ that flew over your head.
You were probably watching the news at that time,so I may forgive you. May.
Firstly, when Doctors talk about immunity, they do not mean the same as you do. Immunity in this instance is an ability from the body's own immune system to seek to fight a virus in a manner better than other people. It does not mean that someone is immune from any disease.
I tried to explain the role of T-cells on 1 of these threads a while back. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and T-cells were irrelevant. You now believe they are relevant-you just don't understand them.
For your theory to have substance, the following need to apply:-
1. Only unvaccinated people are fat
2. Only unvaccinated people have comorbidities
3. You understand what immunity means; and ultimately
4. It is the case that people who are susceptible to severe effects from Covid are overwhelmingly susceptible for some reason other than the only thing that clearly separates them from the other group, namely that they are unvaccinated
Listen to yourself, man. Then look at the red line.
If a patient has a positive test within 28 days of death,those will be included in the stats.And they are. ‘ With’ or ‘of’ is the grey area,and in some cases not even relevant .
And none of it explains that red line at all.
Look at the ONS table I showed you before. Or do you believe every single death over 10 months, analysed and fully interpreted by Actuaries is somehow irrelevant?
Don't forget-you are relying on someone's opinion who doesn't know the difference between "September" and "November/December"...
This is a typically vague chart, which leaves out any data.
You can obviously go with want you want,your choice,I’m merely pointing out the lack of data,and from where I’m sitting, that’s a totally misleading chart.
Give me five.
If last year's ONS stats are correct, you will only have a (before age-adjustment) 3% chance of dying, rather than a 1% chance.
I'm sure the 97% left will all still be sure they are right. The 3%? Not so much.
Look at all the points I have raised that you fail to answer. And ask yourself-why?