Post ACZWXY3FIaTTHdKuB6 by Bleukitty@freeatlantis.com
(DIR) More posts by Bleukitty@freeatlantis.com
(DIR) Post #ACXpgIpEmsy9TpkgjI by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T04:21:27Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Alex Berenson was on Joe Rogan a few days ago, discussing COVID data in the UK for Weeks 34 to 37.I'd be interested to hear what you think after reading the report.Headlines:'70% of COVID Deaths in England in September Were Fully Vaccinated''Vaccinated Have Higher Case Rates Than Unvaccinated For 40 and Older In England'KanekoaTheGreat put this together in a substack:https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/alex-berenson-tells-joe-rogan-over-b43The COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report may be downloaded here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf
(DIR) Post #ACZOnqH2W5Kend2xSC by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:10:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nchia B.And.. I don't understand how the rate is calculated in the last two columns on this table. (Table 4)How did they come up with the numbers in the last two columns? The rate of persons vaccinated with 2 doses... and the rate of persons not vaccinated per 100,000.Will a math person explain this to me?
(DIR) Post #ACZOnqlAi3R2J591Q8 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:16:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LoveAlmonds @nchia This is just data they are displaying. They have to be using off chart numbers to calculate the last two fields.
(DIR) Post #ACZOnrH4nQxJu24V9M by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:19:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @nchia So is this made up sh*t?I'm confused.😕
(DIR) Post #ACZOnrkV22UXNHq00m by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:25:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LoveAlmonds @nchia There is no way to evaluate this chart without having access to the underlying data from which it came. However if you read the first sentence up top it leaves it open to question if this is useful data. the definitions are kind of strange.
(DIR) Post #ACZOnsG38jjEx8bCBk by CDuBois@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T22:40:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil Yup, that was my take as well. Beyond that, we do not know with certainty how accurate any of the data is ... so much deceptive information has been thrown around.I don't believe any of them anymore.@LoveAlmonds @nchia
(DIR) Post #ACZQHDKnxLO6fnNSK0 by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T22:57:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@CDuBois @Phil @LoveAlmonds Actually, the UK has a universal health system. I would rely on the data.I am just cautious the data is read in context.eg Deaths 70 to 79 age group:2-doses 705Unvaxxed 185So almost 4x the deaths of FULLY VAXXED over unvaxxed!!BUTRates705 is 15.2 (per 100,000)185 is 74.9 (per 100,100)Means 705 from roughly 4.6M; 185 from roughly 247K. Even if you padded the unvaxxed numbers for the age group to 1M, it's still higher than the 2-dosed.
(DIR) Post #ACZUCd5NBcRiuKEEYy by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:06:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@CDuBois @Phil @LoveAlmonds What I'm more concerned about is the number of deaths Under 18. Of the 6 recorded, none were attributed to any vaccinated. Need more info.Across all age groups, the Death rates are far, far higher for unvaxxed. (Table 4)Across age groups >40, Case rates are higher for the vaxxed. (Table 2)So, ages 39 and under, more likely for unvaxxed to well, acquire natural immunity.For under 18, dying from COVID is virtually zero, even for unvaxxed.
(DIR) Post #ACZUCdaZJdOqT4p9Bg by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:33:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nchia @CDuBois @Phil So... are you saying that the joe rogan interview is misleading because Berenson is providing only the number of covid deaths and not the rate or percentage of deaths in vaxxed and unvaxxed?
(DIR) Post #ACZUCe7tJk3S8QPl7w by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:39:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LoveAlmonds @CDuBois @Phil I think it's important to look at all the data in context.What Alex highlighted is not wrong.But if we call out Biden for saying UA improved their vaxxed employees from 59% to 99% - because the unvaxxed were fired, then we should be smart enough to go a level deeper in understanding the data.Now you can still disagree with the assumptions made, but at least articulate why.For me, I rely on UK and Israeli data to form my opinions over here.
(DIR) Post #ACZWS2SxIxpTsKjblo by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:36:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @nchia Mind you... I'm not a math person... so what do I know...
(DIR) Post #ACZWS2ube9wnG5fgrw by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:39:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LoveAlmonds @nchia you knew enough to be suspicious.
(DIR) Post #ACZWS3Kq4cvmZRwdl2 by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T18:39:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @nchia 😉 😜
(DIR) Post #ACZWS3nCNBcFzPDHxg by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T22:35:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LoveAlmonds @Phil On page 11:"The rate of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisation, and deaths in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was calculated using vaccine coverage data for each age group extracted from the National Immunisation Management Service."The rate will be lower against a larger pool.Deaths 80+ suggests there are around 127K unvaccinated in that age group vs >2.5M double-vaxxed.Rate for 80+ suggests 3x more likely for unvaxxed dying.
(DIR) Post #ACZWS4IOVCZNY9oCaO by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:14:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nchia @Phil Please clarify exactly what you mean by these two sentences... I don't understand and I can't find it in the document.You said:Deaths 80+ suggests there are around 127K unvaccinated in that age group vs >2.5M double-vaxxed.Rate for 80+ suggests 3x more likely for unvaxxed dying.
(DIR) Post #ACZWS4nEeXEv5oEpeq by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:47:36Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@LoveAlmonds Just to follow up with this.Deaths 80+2-doses 1,272, Rate 49.5 (per 100,000).This means the number of deaths for that age group and category equates to 49.5 per 100,000, which is a fancy way to say 0.0495 per 100, or 0.0495%.If 1,272 is about 0.0495%, then the total number in that pool is 1,272/0.0495% = 2,569,697Now, rate against rate. The unvaxxed is 156.0 (per 100,000) vs 49.5 2-doses.156.0/49.5 = 3.15So based on rates, 3x more likely for unvaxxed dying.
(DIR) Post #ACZWXXat01mzrg4FyS by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-21T00:05:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nchia 1.Berenson did not take into account the rates...he only talked about raw numbers.So... this UK data is correct.I still don't trust governments that promote the efficacy of an untested product in the short term... without any data showing the effects in the long term.I may not be a math person... but I know my gut.@Phil @CDuBois @curtmilr @JackO
(DIR) Post #ACZWXY3FIaTTHdKuB6 by Bleukitty@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-21T00:07:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LoveAlmonds Interesting, the people I lurk say more of the jabbed are dying once hospitalized.@nchia @Phil @CDuBois @curtmilr @JackO
(DIR) Post #ACZbypA0INpXw4K4O0 by curtmilr@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:10:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nchia @CDuBois @Phil @LoveAlmonds , But they are attributing deaths to Covid of people with stage 4 cancer, heart failure, advanced diabetes, etc.ALL of the numbers are sh*t!!
(DIR) Post #ACZbypaahX67GWlIpM by nchia@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:32:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@curtmilr I think it's worth working this through.Take age groups 70 to 79 and 80+.How many would you take off the number of COVID deaths? 30%? 50%, 90%?Would the same percentage be for both groups?@CDuBois @Phil @LoveAlmonds
(DIR) Post #ACZbyq40w8dKjmWngm by LoveAlmonds@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:39:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nchia @curtmilr @CDuBois @Phil It may be true... this data may be reliable.I know you said you would rely on the data... But I say... data be damned.It may be proper data... but what I'm concerned about is what this untested product would do to my immunity in the long term.They don't have any data on that yet.
(DIR) Post #ACZbyqYr5TIsHQxQlE by JackO@freeatlantis.com
2021-10-20T23:52:12Z
0 likes, 4 repeats
@LoveAlmonds @nchia @curtmilr @CDuBois @Phil I always go back to the simple question: Where are the long-term safety studies? They don't exist=Long term use has not yet been obtained=Data does not exist=Long-term affects are INDETERMINATE.Pfizer Chantix FDA approved 5/10/2006. Now-"Pfizer recalls Chantix smoking cessation drug for increased cancer risk due to high levels of nitrosamine"https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/shopping/2021/09/17/chantix-recall-2021-pfizer-cancer-risk-smoking-cessation-drug/8385350002/16 years later down the road!Causality can be argued yes/no BUT STILL.WTF?