And could that be why more deaths occured in vaccinated people than unvaccinated from the Delta Variant ?
Because Ireland is now showing that you're twice as likely to be hospitalised from the Delta variant if you're vaccinated.
Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
And could that be why more deaths occured in vaccinated people than unvaccinated from the Delta Variant ?
Because Ireland is now showing that you're twice as likely to be hospitalised from the Delta variant if you're vaccinated.
Vaccinated people can still die, especially if they are old, so it is in their interest to avoid exposure at all costs by insisting everyone else is jabbed.
Where they descend into idiocy is believing that masks will help, and believing the vaccine will prevent exposure, because respectable scientists told them it would. Fools.
It could be if the delta variant that had its way gorging upon AZ in india mutated in a way that gave an advantage over the vaccine proteins and simulatanously led to an unintended disadvantage over naturally produced anti-bodies.
But there is more chance of me taking the knee than this being studied by scientists.
The point was, that restricting movement based on whether you have a vaccine or not, is pretty standard and for good reason.
I wouldn't say pretty standard. There are more countries without it than with it.
If they decide that vaccine is less safe then that is entirely their choice. If a vaccine is less safe than COVID for a young person they shouldn't have to take it to protect an older person. If you are protected by your vaccine and a young person becomes immune through exposure then you're both immune. I know there are worries of breakthrough cases in vaccinated people but young people shouldn't have to put themselves at risk (if that end up being the case) to protect those breakthrough cases.
The argument that someone must be vaccinated for a different vaccinated person to be safe kinda undermines the efficacy of the vaccine.
Last edited:
Nah, between smallpox, polio, yellow fever and a few more, the majority of countries had one at some point or another. It's pretty reasonable to restrict movements based on whether you are infected or have a higher likelihood to be infectious. If we get to the stage where it's not as big a risk, rules should and would be adjusted. It's not a big human rights violation that some are trying to make out, it's just prudent.
I guess the MSM are lying again then because last week I saw a figure of 98% of deaths in the UK were from people not fully vaccinated.
All of those infections would fuck anyone up if they contracted it, and all their associated vaccines were developed by trustworthy scientists who took their time to do their research properly, and the results are there to inspect over decades of data. That's pretty different from force vaccinating young people with a potentially lethal dose of dirty sanchez special new and improved highly experimental brew.
Sorurce is PHE.
And "Potential harms" are even lower for mRNA vaccines. It's anti-vax nonsense to suggest young adults are only getting the vaccine to protect older people.
All this over something that has an average age of death of like 81, while 99.8% of people recover from it too... if they even notice they've had it. Then you could probably start examining that figure further with the dubious died from/with covid stats, and the died within 28 days figures.
I know it's not a flu, yada yada yada, but out of interest I looked up flu deaths from a few years ago, and there was one winter around 2017 or 2018, where 1800 people were dying a day in the UK. We weren't locking down and restricting the entire population then, or forcing them to inject themselves with god knows what.
I was also sent a picture, I don't know how true it is, and I don't know how to upload it, but in Israel, there's a much, much higher rate of hospitalisations and deaths amongst vaccinated people.
Chances are, this is going to be around forever now, mutating and shifting each year, like flu does. Do we keep locking down millions of people for the sake of a handful of cases, like in Australia? Or do we learn to live with it and protect the vulnerable without impacting on privacy and rights, and without bringing in Orwellian, dystopian measures just to maybe protect (most likely) a few old, fatties from something else that can kill them now?
I know it's not a flu, yada yada yada, but out of interest I looked up flu deaths from a few years ago, and there was one winter around 2017 or 2018, where 1800 people were dying a day in the UK. We weren't locking down and restricting the entire population then, or forcing them to inject themselves with god knows what.
I was also sent a picture, I don't know how true it is, and I don't know how to upload it, but in Israel, there's a much, much higher rate of hospitalisations and deaths amongst vaccinated people.
Chances are, this is going to be around forever now, mutating and shifting each year, like flu does. Do we keep locking down millions of people for the sake of a handful of cases, like in Australia? Or do we learn to live with it and protect the vulnerable without impacting on privacy and rights, and without bringing in Orwellian, dystopian measures just to maybe protect (most likely) a few old, fatties from something else that can kill them now?
Sorurce is PHE.
And "Potential harms" are even lower for mRNA vaccines. It's anti-vax nonsense to suggest young adults are only getting the vaccine to protect older people.
I suppose "high exposure risk" means you're sampling people who are more likely to get infected than the general population, but no more likely to suffer an adverse reaction to the vaccine. But because you're signalling the correct virtue in the infographic it's all perfectly fine, not nonsense, it's science.
40% of hospitalisations are vaccinated. They originally said it was 60%, so fuck knows what the actual number is.
That'd be expected, Delta variant or not. All the high risk people are vaccinated, who are by definition more likely to be hospitalised. Those that aren't vaccinated are low risk and less likely to end up in hospital.
There'll also be a point where more vaccinated people are in hospital(if that isn't the case already) which is just due to higher % of the population being vaccinated.
That was 1 vaccination no? I thought the double vaccinations with at least 2 weeks clear was a low %
This is pretty easy to factor out using the respective probabilities, then you've isolated the inherent difference in risk between an unvaccinated and vaccinated person. I would presume that this was done, solely because the people making the claims are more likely to be autistic and so would not overlook any detail much less such an obvious one. Perhaps you can confirm.
I dunno. I try not to pay attention to the news, if you can't already tell. I just saw vaccinated. I do know, however, that I know of 3 people in the last week or so who have had both jabs have tested positive.
People are still gonna get it even once they have had the vaccine, but they are less likely to have to go to hospital and less likely to die, and that was the point.
If everyone who has Coronavirus is only going to get a reasonably mild illness and then recover then it won’t really matter as much any longer.
If everyone who has Coronavirus is only going to get a reasonably mild illness and then recover then it won’t really matter as much any longer.
But if the vaccine was as effective as advertised the vaccinated ones shouldn't be getting sick at all and if at all it would be minor.
Sorurce is PHE.
And "Potential harms" are even lower for mRNA vaccines. It's anti-vax nonsense to suggest young adults are only getting the vaccine to protect older people.
What is high exposure risk? More vulnerable people?
Sorurce is PHE.
And "Potential harms" are even lower for mRNA vaccines. It's anti-vax nonsense to suggest young adults are only getting the vaccine to protect older people.
Not necessarily. I've already said I'm not anti vax and had my first dose (in mid 30s). Somebody from the JVCI has said it may be safer for young people to get their immunity through transmission. As far as I have read the youngest person to die with COVID in Ireland was a 16 year old with underlying conditions last year. It's incredibly sad but he/she would/should be offered a vaccine this year. I don't think many young people have died with it. They've stopped publishing the age profile of deaths in Ireland, at least partly due a recent cyber attack on our health service. Young people getting vaccinated is for others as much as themselves.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/976877/CovidStats_07-04-21-final.pdf
Low = 2 / 10,000 incident rate
Medium = 6 / 10,000 incident rate
High = 20 / 10,000 incident rate
The low exposure infographic appears to be propagating anti-vaxx nonsense!!! I would cancel Public Health England. They're science denying racists!
That's what was happening to the overwhelming majority anyway before we started forcing people to inject themselves with God knows what.
In the UK, just under 700 people under the age of 60 without underlying conditions have died from it.
Or, I should say, with it
So at low exposure people in their 20s are less at risk from COVID basically?