Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[flecc]

The UK population is around 60 million, so the supposed Covid death rate was about 0.1 per 100,000. That graph shows unvaccinated death rate from covid at 0.4, so they must have included deaths that were were nothing to do with covid, vaccinated or not.

Obviously so, since official policy was to include deaths that weren't necessarily due to Covid, i.e. all Deaths within 28 days of a positive test had to be put entered as due to Covid, whether so or not. My own brother's death was entered as due to Covid in 2020 when it emphatically was not on the medical evidence.

Worse still, when it became embarrassingly apparent that the vaccines in year two were resulting in no difference from the death rates of year one without vaccines, the government ordered one of their labs to recalculate all year one's deaths from Covid as those within 60 days of a positive test.

As blatant a case of statistical fiddling as one could imagine, obviously to try to present the vaccines outcome of year two more favourably.
.

 

[soundwave]

Bombshell: New Zealand Whistleblower Reveals Over 20% Who Took Pfizer Jab Died

Infowars Article

Infowars: There's a War on for your Mind!

www.infowars.com

 

[Woosh]

Bombshell: New Zealand Whistleblower Reveals Over 20% Who Took Pfizer Jab Died

I had AZ, Pfizer, Moderna and a French one that I forgot the name. What are my chances?

 

[soundwave]

https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal46511

16 January 2024 at 9:30am

General Debate: Trends in excess deaths

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

Provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales, including deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), in the latest weeks.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[saneagle]

I had AZ, Pfizer, Moderna and a French one that I forgot the name. What are my chances?

Various experts have come up with ways to detoxify from the vaccines, but they've all been de-bunked by authoritative sources, so it doesn't look good for you. Please remember me when you write your will.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

This one ?


So the age standardised death rate from Covid is 5* as much if you are unvaccinated as at Oct 21

Sorry - I still can't parse this

"The thumbnail for UK in that data you provided shows the unvaccinated death rate at end 22 as around 25/100,00 compared with the ONS covid death rate as 0.1, which means that only one of each 250 unvaccinated deaths was anything to do with covid, and therefore you would expect an equivalent number of vaccinated deaths."

End of 22 ? the graph shows March-Oct 21 (if I have got the correct graph)

At end 22 only about 60 people per week had Covid on their death certs in UK, and many of them didn't die of covid. They died of all sorts of other things, like suicide, car crash and cancer as the main cause.

My post #1315 has the breakdown where Covid is the main cause on the death certificate. The instructions to Drs should only include things that contributed to the death. There was a spike of excess deaths at the beginning of the pandemic where Covid wasn't mentioned on the death certificate but probably should have been included and added to the total ( https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab )

 

[saneagle]

This one ?
View attachment 55850

So the age standardised death rate from Covid is 5* as much if you are unvaccinated as at Oct 21

Sorry - I still can't parse this

"The thumbnail for UK in that data you provided shows the unvaccinated death rate at end 22 as around 25/100,00 compared with the ONS covid death rate as 0.1, which means that only one of each 250 unvaccinated deaths was anything to do with covid, and therefore you would expect an equivalent number of vaccinated deaths."

End of 22 ? the graph shows March-Oct 21 (if I have got the correct graph)

At end 22 only about 60 people per week had Covid on their death certs in UK, and many of them didn't die of covid. They died of all sorts of other things, like suicide, car crash and cancer as the main cause.

My post #1315 has the breakdown where Covid is the main cause on the death certificate. The instructions to Drs should only include things that contributed to the death. There was a spike of excess deaths at the beginning of the pandemic where Covid wasn't mentioned on the death certificate but probably should have been included and added to the total ( https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab )

Just compare the data ifrom the 2 charts, then think about what each means.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
shows about 100 covid deaths per week in Oct 22
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/england-covid-19-mortality-rate-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
shows 24 per 100,00 unvaccinated plus 5 per 100,000 vaccinated, which would be 29/100,00 x 65,000,000= 18,850 covid deaths per month or about 4,500 per week . That's not believable.

In October 22, the UK total death rate was around 13,000, so maybe they're using the total death rate, but then unvaccinated people shouldn't be more likely to die in road accidents, from old age, suicide or any of the other main causes of death. The data in your link is completely bogus.

 

[Woosh]

24 per 100,00 unvaccinated plus 5 per 100,000 vaccinated, which would be 29/100,00 x 65,000,000= 18,850 covid deaths per month or about 4,500 per week . That's not believable.

The vast majority, about 80%, have been vaccinated, so 80% of 65 millions = 52 millions.
This group has 5 deaths per 100,000 per month, total 520 * 5 = 2600.
20% are unvaccinated, 65 millions * 20% = 13 millions. This group has 24 deaths per 100,000 per month, total 130 * 24 = 3120 deaths per month.
It's believable.

 

[Nealh]

And what the blazes is all this to do with the thread topic , talk about going totally off topic
D8veh only yesterday grizzled at Guerney for taking his thread off topic !!!

I know you guys are bored and have little else to add the topic title but why not start a complete new post covid thread.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

Just compare the data ifrom the 2 charts, then think about what each means.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
shows about 100 covid deaths per week in Oct 22
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/england-covid-19-mortality-rate-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
shows 24 per 100,00 unvaccinated plus 5 per 100,000 vaccinated, which would be 29/100,00 x 65,000,000= 18,850 covid deaths per month or about 4,500 per week . That's not believable.

In October 22, the UK total death rate was around 13,000, so maybe they're using the total death rate, but then unvaccinated people shouldn't be more likely to die in road accidents, from old age, suicide or any of the other main causes of death. The data in your link is completely bogus.

You are using the wrong year the wrong country and the wrong calculations and not talking into account the data is age standardised

1) The our world in data is October 21 not October 22 and is England only data
2) You need to use the right figures for the fully vaccinated population and the totally unvaccinated population and use those together with the death rate
3) The data is age standardised - so you can't simply multiply stuff out because the unvaccinated population is a lot younger

To do the analysis you are trying to do, you need to follow the links from ourworldindata to the ons page

This is the age standardised data (table 1)



And age banded data (table2)

 

[soundwave]

 

[saneagle]

This is the age standardised data (table 1)

That's the problem. Instead of using actual data, they adjusted it. The method of the adjustment was invalid. As soon as they do things like that, you know they're up to tricks. The only thing that counts is the number of people, who died of covid, and the number, who died because of the vaccine. Nobody knows who out of the vaccinated would have died if they didn't have the vaccine, now who out of the unvaccinated would have died if they had been vaccinated. There is some clear evidence that people died of the vaccine because it was written on their death certificate. There is no evidence that people died of covid only because they didn't have the vaccine. That's just speculation.

 

[Woosh]

If somebody has been vaccinated and died after contracting covid, how do you work out what killed him?

 

[saneagle]

If somebody has been vaccinated and died after contracting covid, how do you work out what killed him?

Exactly. I seem to remember prominent people saying on mainstream news that if you had the 100% safe and effective vaccine, not only would you not die, but neither would your grandma.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

That's the problem. Instead of using actual data, they adjusted it. The method of the adjustment was invalid. As soon as they do things like that, you know they're up to tricks. The only thing that counts is the number of people, who died of covid, and the number, who died because of the vaccine. Nobody knows who out of the vaccinated would have died if they didn't have the vaccine, now who out of the unvaccinated would have died if they had been vaccinated. There is some clear evidence that people died of the vaccine because it was written on their death certificate. There is no evidence that people died of covid only because they didn't have the vaccine. That's just speculation.

If you are comparing two groups with different age profiles you need to age adjust it. It is standard actuarial practice. If someone presents an analysis which isn't age adjusted you need to ask yourself "whats the agenda"

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742150334384861351

 

[saneagle]

If you are comparing two groups with different age profiles you need to age adjust it. It is standard actuarial practice. If someone presents an analysis which isn't age adjusted you need to ask yourself "whats the agenda"

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742150334384861351

It might be normal to adjust data, but the results have to be plausible, logical and consistent with fact. In this case they're not. Their results show that you're substantially more likely to die of non-covid causes if you've had the vaccine, which clearly is wrong and more likely to be the other way round, since covid vaccination is a known cause of death. Additionally, someone needs to explain the present excess non-covid death rate, which is shortly to be debated in Parliament if MPs can be bothered to turn up.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

It might be normal to adjust data, but the results have to be plausible, logical and consistent with fact. In this case they're not. Their results show that you're substantially more likely to die of non-covid causes if you've had the vaccine, which clearly is wrong and more likely to be the other way round, since covid vaccination is a known cause of death. Additionally, someone needs to explain the present excess non-covid death rate, which is shortly to be debated in Parliament if MPs can be bothered to turn up.

No - the opposite is true - you're substantially more likely to die of non-covid causes if you've not had the vaccine. That's hardly surprising since this group contains a lot of people who face health and wider inequalities that persist in our society - and the pandemic has affected most those that already face disadvantage and discrimination.
There's a very good article on recent excess deaths here :

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00221-1/fulltext

 

[saneagle]

No - the opposite is true - you're substantially more likely to die of non-covid causes if you've not had the vaccine. That's hardly surprising since this group contains a lot of people who face health and wider inequalities that persist in our society - and the pandemic has affected most those that already face disadvantage and discrimination.
There's a very good article on recent excess deaths here :

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00221-1/fulltext

Unfortunately, the Lancet has had its day. It used to be independent, but now it's pay to win - no longer trustworthy.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

Unfortunately, the Lancet has had its day. It used to be independent, but now it's pay to win - no longer trustworthy.

If you prefer the same set of analysis as a series of tweets it's here

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731580524236280077

 

[saneagle]

If you prefer the same set of analysis as a series of tweets it's here

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731580524236280077

I'm hoping that facts from both sides will be presented in the parliamentary debate, then both sides will thrash it out to see what the actual story is. Alas, last time it was supposed to be debated, just about every MP got up and walked out, leaving just Andrew Bridgen to read his script unopposed. Why did they all leave? Surely, the point of parliament is to debate. If he was talking shite, why didn't they debate him and put up their own facts? Who organised them all to leave? You can see that two members of the Green party hadn't had the instruction, so some snake from the Conservative side got up and told them to leave. They looked very confused at first, but then they left. All shown here: