Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Ratman_tf]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/post-pandemic-stress-disorder-heart-conditions-covid-london-physicians-b969436.html

"Up to 300,000 people facing heart-related illnesses due to post-pandemic stress disorder, warn physicians"

Maybe they can come up with a vaccination for PPSD...

[Kiero]

Look at how Omicron is ravaging South Africa:

[Zelen]

Look at how Omicron is ravaging South Africa:

Worth keeping in mind that South Africa is in the southern hemisphere, so they are getting their warm weather months now. This is a seasonal virus. Going outside, breathing fresh air, and getting sunlight & vitamin D are all helping.

[Kiero]

Worth keeping in mind that South Africa is in the southern hemisphere, so they are getting their warm weather months now. This is a seasonal virus. Going outside, breathing fresh air, and getting sunlight & vitamin D are all helping.

It's the epicentre of the "Omicron variant" and thus further along than anywhere else.

In case you needed reminding of the global death toll from Omicron:

[FelixGamingX1]

Global collapse is around the corner.

[Eirikrautha]

Global collapse is around the corner.

Depends.  Omicron won't cause anything other than a few sniffles and herd immunity.  But the Covidiots in government and their desperate attempts to retain power via mandates and lockdowns could easily cause major collapses.  The only way to prevent this is to reject the fear-mongering and government overreach...

[Shasarak]

2012 and its going to be all over, rover.

[jhkim]

Regarding UK statistics:

The graph is derived from this report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037987/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-48.pdf

All this bollocks about "interpreting by age", if they were doing anything, that wouldn't matter. Old people were the majority dying with covid before "vaccination". They still are. Young people didn't die before the jabs, they still aren't, only now they're dying from adverse reactions.

The jabs haven't done a fucking thing and you mugs keep parroting all the bullshit official lines about how we just need to look at the data in a certain way.

I'm not talking about anyone else's interpretation - I'm talking about the raw statistics on the graph that you yourself posted, and that are in the report that you just linked above. If you have a different way to read it, then please explain. But from how I personally read your data, the statistics show is indeed that elderly people in the UK are still dying - but elderly vaccinated people are dying at a much lesser rate than elderly unvaccinated people. They provide both raw numbers and rates on pages 31-34 of the report you just linked.

If you have a different way to look at the data, then please explain it. From what I can see:

1) There are about 9 million people who are 65+ in the UK, and they're around 94% vaccinated: so about 8.5 million vaccinated and 0.5 million unvaccinated.
2) These elderly people make up the vast majority of covid deaths.
3) Deaths among the 0.5 million unvaccinated elderly is a higher proportion than among the 8.5 million vaccinated elderly.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

The key result is age-standardised mortality rate per 100,000 person-years:

Vaccination status	_   Deaths involving COVID-19	_   All deaths
Unvaccinated	_   849.7 (840.3, 859.2)	_   2,187.1 (2,172.2, 2,202.0)
Received only the first dose, less than 21 days ago	_   192.4 (182.4, 202.4)	_   811.9 (793.4, 830.4)
Received only the first dose, at least 21 days ago	_   105.3 (102.8, 107.8 )	_   1,124.3 (1,115.9, 1,132.7)
Received the second dose, less than 21 days ago	_   7.2 (6.1, 8.2)	_   464.6 (455.8, 473.4)
Received the second dose, at least 21 days ago	_   26.2 (25.4, 27.1)	_   783.6 (779.1, 788.0)

I am having a difficult time getting my head around the person-years. I understand (I think) how it is calculated, but it is not clear why that is a good normalization for this data.

From the website: "For example, 100 people in a particular vaccination status for 0.5 years would be 50 person-years."

So that means that if 10 people had been in the 2-dose, >=21 days status for 0.1 year when they died with covid, that would be 1 person-year. And if they had died with covid at 0.2 year, that would be 2 person-year. Seems odd that the longer in a status before you die, the higher your contribution to the count.

Also, should I read the table as saying that being unvaccinated results in overall worse death results than being fully-vaccinated (2,187.1 vs. 783.6, respectively)?

It looks like the idea of measuring by person-years is that there is a statistical difference between (A) someone who was unvaccinated for 11 months and vaccinated for 1 month versus (B) someone who was vaccinated for the whole year. A who was unvaccinated for 11 months and lived would mostly add to the safety record of the unvaccinated, because he went through 11 months unvaccinated and didn't die during that time. I haven't reviewed their math, but that's the stated intent.

And yes, according to this data, the unvaccinated population has an overall worse death rate for this sample.

[dkabq]

Regarding UK statistics:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

The key result is age-standardised mortality rate per 100,000 person-years:

Vaccination status	_   Deaths involving COVID-19	_   All deaths
Unvaccinated	_   849.7 (840.3, 859.2)	_   2,187.1 (2,172.2, 2,202.0)
Received only the first dose, less than 21 days ago	_   192.4 (182.4, 202.4)	_   811.9 (793.4, 830.4)
Received only the first dose, at least 21 days ago	_   105.3 (102.8, 107.8 )	_   1,124.3 (1,115.9, 1,132.7)
Received the second dose, less than 21 days ago	_   7.2 (6.1, 8.2)	_   464.6 (455.8, 473.4)
Received the second dose, at least 21 days ago	_   26.2 (25.4, 27.1)	_   783.6 (779.1, 788.0)

I am having a difficult time getting my head around the person-years. I understand (I think) how it is calculated, but it is not clear why that is a good normalization for this data.

From the website: "For example, 100 people in a particular vaccination status for 0.5 years would be 50 person-years."

So that means that if 10 people had been in the 2-dose, >=21 days status for 0.1 year when they died with covid, that would be 1 person-year. And if they had died with covid at 0.2 year, that would be 2 person-year. Seems odd that the longer in a status before you die, the higher your contribution to the count.

Also, should I read the table as saying that being unvaccinated results in overall worse death results than being fully-vaccinated (2,187.1 vs. 783.6, respectively)?

It looks like the idea of measuring by person-years is that there is a statistical difference between (A) someone who was unvaccinated for 11 months and vaccinated for 1 month versus (B) someone who was vaccinated for the whole year. A who was unvaccinated for 11 months and lived would mostly add to the safety record of the unvaccinated, because he went through 11 months unvaccinated and didn't die during that time. I haven't reviewed their math, but that's the stated intent.

And yes, according to this data, the unvaccinated population has an overall worse death rate for this sample.

Doh! The person-years are in the denominator. Just like normalizing travel accident risk by person-miles.

[Kiero]

The "covid death" figures are utter bullshit. They massively overestimate the number of people dying "with" covid, rather than of.

Every time these requests are submitted, the results are the same:



95%+ of those who died within 28 days of a positive test didn't actually die from covid, they merely had a positive result within a month of their demise.

[Kiero]

And as I keep saying, the tests are bullshit. The inventor of the PCR test (who died mysteriously a few years ago) recommended a CT of no higher than 25.

Here's one of many trusts who when asked what they're using are way above:



Huge volumes of false positives, because "cases" are the foundation of this entire covid scam.

[FelixGamingX1]

Kiero, are you aware of how viral transmissions occur? You should start with the basics first.

[Kiero]

Kiero, are you aware of how viral transmissions occur? You should start with the basics first.

You really are an imbecile, aren't you? It's the sniffles, not ebola.

Show me where on the all-causes death stats for 2020 there was a "pandemic" compared to other years.

[Garry G]

And as I keep saying, the tests are bullshit. The inventor of the PCR test (who died mysteriously a few years ago) recommended a CT of no higher than 25.

Here's one of many trusts who when asked what they're using are way above:



Huge volumes of false positives, because "cases" are the foundation of this entire covid scam.

I know this may sound repetitive but can you explain how this highly complicated international conspiracy works? A simple step by step explanation on how the dark masters, I think it's Big Pharma this week but may be wrong, started and spread this scam through numerous governments with different agendas and stopped any sort of leak that would blow the whole thing wide open.

[dkabq]

There is no "grand conspiracy". Rather, it is in the selfish interests of Big Pharma, Big Tech, governments, etc. to over-hype covid so as to make money and expand their control.