independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Big Covid spike. Come on asshats get vaccinated!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 11 of 48 « First<789101112131415>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #300 posted 07/30/21 3:44pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

IanRG said:

.

Because as the report say, it was merely deaths that occured within the period after vaccination that were given a yellow card. This means thry need to be looked at, not that the the vaccine killed them - Some people will have been killed, but if it like the equivalent Australian report, of the 210 equivalent deaths only 2 were as a result of the vaccine out of 3.6 million doses.

.

You are imagining that people filling in a legal document as HCP would make up the cause of death knowing that such a false claim that would tarnish their professional reputation and expose them to potent legal or disablinary consequences. The deaths from Covid are real.


All deaths of people who died within 28 days after a first positive Covid test are initially automatically included in the toll and announced daily on the BBC, while those dying shortly - sometimes very shortly - after getting the vaccine require further deliberation before a link is established. I am surprised you still don't see the blatant and potentially dangerous inconsistencies in approaches here.

But anyway, IF the figures in the UK yellow card reporting system turned out to not match the actual number of deaths confirmed as linked to the vaccine(s), and since you are usually quite good at finding reports, would you by any chance have any idea of how we could find out?

.

What you think initially happened in the early days of the pandemic is not what has been happening for a long time. The difference is you have not read the report properly and you are blatantly ignoring that it specifically and directly argues against the interpretation you want make. Whereas very early day issues when people were still establishing processes to identify, manage and protect people's lives where resolved quickly thereafter. You are in effect arguing I should believe you interpretation that ignores what the report said because the initial difficulties in quantification when the pandemic started should be repeated to prevent inconsistency!

.

The last bit, I addressed to you in the post where I pointed out your assumption was wrong. I said "The hint is in the name - yellow card - this is just deaths soon after getting the vaccine, so they need to be investigated and absolutely should be as a matter of urgency." I checked the UK FOIs on these investigations and the response to two of them was to delay with a link to the timetable.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #301 posted 07/30/21 3:53pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

CherryMoon57 said:


All deaths of people who died within 28 days after a first positive Covid test are initially automatically included in the toll and announced daily on the BBC, while those dying shortly - sometimes very shortly - after getting the vaccine require further deliberation before a link is established. I am surprised you still don't see the blatant and potentially dangerous inconsistencies in approaches here.

But anyway, IF the figures in the yellow card system turned out to not match actual death confirmed as linked to the vaccines, and since you are usually quite good at finding reports, would you by any change have any idea of how we could find out?


^ Believe what you want to believe. But it's quite clear the 71 UK deaths from thrombocytopenia linked to the vaccine are fairly indisputable. These are extremely rare clotting events, totally unlike DVTs. They just don't ordinarily happen to people.

.

I will break my rule of never engaging with you because your only interest is to troll people across threads and forums, even in your profile.

.

This is correct - the 71 deaths directly attributable to the vaccine is where the focus should be - This is a small number but it does mean that these need to be considered by understanding and identifying the risk factors for a very small number of people and how these can be identified in advance or as soon as warning signs arise.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #302 posted 07/30/21 4:03pm

IanRG

djThunderfunk said:

IanRG said:

.

And you will be able to show where I have?

.

Because I know where you have absolutely selectively supported the authoritarian actions of the failed coup leader.


You have repeatedly shown support for forced vaccination and lockdowns.

So sure, show me where I "supported the authoritarian actions" of... well, ANYONE, ever.

I'll wait. popcorn

.

No I have not. I have repeatedly shown support for vaccinations and lockdowns. And you have failed to show where I have supported forced vaccinations. I knew you would, and I know there is no point waiting.

.

Your repeated support and defence over 4 years of the failed coup leader's racism, nationalism, miltarisation of policing others, and for his brown shirt's violence is your support for authoritarianism, specifically far-right authoritarianism, the very definition of fascism.

[Edited 7/30/21 16:17pm]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #303 posted 07/30/21 4:13pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:



EmmaMcG said:


CherryMoon57 said:


Lol. Sounds like I would probably get along fine with your sister...


Do you think you will get your older children vaccinated too when that becomes available for them?



I'd say you probably would, haha. Probably my husband too. My daughter is 10 and my son will be 2 in December. So that rules him out. My daughter? I'm honestly not sure. If it's offered to kids that young then I'll think about it. Until then it's not something I'll worry about. I wouldn't make that decision on my own though. As always, I'll follow the advice of my GP (and get a second and third opinion) and if it's deemed safe then I'll ask her if she wants it. I know she's still very young but I kind of don't want to force my opinions on her. I want her to make her own mind up. The virus doesn't impact children the way it does adults though does it? And at that point I'd be fully vaccinated, as would my husband and most of my family so I wouldn't have to worry too much about my daughter catching whatever mild version of the virus kids get and passing on a more serious version to an adult. Long story short, I'm not sure.


Yes, Covid vaccination for kids is an even trickier one, with the risks currently outweighing the benefits. As for me, I think I will probably try and get an immunity certificate - to visit my mum in France - if I can, as I am pretty sure I had Covid back in January 2020 when it all started. This might be enough to show at the French border and other places, at least for now. Still pretty annoying to have to go through all this though. Having to constantly justify and pay for travel tests that are rather expensive (last time I checked it was £85 per person) and that are only valid for 3 days.



Yeah my brother also lives in France. He came to visit me there a few months back and ended up staying throughout most of the lockdown just because it was too difficult for him to go home. Not that I minded. I don't get to see him much anymore so it was kind of nice having him home for a while.
I hope you get to visit your mother soon. It's tough being unable to visit loved ones. By far, the worst thing about this whole thing for me has been not being able to see family. My aunt lives in England and my brother in France. I don't have much family but they're all so far away. I pity my cousin. She lives with us (long story) but all her family live in Australia. She grew up there and only moved over here in the last few years. So she's been really pissed off with the travel restrictions.

How do those immunity certs work? I'm asking for my father in law. He got Covid last year (spent 2 months in hospital) but thankfully he's alright now. He was talking about going somewhere this year but wasn't sure of the protocols.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #304 posted 07/30/21 5:12pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


^ Believe what you want to believe. But it's quite clear the 71 UK deaths from thrombocytopenia linked to the vaccine are fairly indisputable. These are extremely rare clotting events, totally unlike DVTs. They just don't ordinarily happen to people.

.

I will break my rule of never engaging with you because your only interest is to troll people across threads and forums, even in your profile.

.

This is correct - the 71 deaths directly attributable to the vaccine is where the focus should be - This is a small number but it does mean that these need to be considered by understanding and identifying the risk factors for a very small number of people and how these can be identified in advance or as soon as warning signs arise.


Well, actually you're wrong about trolling. My arguments are too nuanced for most people here, but occasionally I use humour to make light of someone else's serious point if I view it as hogwash. As for my profile, the two people referenced there made an org career out of trolling others. Which is why they got banned. But I'm still here since year 2000 actually. And no, before you say otherwise I closed down my other account. By the way, I stopped posting replies to you on the Gaza vs Israel thread because you were ignoring some of my arguments that were balanced and trying to color me biased all the time. It got tiresome and the thread was an endless fucking roundabout. Ditto the covid thread. I'm obsessed with detail and nuance. Because the world is too complicated to fit into neat square pigeonholes, that means I always try to go behind the headlines. If people don't do that, automatically they run the risk of drawing the wrong conclusion. Anyway, about those asshats...

The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #305 posted 07/30/21 5:15pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

IanRG said:

.

I will break my rule of never engaging with you because your only interest is to troll people across threads and forums, even in your profile.

.

This is correct - the 71 deaths directly attributable to the vaccine is where the focus should be - This is a small number but it does mean that these need to be considered by understanding and identifying the risk factors for a very small number of people and how these can be identified in advance or as soon as warning signs arise.


<Nothing on the topic>

.

Like I said, nothing but a troll who cannot walk past an opportunity to troll even when people agree with you. Good bye. I won't make the same mistake of showing support for you again.

[Edited 7/30/21 17:16pm]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #306 posted 07/30/21 5:23pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

^ LOL If I was such a regular troll as you make out then I would have been banned here long ago. Further, I often use GIFS such that they're not even oppositional, let alone trolling. Maybe you missed those ones. You did often accuse me of supporting the "failed coup leader" which I had to keep reminding you, not only am I not American but I can't stand the man. Isn't that out and out trolling for your part? Anyway, I believe Trump doesn't belong in the discussion here because he didn't have a polemical view on the vaccine topic, unless I'm mistaken. But somehow his name finds its way onto every P&R thread.

The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #307 posted 07/30/21 7:11pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Some are just in LOCK STEP following the Comands of their rulers: government, big Teck, and big pharma... all the talking points none of the thought. And that is okay.

i dIdn't reAd aNy of that gaRbaG
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #308 posted 07/30/21 8:35pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Yes, there's too much feeling and not enough thinking. Too much of I believe x because the majority of the population believe x.

The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #309 posted 07/31/21 6:38am

CherryMoon57

avatar

IanRG said:

CherryMoon57 said:


All deaths of people who died within 28 days after a first positive Covid test are initially automatically included in the toll and announced daily on the BBC, while those dying shortly - sometimes very shortly - after getting the vaccine require further deliberation before a link is established. I am surprised you still don't see the blatant and potentially dangerous inconsistencies in approaches here.

But anyway, IF the figures in the UK yellow card reporting system turned out to not match the actual number of deaths confirmed as linked to the vaccine(s), and since you are usually quite good at finding reports, would you by any chance have any idea of how we could find out?

.

What you think initially happened in the early days of the pandemic is not what has been happening for a long time. The difference is you have not read the report properly and you are blatantly ignoring that it specifically and directly argues against the interpretation you want make. Whereas very early day issues when people were still establishing processes to identify, manage and protect people's lives where resolved quickly thereafter. You are in effect arguing I should believe you interpretation that ignores what the report said because the initial difficulties in quantification when the pandemic started should be repeated to prevent inconsistency!

.

The last bit, I addressed to you in the post where I pointed out your assumption was wrong. I said "The hint is in the name - yellow card - this is just deaths soon after getting the vaccine, so they need to be investigated and absolutely should be as a matter of urgency." I checked the UK FOIs on these investigations and the response to two of them was to delay with a link to the timetable.


I am sorry Ian but I just don't understand your first paragraph. I am not sure what you mean by 'what you think initially happened in the early days etc.' What I was talking about is what is (still) happening with the way the death toll is initially reported (death within 28 days of a first positive test) vs how the deaths following the vaccine are not reported or only as 'possibly' linked but unconfirmed (see second paragraph). Your response doesn't seem to connect with what I said somehow.

As for the issue of finding out about the actual verified vaccine-linked deaths, your response seems to confirm that there isn't any data currently available to the general public. Would you agree with this?

[Edited 7/31/21 6:48am]

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #310 posted 07/31/21 7:19am

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

IanRG said:

.

What you think initially happened in the early days of the pandemic is not what has been happening for a long time. The difference is you have not read the report properly and you are blatantly ignoring that it specifically and directly argues against the interpretation you want make. Whereas very early day issues when people were still establishing processes to identify, manage and protect people's lives where resolved quickly thereafter. You are in effect arguing I should believe you interpretation that ignores what the report said because the initial difficulties in quantification when the pandemic started should be repeated to prevent inconsistency!

.

The last bit, I addressed to you in the post where I pointed out your assumption was wrong. I said "The hint is in the name - yellow card - this is just deaths soon after getting the vaccine, so they need to be investigated and absolutely should be as a matter of urgency." I checked the UK FOIs on these investigations and the response to two of them was to delay with a link to the timetable.


I am sorry Ian but I just don't understand your first paragraph. I am not sure what you mean by 'what you think initially happened in the early days etc.' What I was talking about is what is (still) happening with the way the death toll is initially reported (death within 28 days of a first positive test) vs how the death linked to the vaccine are reported or unconfirmed (see second paragraph). Your response doesn't seem to connect what I said somehow.

As for the issue of finding out about the actual verified vaccine-linked deaths, your response seems to confirm that there isn't any data currently available to the general public. Do you agree with this?

.

If that is what you meant, then you are wrong. There is no automatic assumption that every death within 28 days of covid test must be a covid death. Since 28 April 2020, ie for all the time except in early days of the pandemic, the NHS guidance is that the the death can only be recorded once it confirmed that covid was a direct or underlying cause of death or the person died in hospital from covid. In the former case, this can be by a covid test after death for the death certificate.

.

The full analysis ovfvaccine-linked deaths is being prepared according to the FOI requests, but figures show that the Astrazenica blood clot risk is 8 deaths per million or 0.00008%, way, way smaller than the deaths per case of Covid. The yellow card figure is red herring because it is prior to any determination that any vaccine was a direct or underlying cause of death. There is no inconsistency by me.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #311 posted 07/31/21 7:21am

CherryMoon57

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

CherryMoon57 said:


Yes, Covid vaccination for kids is an even trickier one, with the risks currently outweighing the benefits. As for me, I think I will probably try and get an immunity certificate - to visit my mum in France - if I can, as I am pretty sure I had Covid back in January 2020 when it all started. This might be enough to show at the French border and other places, at least for now. Still pretty annoying to have to go through all this though. Having to constantly justify and pay for travel tests that are rather expensive (last time I checked it was £85 per person) and that are only valid for 3 days.

Yeah my brother also lives in France. He came to visit me there a few months back and ended up staying throughout most of the lockdown just because it was too difficult for him to go home. Not that I minded. I don't get to see him much anymore so it was kind of nice having him home for a while. I hope you get to visit your mother soon. It's tough being unable to visit loved ones. By far, the worst thing about this whole thing for me has been not being able to see family. My aunt lives in England and my brother in France. I don't have much family but they're all so far away. I pity my cousin. She lives with us (long story) but all her family live in Australia. She grew up there and only moved over here in the last few years. So she's been really pissed off with the travel restrictions. How do those immunity certs work? I'm asking for my father in law. He got Covid last year (spent 2 months in hospital) but thankfully he's alright now. He was talking about going somewhere this year but wasn't sure of the protocols.

This is all so morally painful for many families. At least I am glad I have already spent many long holidays in France over the past few years... I have only just recently started looking into the immunity certificate route and I am not entirely sure in which countries they are accepted but I think they are in France, at least for now. From what can see it seems that the immunity certification test is only available in the UK to those already vaccinated (surprise surprise) or those who tested positive for Covid in the past 6 months and who can prove it. Well there is still the regular testing route (if negative), but as I said before, they have to be taken in the private sector and are not cheap. Are any members of your family reluctant to getting the vaccine, other than your - now vaccinated - sister?

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #312 posted 07/31/21 7:57am

EmmaMcG

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:



EmmaMcG said:


CherryMoon57 said:



Yes, Covid vaccination for kids is an even trickier one, with the risks currently outweighing the benefits. As for me, I think I will probably try and get an immunity certificate - to visit my mum in France - if I can, as I am pretty sure I had Covid back in January 2020 when it all started. This might be enough to show at the French border and other places, at least for now. Still pretty annoying to have to go through all this though. Having to constantly justify and pay for travel tests that are rather expensive (last time I checked it was £85 per person) and that are only valid for 3 days.



Yeah my brother also lives in France. He came to visit me there a few months back and ended up staying throughout most of the lockdown just because it was too difficult for him to go home. Not that I minded. I don't get to see him much anymore so it was kind of nice having him home for a while. I hope you get to visit your mother soon. It's tough being unable to visit loved ones. By far, the worst thing about this whole thing for me has been not being able to see family. My aunt lives in England and my brother in France. I don't have much family but they're all so far away. I pity my cousin. She lives with us (long story) but all her family live in Australia. She grew up there and only moved over here in the last few years. So she's been really pissed off with the travel restrictions. How do those immunity certs work? I'm asking for my father in law. He got Covid last year (spent 2 months in hospital) but thankfully he's alright now. He was talking about going somewhere this year but wasn't sure of the protocols.

This is all so morally painful for many families. At least I am glad I have already spent many long holidays in France over the past few years... I have only just recently started looking into the immunity certificate route and I am not entirely sure in which countries they are accepted but I think they are in France, at least for now. From what can see it seems that the immunity certification test is only available in the UK to those already vaccinated (surprise surprise) or those who tested positive for Covid in the past 6 months and who can prove it. Well there is still the regular testing route (if negative), but as I said before, they have to be taken in the private sector and are not cheap. Are any members of your family reluctant to getting the vaccine, other than your - now vaccinated - sister?



My husband was initially hesitant to get it but only because he felt that he didn't need it. He's 41 years old, in fantastic shape, never gets sick and is probably the healthiest person I've ever met. Two things changed his mind about it. Last year both his parents and his brother got Covid and all three of them were hospitalised. His mother and brother got out of hospital after only a few days but his father was in for a long time. All three have fully recovered now, thankfully, but seeing how bad his brother got was a bit of a shock. My brother in law is nowhere near as fit as my husband but he's younger and in pretty good shape. So that was proof, if he needed it, that it's not just the elderly or overweight that are at risk. Even at that though, I still think he'd have taken his chances and not been vaccinated but I'm currently pregnant and have a weakened immune system so he decided to just get the vaccine just to be on the safe side.
I think that was the main reason my sister got it too, to be honest. Even though I don't really see her much.

You know, I think it's kind of funny. You see a lot of signs being held by anti-vax protesters with slogans like "Jesus is my vaccine" and things of that nature. My uncle (we're not really related, he was a close friend of my mother) is a Catholic priest. And whereas pretty much everyone in my family were mostly not too worried about whether they got vaccinated or not, he was first in line LOL. They couldn't stick that needle into him quickly enough! But yeah, other than him, nobody in my family were really pro-vaccine and only my sister was really anti-vaccine. The rest didn't seem too fussed one way or another.

For anyone not getting vaccinated, I just hope you are protecting yourself in other ways. There is definitely a certain amount of fear mongering on the news but don't let that blind you to the fact that Covid is, or at least, can be a very serious illness to catch. And having witnessed just how bad some people can be even after it, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Basically, just be safe and look after yourself.
[Edited 7/31/21 8:00am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #313 posted 07/31/21 8:16am

CherryMoon57

avatar

IanRG said:

CherryMoon57 said:


I am sorry Ian but I just don't understand your first paragraph. I am not sure what you mean by 'what you think initially happened in the early days etc.' What I was talking about is what is (still) happening with the way the death toll is initially reported (death within 28 days of a first positive test) vs how the death linked to the vaccine are reported or unconfirmed (see second paragraph). Your response doesn't seem to connect what I said somehow.

As for the issue of finding out about the actual verified vaccine-linked deaths, your response seems to confirm that there isn't any data currently available to the general public. Do you agree with this?

.

If that is what you meant, then you are wrong. There is no automatic assumption that every death within 28 days of covid test must be a covid death. Since 28 April 2020, ie for all the time except in early days of the pandemic, the NHS guidance is that the the death can only be recorded once it confirmed that covid was a direct or underlying cause of death or the person died in hospital from covid. In the former case, this can be by a covid test after death for the death certificate.

.

The full analysis ovfvaccine-linked deaths is being prepared according to the FOI requests, but figures show that the Astrazenica blood clot risk is 8 deaths per million or 0.00008%, way, way smaller than the deaths per case of Covid. The yellow card figure is red herring because it is prior to any determination that any vaccine was a direct or underlying cause of death. There is no inconsistency by me.


About your first paragraph, I think you are confused between two different data reports. One is based on the death certificate, the other is based on the existence of a first positive test within 28 days prior to the death. Two different things. It is the latter that is reported daily in the news and - as I am trying to explain to you - is not reflective of whether there is causality or not. That's done later. Bearing in mind that the mention of Covid on the death certificate still doesn't mean that Covid was the cause of death.

As for your second paragraph, thank you for confirming that the full analysis of vaccine-linked death toll is still unavailable to date. I look forward to getting that information whenever that is made available to the general public. I think it is important to know how many of those 1490 reported deaths on the vaccines yellow card analysis were caused by the vaccine. If you see this before I do, please feel free to let me know.


You might not agree, but to me and others probably, there are inconsistencies:

1) The deaths within 28 days of positive test are reported regardless of whether or not there was any determination that Covid was a direct or underlying cause. It is also announced in the news daily.

2) The vaccine yellow card reporting on the other hand - which, btw never makes the headlines - comes with a word of caution, which says: 'A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports.'


No such caution is applied to the Covid deaths daily reporting. Instead it is rushed out for the direct attention of the general public.

Information about how this data is collected can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/govern...al-summary

4.1 Definition of COVID-19 related deaths [...]

'All deaths with a positive specimen (including at post-mortem) are counted regardless of the cause of death, and then restricted based on the time frames listed above. This aims to provide the most comprehensive measure of mortality burden possible.' (p7)


'4.6 Limitations of the PHE data series [...]

'Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily caused by COVID-19.'

[Edited 7/31/21 11:30am]

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #314 posted 07/31/21 2:45pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

IanRG said:

.

If that is what you meant, then you are wrong. There is no automatic assumption that every death within 28 days of covid test must be a covid death. Since 28 April 2020, ie for all the time except in early days of the pandemic, the NHS guidance is that the the death can only be recorded once it confirmed that covid was a direct or underlying cause of death or the person died in hospital from covid. In the former case, this can be by a covid test after death for the death certificate.

.

The full analysis ovfvaccine-linked deaths is being prepared according to the FOI requests, but figures show that the Astrazenica blood clot risk is 8 deaths per million or 0.00008%, way, way smaller than the deaths per case of Covid. The yellow card figure is red herring because it is prior to any determination that any vaccine was a direct or underlying cause of death. There is no inconsistency by me.


About your first paragraph, I think you are confused between two different data reports. One is based on the death certificate, the other is based on the existence of a first positive test within 28 days prior to the death. Two different things. It is the latter that is reported daily in the news and - as I am trying to explain to you - is not reflective of whether there is causality or not. That's done later. Bearing in mind that the mention of Covid on the death certificate still doesn't mean that Covid was the cause of death.

As for your second paragraph, thank you for confirming that the full analysis of vaccine-linked death toll is still unavailable to date. I look forward to getting that information whenever that is made available to the general public. I think it is important to know how many of those 1490 reported deaths on the vaccines yellow card analysis were caused by the vaccine. If you see this before I do, please feel free to let me know.


You might not agree, but to me and others probably, there are inconsistencies:

1) The deaths within 28 days of positive test are reported regardless of whether or not there was any determination that Covid was a direct or underlying cause. It is also announced in the news daily.

2) The vaccine yellow card reporting on the other hand - which, btw never makes the headlines - comes with a word of caution, which says: 'A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports.'


No such caution is applied to the Covid deaths daily reporting. Instead it is rushed out for the direct attention of the general public.

Information about how this data is collected can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/govern...al-summary

4.1 Definition of COVID-19 related deaths [...]

'All deaths with a positive specimen (including at post-mortem) are counted regardless of the cause of death, and then restricted based on the time frames listed above. This aims to provide the most comprehensive measure of mortality burden possible.' (p7)


'4.6 Limitations of the PHE data series [...]

'Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily caused by COVID-19.'

[Edited 7/31/21 11:30am]

.

Thank you for this, I was addressing the NHS dataset - which is also a daily (now weekdaily) release to media.

.

It is odd that the link you provided does not contain paragraph 4.6.

.

Instead it has this sentence in the Paragraph 5.4 - You are referencing an older version. The current version is was released months ago - in April.

.

The full text is:

.

"5.4 Limitations of the PHE data series The PHE data series does not include deaths in people where COVID-19 is suspected but not confirmed by testing (either negative or not done). Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily due to COVID-19.

.

5.5 How does the PHE data series compare to the ONS death registrations? The PHE data series is used to count daily deaths in people with a confirmed COVID-19 test in England. ONS provides a weekly count of all deaths in England and Wales where COVID-19 is recorded on the death certificate (eg including deaths where COVID-19 was suspected based on symptoms and/or linked to an outbreak, and not limited to laboratory confirmed cases); these are reported on an 11-day lag. Figure 3 shows the PHE data series compared to the ONS death registrations and NHS England data series. The PHE data series more closely aligns with the ONS data series, although there may be up to an additional 3,600 deaths (to 17 April) reported by ONS which represent deaths where COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death but there was no laboratory confirmed test. Going forward, as more people are being tested, the PHE data series is likely to capture additional deaths, particularly outside hospitals. PHE are continuing to work closely with ONS and CQC to understand the number of suspected COVID-19 deaths are taking place in care home settings and the wider community."

.

Just like you jumped to conclusions imagining that all the 1490 yellow cards were red cards, you are falling for the media spin that the daily deaths are overstated because many people died from something else. If you read the whole document it is about a better method of capturing covid deaths outside of the NHS dataset because deaths in aged care and in homes was previously not counted. It does NOT apply to how the majority of covid related deaths are counted - these are through the NHS dataset. It is being applied in a way that it still underestimates confirmed covid related deaths compared to the more throrough method. That you quoted a sentence that started with "Furthermore" is an alarm bell that things were missing from your cut and paste.

.

There is no inconsistency, there is different purpose: The yellow card system is to flag any death that needs to be checked to see a vaccine was cause - This applies a measure with an abundance of caution by including as many cases to checked as possible. The PHE data series uses an expanded range of sources to include out of hospital sources for a daily count and this is applied with an abundance of caution as show by this method still underestimating the covid related deaths compared to the more thorough and time consuming ONS data series.

[Edited 7/31/21 14:56pm]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #315 posted 07/31/21 4:03pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

IanRG said:

CherryMoon57 said:


About your first paragraph, I think you are confused between two different data reports. One is based on the death certificate, the other is based on the existence of a first positive test within 28 days prior to the death. Two different things. It is the latter that is reported daily in the news and - as I am trying to explain to you - is not reflective of whether there is causality or not. That's done later. Bearing in mind that the mention of Covid on the death certificate still doesn't mean that Covid was the cause of death.

As for your second paragraph, thank you for confirming that the full analysis of vaccine-linked death toll is still unavailable to date. I look forward to getting that information whenever that is made available to the general public. I think it is important to know how many of those 1490 reported deaths on the vaccines yellow card analysis were caused by the vaccine. If you see this before I do, please feel free to let me know.


You might not agree, but to me and others probably, there are inconsistencies:

1) The deaths within 28 days of positive test are reported regardless of whether or not there was any determination that Covid was a direct or underlying cause. It is also announced in the news daily.

2) The vaccine yellow card reporting on the other hand - which, btw never makes the headlines - comes with a word of caution, which says: 'A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports.'


No such caution is applied to the Covid deaths daily reporting. Instead it is rushed out for the direct attention of the general public.

Information about how this data is collected can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/govern...al-summary

4.1 Definition of COVID-19 related deaths [...]

'All deaths with a positive specimen (including at post-mortem) are counted regardless of the cause of death, and then restricted based on the time frames listed above. This aims to provide the most comprehensive measure of mortality burden possible.' (p7)


'4.6 Limitations of the PHE data series [...]

'Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily caused by COVID-19.'

[Edited 7/31/21 11:30am]

.

Thank you for this, I was addressing the NHS dataset - which is also a daily (now weekdaily) release to media.

.

It is odd that the link you provided does not contain paragraph 4.6.

.

Instead it has this sentence in the Paragraph 5.4 - You are referencing an older version. The current version is was released months ago - in April.

.

The full text is:

.

"5.4 Limitations of the PHE data series The PHE data series does not include deaths in people where COVID-19 is suspected but not confirmed by testing (either negative or not done). Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily due to COVID-19.

.

5.5 How does the PHE data series compare to the ONS death registrations? The PHE data series is used to count daily deaths in people with a confirmed COVID-19 test in England. ONS provides a weekly count of all deaths in England and Wales where COVID-19 is recorded on the death certificate (eg including deaths where COVID-19 was suspected based on symptoms and/or linked to an outbreak, and not limited to laboratory confirmed cases); these are reported on an 11-day lag. Figure 3 shows the PHE data series compared to the ONS death registrations and NHS England data series. The PHE data series more closely aligns with the ONS data series, although there may be up to an additional 3,600 deaths (to 17 April) reported by ONS which represent deaths where COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death but there was no laboratory confirmed test. Going forward, as more people are being tested, the PHE data series is likely to capture additional deaths, particularly outside hospitals. PHE are continuing to work closely with ONS and CQC to understand the number of suspected COVID-19 deaths are taking place in care home settings and the wider community."

.

Just like you jumped to conclusions imagining that all the 1490 yellow cards were red cards, you are falling for the media spin that the daily deaths are overstated because many people died from something else. If you read the whole document it is about a better method of capturing covid deaths outside of the NHS dataset because deaths in aged care and in homes was previously not counted. It does NOT apply to how the majority of covid related deaths are counted - these are through the NHS dataset. It is being applied in a way that it still underestimates confirmed covid related deaths compared to the more throrough method. That you quoted a sentence that started with "Furthermore" is an alarm bell that things were missing from your cut and paste.

.

There is no inconsistency, there is different purpose: The yellow card system is to flag any death that needs to be checked to see a vaccine was cause - This applies a measure with an abundance of caution by including as many cases to checked as possible. The PHE data series uses an expanded range of sources to include out of hospital sources for a daily count and this is applied with an abundance of caution as show by this method still underestimating the covid related deaths compared to the more thorough and time consuming ONS data series.

[Edited 7/31/21 14:56pm]


Yes I referenced the previous update because that's the only one that I can access at the moment and after all, it was used for a big portion of our first months into this. What you have quoted above from the new data definition still says nothing about whether the count now only includes the deaths where Covid has been confirmed as the actual cause or if - as before - it includes any deaths of people with a positive test. Conversely I am not sure how they can confirm Covid as being the cause of death without a laboratory test, as 5.5 says. I will have to try and access the document from another device myself tomorrow and read more of it for myself. Also, how can you say that I am imagining that the 1,490 deaths reported following the vaccination were red cards. We still don't know whether they are or not. They could well be. Just like the Covid reporting that is done is inclusive of all the deaths 'possibly' linked with Covid, we should not exclude the possibility that the vaccine has caused the reported deaths. Finally, although I am interested in continuing this conversation with you, as soon as you add one more 'you are wrong', 'your cut and paste' or things like 'falling for the media spin', I'm out.

[Edited 7/31/21 16:05pm]

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #316 posted 07/31/21 5:12pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

IanRG said:

.

Thank you for this, I was addressing the NHS dataset - which is also a daily (now weekdaily) release to media.

.

It is odd that the link you provided does not contain paragraph 4.6.

.

Instead it has this sentence in the Paragraph 5.4 - You are referencing an older version. The current version is was released months ago - in April.

.

The full text is:

.

"5.4 Limitations of the PHE data series The PHE data series does not include deaths in people where COVID-19 is suspected but not confirmed by testing (either negative or not done). Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily due to COVID-19.

.

5.5 How does the PHE data series compare to the ONS death registrations? The PHE data series is used to count daily deaths in people with a confirmed COVID-19 test in England. ONS provides a weekly count of all deaths in England and Wales where COVID-19 is recorded on the death certificate (eg including deaths where COVID-19 was suspected based on symptoms and/or linked to an outbreak, and not limited to laboratory confirmed cases); these are reported on an 11-day lag. Figure 3 shows the PHE data series compared to the ONS death registrations and NHS England data series. The PHE data series more closely aligns with the ONS data series, although there may be up to an additional 3,600 deaths (to 17 April) reported by ONS which represent deaths where COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death but there was no laboratory confirmed test. Going forward, as more people are being tested, the PHE data series is likely to capture additional deaths, particularly outside hospitals. PHE are continuing to work closely with ONS and CQC to understand the number of suspected COVID-19 deaths are taking place in care home settings and the wider community."

.

Just like you jumped to conclusions imagining that all the 1490 yellow cards were red cards, you are falling for the media spin that the daily deaths are overstated because many people died from something else. If you read the whole document it is about a better method of capturing covid deaths outside of the NHS dataset because deaths in aged care and in homes was previously not counted. It does NOT apply to how the majority of covid related deaths are counted - these are through the NHS dataset. It is being applied in a way that it still underestimates confirmed covid related deaths compared to the more throrough method. That you quoted a sentence that started with "Furthermore" is an alarm bell that things were missing from your cut and paste.

.

There is no inconsistency, there is different purpose: The yellow card system is to flag any death that needs to be checked to see a vaccine was cause - This applies a measure with an abundance of caution by including as many cases to checked as possible. The PHE data series uses an expanded range of sources to include out of hospital sources for a daily count and this is applied with an abundance of caution as show by this method still underestimating the covid related deaths compared to the more thorough and time consuming ONS data series.

[Edited 7/31/21 14:56pm]


Yes I referenced the previous update because that's the only one that I can access at the moment and after all, it was used for a big portion of our first months into this. What you have quoted above from the new data definition still says nothing about whether the count now only includes the deaths where Covid has been confirmed as the actual cause or - as before - any deaths of people with a positive test. Conversely I am not sure how they can confirm Covid as being the cause of death without a laboratory test, as 5.5 says. I will have to try and access the document from another device myself tomorrow and read more of it for myself. Also, how can you say that I am imagining that the 1,490 deaths reported following the vaccination were red cards. We still don't know whether they are or not. They could well be. Just like the Covid reporting that is done is inclusive of all the deaths 'possibly' linked with Covid, we should not exclude the possibility that the vaccine has caused the reported deaths. Finally, although I am interested in continuing this conversation with you, as soon as you add one more 'you are wrong', 'your cut and paste' or things like 'falling for the media spin', I'm out.

.

The previous document also included the sentence pointing out where the PHE figures under-report covid deaths that you left out prior to the "Furthermore" sentence you quoted to show where it could over-report covid deaths.

.

The guide addresses that expanding the dataset to include out-of-hospital covid related deaths could mean accidentally capturing some people that had covid where covid may not have been a direct or related cause of death. The guide included a comparision to the more thorough and time consuming ONS dataset - which has an up to 11 day lag due to the additional analysis and to the NHS dataset which is limited to hospital covid deaths (where almost all die). The PHE is more accurate than the NHS dataset because it includes the additional sources, but it does not have any serious error by accidental inclusions. This is shown by a graph in the report that shows the figures captured in the PHE dataset are betweein the NHS and ONS datasets, ie there are more covid deaths missed in the PHE dataset than deaths incorrectly included in this set because it never exceeds the ONS dataset. There is no reason for you to present these figures in the way you have been.

.

It is good that you now accept that the 1490 yellow cards are not as you first described them as "The UK yellow card scheme shows that 1,490 people have died as a result of the vaccination so far. 1,490 icon_eek.gif".

.

I will not refer to you as being wrong etc, and will, instead just calmly present the facts. I request that you do the same so there are no accusations of me being selectively inconsistent. There is no inconsistency - the Yellow card system is a flag to capture the maximum number of incidents that need further analysis. The PHE dataset is to better estimate actual daily numbers to include figures the NHS dataset cannot. It is still lower than the ONS dataset. From March to 28 April 2020, the PHE dataset added 3811 deaths to 19,739 NHS captured deaths and by the time of the report the ONS dataset was expected to add a further 3600 over the PHE total.

.

The two common mortality rates are CFR and IFR. Where there is a reviewed body of established knowledge on a known range of diseases (for example from flu viruses), the IFR is the better measure as it is not restricted to just deaths with a confirmed test like CFR. CFR is limited to just cases with confirmed infections. This means, for example, that for the flu in the USA, the sum of fatalities from cases with an identified test result to produce the CFR is multiplied by 6 to produce the estimated number of infections to produce the IFR (with other adjustments, some of which can reduce the IFR relative to the CFR). If covid becomes endemic, as many think it may, more and more of the deaths will be attributed by professional analysis of the symptoms. locations and circumstances rather than requiring a specific test result. As a simple example, if a town has had 10 deaths from disease X confirmed by test results and there are another 20 at the same time and location with essentially identical symptoms, these 20 can be reasonably added without a test. As many of the additional deaths between the NHS and PHE datasets are in homes or aged care facilities, if an Aged care facility has had 15 confirmed covid deaths, the other contemporaneous and virtually identical deaths can reasonably be included without a test. If one person dieing in a house has been confirmed by tests as a covid death, do you realistically need to test if their spouse dies in fundamentally the same way?

[Edited 7/31/21 17:22pm]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #317 posted 08/01/21 4:57am

CherryMoon57

avatar

IanRG said:

CherryMoon57 said:


Yes I referenced the previous update because that's the only one that I can access at the moment and after all, it was used for a big portion of our first months into this. What you have quoted above from the new data definition still says nothing about whether the count now only includes the deaths where Covid has been confirmed as the actual cause or - as before - any deaths of people with a positive test. Conversely I am not sure how they can confirm Covid as being the cause of death without a laboratory test, as 5.5 says. I will have to try and access the document from another device myself tomorrow and read more of it for myself. Also, how can you say that I am imagining that the 1,490 deaths reported following the vaccination were red cards. We still don't know whether they are or not. They could well be. Just like the Covid reporting that is done is inclusive of all the deaths 'possibly' linked with Covid, we should not exclude the possibility that the vaccine has caused the reported deaths. Finally, although I am interested in continuing this conversation with you, as soon as you add one more 'you are wrong', 'your cut and paste' or things like 'falling for the media spin', I'm out.

.

The previous document also included the sentence pointing out where the PHE figures under-report covid deaths that you left out prior to the "Furthermore" sentence you quoted to show where it could over-report covid deaths.

.

The guide addresses that expanding the dataset to include out-of-hospital covid related deaths could mean accidentally capturing some people that had covid where covid may not have been a direct or related cause of death. The guide included a comparision to the more thorough and time consuming ONS dataset - which has an up to 11 day lag due to the additional analysis and to the NHS dataset which is limited to hospital covid deaths (where almost all die). The PHE is more accurate than the NHS dataset because it includes the additional sources, but it does not have any serious error by accidental inclusions. This is shown by a graph in the report that shows the figures captured in the PHE dataset are betweein the NHS and ONS datasets, ie there are more covid deaths missed in the PHE dataset than deaths incorrectly included in this set because it never exceeds the ONS dataset. There is no reason for you to present these figures in the way you have been.

.

It is good that you now accept that the 1490 yellow cards are not as you first described them as "The UK yellow card scheme shows that 1,490 people have died as a result of the vaccination so far. 1,490 icon_eek.gif".

.

I will not refer to you as being wrong etc, and will, instead just calmly present the facts. I request that you do the same so there are no accusations of me being selectively inconsistent. There is no inconsistency - the Yellow card system is a flag to capture the maximum number of incidents that need further analysis. The PHE dataset is to better estimate actual daily numbers to include figures the NHS dataset cannot. It is still lower than the ONS dataset. From March to 28 April 2020, the PHE dataset added 3811 deaths to 19,739 NHS captured deaths and by the time of the report the ONS dataset was expected to add a further 3600 over the PHE total.

.

The two common mortality rates are CFR and IFR. Where there is a reviewed body of established knowledge on a known range of diseases (for example from flu viruses), the IFR is the better measure as it is not restricted to just deaths with a confirmed test like CFR. CFR is limited to just cases with confirmed infections. This means, for example, that for the flu in the USA, the sum of fatalities from cases with an identified test result to produce the CFR is multiplied by 6 to produce the estimated number of infections to produce the IFR (with other adjustments, some of which can reduce the IFR relative to the CFR). If covid becomes endemic, as many think it may, more and more of the deaths will be attributed by professional analysis of the symptoms. locations and circumstances rather than requiring a specific test result. As a simple example, if a town has had 10 deaths from disease X confirmed by test results and there are another 20 at the same time and location with essentially identical symptoms, these 20 can be reasonably added without a test. As many of the additional deaths between the NHS and PHE datasets are in homes or aged care facilities, if an Aged care facility has had 15 confirmed covid deaths, the other contemporaneous and virtually identical deaths can reasonably be included without a test. If one person dieing in a house has been confirmed by tests as a covid death, do you realistically need to test if their spouse dies in fundamentally the same way?

[Edited 7/31/21 17:22pm]


I do understand the validity behind the numbers added by 'reasonable' association. After all, context is very important too; but I still don't think that using either this method or the one that includes any death occurring within 28 (or even 60) days of a positive Covid test will - if used on their own - do anything for the ongoing blurriness over what is considered a 'Covid death'.

In the case of care homes, (if you want to use a circumstantial approach), the majority of people in care home is more fragile and more likely to have pre-existing conditions and are therefore much more likely to die from the complications of any viral outbreak - be it Covid, a flu or even just a heavy cold resulting in a pulmonary infection, as is often the case. So Covid in those instances will not necessarily be the root cause of death.

There needs to be a clearer defintion of what is considered a 'Covid death' and I think the published death toll should only present a death as a 'Covid-death' when Covid has already been confirmed as the main cause of death, not just a provisional assessment.

I have also verified (on the ONS website) what you said about me quoting a supposedly outdated version of the data criteria used for the death count (the PHE data series dated August 2020), but to date, any deaths occurring within 28 days (and 60 days) of a positive test are still included in the ONS weekly or daily Covid death count regardless of whether Covid was confirmed as the main cause or not, so my argument about the figures presented daily to the general public being provisional and not definite still stands. (btw, ONS are still using the same PHE data series from which I extracted the original 'limitations' quote). https://www.ons.gov.uk/pe...nal/latest

As for your critical point, of course I don't paste all of a text when quoting from a document (neither do you when you paste anything destined to prove a point) simply because I am currently challenging the definitions used to report the Covid death toll; the fact that I don't paste a whole section / document still does not invalidate the information that I post. And I am sorry if you felt that the 'inconsistencies' comment was addressed to you: I was only pointing to the inconsistencies in reporting deaths occurring after a Covid infection vs after a vaccine injection.

And I will not dismiss any number of deaths reported on the vaccination yellow card system until we are proven otherwise with an actual analysis. Rest assured however that I sincerely do hope the analysis will prove me wrong.



[Edited 8/1/21 7:32am]

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #318 posted 08/01/21 7:33am

CherryMoon57

avatar

^I just edited the ONS link contained in my post, as a typo (a bracket at the end of the link) was preventing access to the page. Now fixed.

[Edited 8/1/21 10:12am]

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #319 posted 08/01/21 8:09am

CherryMoon57

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

CherryMoon57 said:

This is all so morally painful for many families. At least I am glad I have already spent many long holidays in France over the past few years... I have only just recently started looking into the immunity certificate route and I am not entirely sure in which countries they are accepted but I think they are in France, at least for now. From what can see it seems that the immunity certification test is only available in the UK to those already vaccinated (surprise surprise) or those who tested positive for Covid in the past 6 months and who can prove it. Well there is still the regular testing route (if negative), but as I said before, they have to be taken in the private sector and are not cheap. Are any members of your family reluctant to getting the vaccine, other than your - now vaccinated - sister?

My husband was initially hesitant to get it but only because he felt that he didn't need it. He's 41 years old, in fantastic shape, never gets sick and is probably the healthiest person I've ever met. Two things changed his mind about it. Last year both his parents and his brother got Covid and all three of them were hospitalised. His mother and brother got out of hospital after only a few days but his father was in for a long time. All three have fully recovered now, thankfully, but seeing how bad his brother got was a bit of a shock. My brother in law is nowhere near as fit as my husband but he's younger and in pretty good shape. So that was proof, if he needed it, that it's not just the elderly or overweight that are at risk. Even at that though, I still think he'd have taken his chances and not been vaccinated but I'm currently pregnant and have a weakened immune system so he decided to just get the vaccine just to be on the safe side. I think that was the main reason my sister got it too, to be honest. Even though I don't really see her much. You know, I think it's kind of funny. You see a lot of signs being held by anti-vax protesters with slogans like "Jesus is my vaccine" and things of that nature. My uncle (we're not really related, he was a close friend of my mother) is a Catholic priest. And whereas pretty much everyone in my family were mostly not too worried about whether they got vaccinated or not, he was first in line LOL. They couldn't stick that needle into him quickly enough! But yeah, other than him, nobody in my family were really pro-vaccine and only my sister was really anti-vaccine. The rest didn't seem too fussed one way or another. For anyone not getting vaccinated, I just hope you are protecting yourself in other ways. There is definitely a certain amount of fear mongering on the news but don't let that blind you to the fact that Covid is, or at least, can be a very serious illness to catch. And having witnessed just how bad some people can be even after it, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Basically, just be safe and look after yourself. [Edited 7/31/21 8:00am]

Glad to hear that your in-laws (parents and brother) have all recovered from Covid. Yes I am certain that as with anything in life, it can hit indiscriminately. When I got ill with the flu I was young and in good health so I didn't expect to be so ill. I am actually considering getting the flu jab for this winter (the school I work for is offering it). Yet, at the same time, when I hear sad stories such as the one of the young lady reporter (Lisa Shaw) who died suddenly within a week of receiving the Astra Zeneca vaccine, I feel that it is such an awfully unjust way to go, especially for the familly that stays behind. The question I always ask myself is the following: is it really worth the risk? My philosophy with health in general is if it ain't broke don't fix it. When I was younger I didn't think twice about any vaccines (I received all of them!) as I used to take many risks, never read medicines notices, etc. With age, experience and being a parent, I think more and have therefore become more careful about everything. And I still wear a mask wherever I go. https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...e-57848367

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #320 posted 08/01/21 10:32am

djThunderfunk

avatar

They're trying to bring the masks back. I recommend everybody do what I do when a business requests compliance. Just. Say. NO!

Don't argue. Don't fight. Just keep walking and go about your business.

Non-compliance and peaceful civil disobedience is the way. wink





[Edited 8/1/21 10:34am]

LIBERTY > AUTHORITY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #321 posted 08/01/21 10:53am

CherryMoon57

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

They're trying to bring the masks back. I recommend everybody do what I do when a business requests compliance. Just. Say. NO!

Don't argue. Don't fight. Just keep walking and go about your business.

Non-compliance and peaceful civil disobedience is the way. wink





[Edited 8/1/21 10:34am]

You would love the school I work for, it's like Covid never existed lol.

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #322 posted 08/01/21 11:38am

EmmaMcG

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:



EmmaMcG said:


CherryMoon57 said:


This is all so morally painful for many families. At least I am glad I have already spent many long holidays in France over the past few years... I have only just recently started looking into the immunity certificate route and I am not entirely sure in which countries they are accepted but I think they are in France, at least for now. From what can see it seems that the immunity certification test is only available in the UK to those already vaccinated (surprise surprise) or those who tested positive for Covid in the past 6 months and who can prove it. Well there is still the regular testing route (if negative), but as I said before, they have to be taken in the private sector and are not cheap. Are any members of your family reluctant to getting the vaccine, other than your - now vaccinated - sister?



My husband was initially hesitant to get it but only because he felt that he didn't need it. He's 41 years old, in fantastic shape, never gets sick and is probably the healthiest person I've ever met. Two things changed his mind about it. Last year both his parents and his brother got Covid and all three of them were hospitalised. His mother and brother got out of hospital after only a few days but his father was in for a long time. All three have fully recovered now, thankfully, but seeing how bad his brother got was a bit of a shock. My brother in law is nowhere near as fit as my husband but he's younger and in pretty good shape. So that was proof, if he needed it, that it's not just the elderly or overweight that are at risk. Even at that though, I still think he'd have taken his chances and not been vaccinated but I'm currently pregnant and have a weakened immune system so he decided to just get the vaccine just to be on the safe side. I think that was the main reason my sister got it too, to be honest. Even though I don't really see her much. You know, I think it's kind of funny. You see a lot of signs being held by anti-vax protesters with slogans like "Jesus is my vaccine" and things of that nature. My uncle (we're not really related, he was a close friend of my mother) is a Catholic priest. And whereas pretty much everyone in my family were mostly not too worried about whether they got vaccinated or not, he was first in line LOL. They couldn't stick that needle into him quickly enough! But yeah, other than him, nobody in my family were really pro-vaccine and only my sister was really anti-vaccine. The rest didn't seem too fussed one way or another. For anyone not getting vaccinated, I just hope you are protecting yourself in other ways. There is definitely a certain amount of fear mongering on the news but don't let that blind you to the fact that Covid is, or at least, can be a very serious illness to catch. And having witnessed just how bad some people can be even after it, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Basically, just be safe and look after yourself. [Edited 7/31/21 8:00am]

Glad to hear that your in-laws (parents and brother) have all recovered from Covid. Yes I am certain that as with anything in life, it can hit indiscriminately. When I got ill with the flu I was young and in good health so I didn't expect to be so ill. I am actually considering getting the flu jab for this winter (the school I work for is offering it). Yet, at the same time, when I hear sad stories such as the one of the young lady reporter (Lisa Shaw) who died suddenly within a week of receiving the Astra Zeneca vaccine, I feel that it is such an awfully unjust way to go, especially for the familly that stays behind. The question I always ask myself is the following: is it really worth the risk? My philosophy with health in general is if it ain't broke don't fix it. When I was younger I didn't think twice about any vaccines (I received all of them!) as I used to take many risks, never read medicines notices, etc. With age, experience and being a parent, I think more and have therefore become more careful about everything. And I still wear a mask wherever I go. https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...e-57848367



One in 650,000 people who have received the AZ vaccine has died. There are two ways of looking at that figure. On the one hand, you could say that those are great odds of avoiding any significant danger. On the other hand, it's still one person dying for every 650,000 vaccinations. I probably fall somewhere in between. I can accept certain side effects like a sore arm, headache and even flu-like symptoms for a few days. But I draw the line at death. I gladly accepted the Pfizer vaccine but if I was offered the AZ, I think I probably would have said "thanks but no thanks" and waited for the Pfizer or Moderna.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #323 posted 08/01/21 1:43pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

djThunderfunk said:

They're trying to bring the masks back. I recommend everybody do what I do when a business requests compliance. Just. Say. NO!

Don't argue. Don't fight. Just keep walking and go about your business.

Non-compliance and peaceful civil disobedience is the way. wink





[Edited 8/1/21 10:34am]

You would love the school I work for, it's like Covid never existed lol.


Sounds like the people there get to go on with just living their lives. Right on!!

On the Walmart & Kroger websites, they both say they are reinstating mandatory masks for all employess regardless of vaccination status in any area that is designated "High Risk", and say they will be requesting that customers comply.

I checked the CDC site linked by Walmart and found my county is designated high risk. I then went to both stores. Nobody requested I wear a mask and very few customers inside the stores were wearing them.

It doesn't seem like anybody around here is interested in the yo-yo game they're playing with the guidelines and mandates. The arbitrary nonsense is becoming obvious to more people every day, thank God!

I did have a peaceful albiet very adversarial confrontation at a church rummage sale yesterday, but hey, if they want to turn away people and raise less money for charity then that's on them not me.




[Edited 8/1/21 13:58pm]

LIBERTY > AUTHORITY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #324 posted 08/01/21 1:56pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

IanRG said:

.

The previous document also included the sentence pointing out where the PHE figures under-report covid deaths that you left out prior to the "Furthermore" sentence you quoted to show where it could over-report covid deaths.

.

The guide addresses that expanding the dataset to include out-of-hospital covid related deaths could mean accidentally capturing some people that had covid where covid may not have been a direct or related cause of death. The guide included a comparision to the more thorough and time consuming ONS dataset - which has an up to 11 day lag due to the additional analysis and to the NHS dataset which is limited to hospital covid deaths (where almost all die). The PHE is more accurate than the NHS dataset because it includes the additional sources, but it does not have any serious error by accidental inclusions. This is shown by a graph in the report that shows the figures captured in the PHE dataset are betweein the NHS and ONS datasets, ie there are more covid deaths missed in the PHE dataset than deaths incorrectly included in this set because it never exceeds the ONS dataset. There is no reason for you to present these figures in the way you have been.

.

It is good that you now accept that the 1490 yellow cards are not as you first described them as "The UK yellow card scheme shows that 1,490 people have died as a result of the vaccination so far. 1,490 icon_eek.gif".

.

I will not refer to you as being wrong etc, and will, instead just calmly present the facts. I request that you do the same so there are no accusations of me being selectively inconsistent. There is no inconsistency - the Yellow card system is a flag to capture the maximum number of incidents that need further analysis. The PHE dataset is to better estimate actual daily numbers to include figures the NHS dataset cannot. It is still lower than the ONS dataset. From March to 28 April 2020, the PHE dataset added 3811 deaths to 19,739 NHS captured deaths and by the time of the report the ONS dataset was expected to add a further 3600 over the PHE total.

.

The two common mortality rates are CFR and IFR. Where there is a reviewed body of established knowledge on a known range of diseases (for example from flu viruses), the IFR is the better measure as it is not restricted to just deaths with a confirmed test like CFR. CFR is limited to just cases with confirmed infections. This means, for example, that for the flu in the USA, the sum of fatalities from cases with an identified test result to produce the CFR is multiplied by 6 to produce the estimated number of infections to produce the IFR (with other adjustments, some of which can reduce the IFR relative to the CFR). If covid becomes endemic, as many think it may, more and more of the deaths will be attributed by professional analysis of the symptoms. locations and circumstances rather than requiring a specific test result. As a simple example, if a town has had 10 deaths from disease X confirmed by test results and there are another 20 at the same time and location with essentially identical symptoms, these 20 can be reasonably added without a test. As many of the additional deaths between the NHS and PHE datasets are in homes or aged care facilities, if an Aged care facility has had 15 confirmed covid deaths, the other contemporaneous and virtually identical deaths can reasonably be included without a test. If one person dieing in a house has been confirmed by tests as a covid death, do you realistically need to test if their spouse dies in fundamentally the same way?

[Edited 7/31/21 17:22pm]


I do understand the validity behind the numbers added by 'reasonable' association. After all, context is very important too; but I still don't think that using either this method or the one that includes any death occurring within 28 (or even 60) days of a positive Covid test will - if used on their own - do anything for the ongoing blurriness over what is considered a 'Covid death'.

In the case of care homes, (if you want to use a circumstantial approach), the majority of people in care home is more fragile and more likely to have pre-existing conditions and are therefore much more likely to die from the complications of any viral outbreak - be it Covid, a flu or even just a heavy cold resulting in a pulmonary infection, as is often the case. So Covid in those instances will not necessarily be the root cause of death.

There needs to be a clearer defintion of what is considered a 'Covid death' and I think the published death toll should only present a death as a 'Covid-death' when Covid has already been confirmed as the main cause of death, not just a provisional assessment.

I have also verified (on the ONS website) what you said about me quoting a supposedly outdated version of the data criteria used for the death count (the PHE data series dated August 2020), but to date, any deaths occurring within 28 days (and 60 days) of a positive test are still included in the ONS weekly or daily Covid death count regardless of whether Covid was confirmed as the main cause or not, so my argument about the figures presented daily to the general public being provisional and not definite still stands. (btw, ONS are still using the same PHE data series from which I extracted the original 'limitations' quote). https://www.ons.gov.uk/pe...nal/latest

As for your critical point, of course I don't paste all of a text when quoting from a document (neither do you when you paste anything destined to prove a point) simply because I am currently challenging the definitions used to report the Covid death toll; the fact that I don't paste a whole section / document still does not invalidate the information that I post. And I am sorry if you felt that the 'inconsistencies' comment was addressed to you: I was only pointing to the inconsistencies in reporting deaths occurring after a Covid infection vs after a vaccine injection.

And I will not dismiss any number of deaths reported on the vaccination yellow card system until we are proven otherwise with an actual analysis. Rest assured however that I sincerely do hope the analysis will prove me wrong.



[Edited 8/1/21 7:32am]

.

The UK has been rightly criticised for understating their covid deaths because they did not include particularly deaths in aged care facilities. This is a long overdue correction that has not resulted in an overstatement of the deaths. This has been confirmed by it still being an understatement.

.

There is no ongoing blurriness in covid deaths. That was cleared up with the changes in April 2020. The methods are to capture as well as possible the deaths reported that day with a ongoing follow up to confirm this. As with every other cause of death, there is no requirement that this be the sole cause or the dominant cause or the main cause or one of the root causes, it just must be one of the relevant causes as determined by an appropriate HCP. Only about half the UK deaths require an coroner and few of these require an autopsy, almost no respiratory deaths require a viral test to confirm this was the cause. It is only things like tuberculosis and hepatitus that do. The conservative methods used to consider the death a covid death mean that this count is far more likely to under estimate deaths from this condition than many other conditions. If a person died in an aged care facility with covid, the chances that this had nothing to do with the impact of covid on them, short of being hit by a bus, is virtually zero. That, but for covid, they may have died in the next few months or years is irrelevant and to factor this in would create blurriness and immorality.

.

If you seriously limit the reporting of covid related deaths to only where covid is verified as "the main cause of death" whilst seriously overstating the covid vaccine deaths by considering all yellow card deaths to be vaccine deaths until it proven they are not, then this inconsistent.

.

And NO, I would never and have not ever quoted just a sentence from a paragraph that starts with "Furthmore", especially where all it takes is someone to read the full paragraph to see that the preceding sentence does not support what I was saying at all. This is because I have seen so many people take a sentence or part of a sentence out of context to fake a point. Just as I did with you, I generally seek to quote the sentence in context.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #325 posted 08/01/21 3:22pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

CherryMoon57 said:

You would love the school I work for, it's like Covid never existed lol.


Sounds like the people there get to go on with just living their lives. Right on!!

On the Walmart & Kroger websites, they both say they are reinstating mandatory masks for all employess regardless of vaccination status in any area that is designated "High Risk", and say they will be requesting that customers comply.

I checked the CDC site linked by Walmart and found my county is designated high risk. I then went to both stores. Nobody requested I wear a mask and very few customers inside the stores were wearing them.

It doesn't seem like anybody around here is interested in the yo-yo game they're playing with the guidelines and mandates. The arbitrary nonsense is becoming obvious to more people every day, thank God!

I did have a peaceful albiet very adversarial confrontation at a church rummage sale yesterday, but hey, if they want to turn away people and raise less money for charity then that's on them not me.




[Edited 8/1/21 13:58pm]

Agree, we've got to draw the line somewhere otherwise life isn't worth living anymore! Even during the high risk period, when everyone was sheltering the elderly in France, my unvaccined 96 year old grandmother continued going to her weekly hairdresser's appointments as usual. And she survived!

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #326 posted 08/01/21 3:30pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

IanRG said:

CherryMoon57 said:


I do understand the validity behind the numbers added by 'reasonable' association. After all, context is very important too; but I still don't think that using either this method or the one that includes any death occurring within 28 (or even 60) days of a positive Covid test will - if used on their own - do anything for the ongoing blurriness over what is considered a 'Covid death'.

In the case of care homes, (if you want to use a circumstantial approach), the majority of people in care home is more fragile and more likely to have pre-existing conditions and are therefore much more likely to die from the complications of any viral outbreak - be it Covid, a flu or even just a heavy cold resulting in a pulmonary infection, as is often the case. So Covid in those instances will not necessarily be the root cause of death.

There needs to be a clearer defintion of what is considered a 'Covid death' and I think the published death toll should only present a death as a 'Covid-death' when Covid has already been confirmed as the main cause of death, not just a provisional assessment.

I have also verified (on the ONS website) what you said about me quoting a supposedly outdated version of the data criteria used for the death count (the PHE data series dated August 2020), but to date, any deaths occurring within 28 days (and 60 days) of a positive test are still included in the ONS weekly or daily Covid death count regardless of whether Covid was confirmed as the main cause or not, so my argument about the figures presented daily to the general public being provisional and not definite still stands. (btw, ONS are still using the same PHE data series from which I extracted the original 'limitations' quote). https://www.ons.gov.uk/pe...nal/latest

As for your critical point, of course I don't paste all of a text when quoting from a document (neither do you when you paste anything destined to prove a point) simply because I am currently challenging the definitions used to report the Covid death toll; the fact that I don't paste a whole section / document still does not invalidate the information that I post. And I am sorry if you felt that the 'inconsistencies' comment was addressed to you: I was only pointing to the inconsistencies in reporting deaths occurring after a Covid infection vs after a vaccine injection.

And I will not dismiss any number of deaths reported on the vaccination yellow card system until we are proven otherwise with an actual analysis. Rest assured however that I sincerely do hope the analysis will prove me wrong.



[Edited 8/1/21 7:32am]

.

The UK has been rightly criticised for understating their covid deaths because they did not include particularly deaths in aged care facilities. This is a long overdue correction that has not resulted in an overstatement of the deaths. This has been confirmed by it still being an understatement. Perhaps so, but I don't agree with it for the reasons previously explained.

.

There is no ongoing blurriness in covid deaths. That was cleared up with the changes in April 2020. The methods are to capture as well as possible the deaths reported that day with a ongoing follow up to confirm this. As with every other cause of death, there is no requirement that this be the sole cause or the dominant cause or the main cause or one of the root causes, it just must be one of the relevant causes as determined by an appropriate HCP. Only about half the UK deaths require an coroner and few of these require an autopsy, almost no respiratory deaths require a viral test to confirm this was the cause. It is only things like tuberculosis and hepatitus that do. The conservative methods used to consider the death a covid death mean that this count is far more likely to under estimate deaths from this condition than many other conditions. If a person died in an aged care facility with covid, the chances that this had nothing to do with the impact of covid on them, short of being hit by a bus, is virtually zero. That, but for covid, they may have died in the next few months or years is irrelevant and to factor this in would create blurriness and immorality. Think what you may, I just don't agree with this for the reasons previously explained.

.

If you seriously limit the reporting of covid related deaths to only where covid is verified as "the main cause of death" whilst seriously overstating the covid vaccine deaths by considering all yellow card deaths to be vaccine deaths until it proven they are not, then this inconsistent. And vice versa.

.

And NO, I would never and have not ever quoted just a sentence from a paragraph that starts with "Furthmore", especially where all it takes is someone to read the full paragraph to see that the preceding sentence does not support what I was saying at all. This is because I have seen so many people take a sentence or part of a sentence out of context to fake a point. Just as I did with you, I generally seek to quote the sentence in context. But that's because you are perfect and always right Ian, unlike me or anyone else who disagrees with you.

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #327 posted 08/01/21 3:55pm

djThunderfunk

avatar



Those that have had the covid shots are the real super spreaders!

  • Based on the scientific evidence, the narrative that unvaccinated people are viral factories for more dangerous variants is false.
  • Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines put evolutionary pressure on viruses to speed up mutations and create more virulent and dangerous variants.
  • Viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a vaccine that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person. That is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots — they’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms of that infection.
  • In an unvaccinated person, the virus does not encounter the same evolutionary pressure to mutate into something stronger. So, if SARS-CoV-2 does end up mutating into more lethal strains, then mass vaccination is the most likely driver.
  • So far, SARS-CoV-2 variants are at most 0.3% different from the original Wuhan virus. Such minor variation means the virus will not present itself as a new virus. If you’ve recovered from COVID-19, your immune system will still recognize it.

https://www.lifesitenews....mutations/



LIBERTY > AUTHORITY
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #328 posted 08/01/21 4:29pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

IanRG said:

.

The UK has been rightly criticised for understating their covid deaths because they did not include particularly deaths in aged care facilities. This is a long overdue correction that has not resulted in an overstatement of the deaths. This has been confirmed by it still being an understatement. Perhaps so, but I don't agree with it for the reasons previously explained.

.

There is no ongoing blurriness in covid deaths. That was cleared up with the changes in April 2020. The methods are to capture as well as possible the deaths reported that day with a ongoing follow up to confirm this. As with every other cause of death, there is no requirement that this be the sole cause or the dominant cause or the main cause or one of the root causes, it just must be one of the relevant causes as determined by an appropriate HCP. Only about half the UK deaths require an coroner and few of these require an autopsy, almost no respiratory deaths require a viral test to confirm this was the cause. It is only things like tuberculosis and hepatitus that do. The conservative methods used to consider the death a covid death mean that this count is far more likely to under estimate deaths from this condition than many other conditions. If a person died in an aged care facility with covid, the chances that this had nothing to do with the impact of covid on them, short of being hit by a bus, is virtually zero. That, but for covid, they may have died in the next few months or years is irrelevant and to factor this in would create blurriness and immorality. Think what you may, I just don't agree with this for the reasons previously explained.

.

If you seriously limit the reporting of covid related deaths to only where covid is verified as "the main cause of death" whilst seriously overstating the covid vaccine deaths by considering all yellow card deaths to be vaccine deaths until it proven they are not, then this inconsistent. And vice versa.

.

And NO, I would never and have not ever quoted just a sentence from a paragraph that starts with "Furthmore", especially where all it takes is someone to read the full paragraph to see that the preceding sentence does not support what I was saying at all. This is because I have seen so many people take a sentence or part of a sentence out of context to fake a point. Just as I did with you, I generally seek to quote the sentence in context. But that's because you are perfect and always right Ian, unlike me or anyone else who disagrees with you.

.

So much for you seeking to discuss this as an adult.

.

It has nothing to do with everyone else thinking they are perfect or even right when all they did was point out facts that demonstrate that your opinion may be flawed as it is based on misreading and editing. If I was caught out three times so easily in the one thread deliberately ignoring crucial parts from the links I made, then I too would be embarrassed. However, I never would cover this embarrassment by lashing out with "ooh you think your are perfect" jibes.

.

Nothing you have said justifies changing how causes of deaths are recorded so that when you want them low (ie covid related deaths), it must "the main cause of death" and recognise that other things like a cold could kill also an immunocompromised older person. However, when you want it high (ie covid vaccine deaths), it must include every mathematically possible death unless each and every one is specifically eliminated.

.

This is not a vice versa issue as demonstrated by your acceptance that what I pointed out to you in the latest version of the old guide you quoted from addresses the issue you raised. Using your method in the paragraph above most deaths from cold and flu deaths would be excluded as not verified by a test as the main cause. That is unless there was a political imperative to overstate them, so everyone who died within 14 days of buying cold and flu tablets or cough mixture was counted as cold and flu death until their death is specifically eliminated. The difference between a yellow card list and including people who died in circumstances reflecting a potential covid death who had a recent positive covid test is enormous. Think about it: if even one person who died in a bus accident was counted as a covid death and this was not corrected, this would be plastered all over the media and social media.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #329 posted 08/01/21 4:38pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

IanRG said:

CherryMoon57 said:

.

So much for you seeking to discuss this as an adult.

.

It has nothing to do with everyone else thinking they are perfect or even right when all they did was point out facts that demonstrate that your opinion may be flawed as it is based on misreading and editing. If I was caught out three times so easily in the one thread deliberately ignoring crucial parts from the links I made, then I too would be embarrassed. However, I never would cover this embarrassment by lashing out with "ooh you think your are perfect" jibes.

.

Nothing you have said justifies changing how causes of deaths are recorded so that when you want them low (ie covid related deaths), it must "the main cause of death" and recognise that other things like a cold could kill also an immunocompromised older person. However, when you want it high (ie covid vaccine deaths), it must include every mathematically possible death unless each and every one is specifically eliminated.

.

This is not a vice versa issue as demonstrated by your acceptance that what I pointed out to you in the latest version of the old guide you quoted from addresses the issue you raised. Using your method in the paragraph above most deaths from cold and flu deaths would be excluded as not verified by a test as the main cause. That is unless there was a political imperative to overstate them, so everyone who died within 14 days of buying cold and flu tablets or cough mixture was counted as cold and flu death until their death is specifically eliminated. The difference between a yellow card list and including people who died in circumstances reflecting a potential covid death who had a recent positive covid test is enormous. Think about it: if even one person who died in a bus accident was counted as a covid death and this was not corrected, this would be plastered all over the media and social media.

Stilll not convinced, but thanks for trying anyway.

Life Matters
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 11 of 48 « First<789101112131415>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Big Covid spike. Come on asshats get vaccinated!