UK Government Data Shows 92.2 Percent Of All Covid Deaths Are Fully Vaccinated

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Ohhhhh AZ, you crack me up with your BS! So based on this response, are you saying that the difference in strains of covid didn’t have any kind of different affect for “vaccinated” people vs “unvaccinated” people? Cause that’s what it sounds like. You are trying to say that amount of deaths have plummeted and it’s because of the experimental gene therapy, instead of what it actually is, the change in strain for everyone regardless of being injected, combined with herd immunity. Try to keep defending an ineffective, dangerous experiment. Have you not seen the Pfizer data released due to the FOI act? Or did you ignore it cause it doesn’t fit your narrative? You accuse people of cherrypicking data then cherrypick yourself in the same breath, [SNIPPED]

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

It's equally funny and terrifying how many people read the data and agree, without actually understanding what they're looking at.

They don't actually look at the data and base 100% of their view on a fear porn chart..... So this chart I guess is a lie from the same report they are pulling their "true" numbers from and say if you are vaccinated you have a much higher chance to die or end up in the hospital.

For those who can not read the chart it shows that the vaccines are highly effected against Delta but drops off with Omicron until you get a booster then it goes back up.

BTW...BNT162b2 is mRNA Pfizer, the other charts that have a lower effectiveness rate are not the mRNA vaccines

a reply to: Xtrozero

Highly effective against Delta is somewhat of a stretch to be honest.

Delta has the issue that Omicron is beating it, and with more mutation the immunity caused by Omicron will also prevent Delta.

In Denmark Omicron had pretty much killed off Delta by the end of december. So you can't even say anything about efficacy against that now.

Also, those numbers could be cherry picked by date interval. What is the base date and when was the cut off?

There has been lots and lots of data and figures that show that the vaccine indeed does NOT continue to be effective against Delta, because it was waning after 6 months and going sub 60%. And we all know how it worked against infection, atleast here in Denmark, because here they are now trying to lie that they always said that the vaccine didn't protect against infection but against hospitalization and death.

Ofcourse we have everyone on various news casts and video clips in the early days litterally saying "it protects against infection!!"

Got jabbed twice. Got Delta 4 months after 2nd jab. Got Omicron in early febuary.

We should have stayed open all the way. Vaxxed the weak and elderly (who are dying anyways now, despite being vaccinated, many of them 3 times), and then handled hospitalizations with medicine.

In years time, when they do a cost benefit of the vaccine vs. what would could have saved with just medicine, will show that the total societal cost was not worth the save of the difference in lives that could have been saved with medicine, opposed to how many we ASSUME got saved by the vaccine.

It was not worth it, end of story.

originally posted by: Narvasis

Ohhhhh AZ, you crack me up with your BS! So based on this response, are you saying that the difference in strains of covid didn’t have any kind of different affect for “vaccinated” people vs “unvaccinated” people? Cause that’s what it sounds like. You are trying to say that amount of deaths have plummeted and it’s because of the experimental gene therapy, instead of what it actually is, the change in strain for everyone regardless of being injected, combined with herd immunity. Try to keep defending an ineffective, dangerous experiment. Have you not seen the Pfizer data released due to the FOI act? Or did you ignore it cause it doesn’t fit your narrative? You accuse people of cherrypicking data then cherrypick yourself in the same breath, without supplying any links to back up your filth that you spew. No wonder why people stopped wasting their time replying to you.

Well first RNA is not gene therapy, that would be DNA, and second, the first mRNA human trials were about 10 years ago, so experimental??? maybe not so much.

But yeah, just keep pushing your talking points...lol

All these reports including the OP's show the unvacced get it much worst. Most states in America still push 85%+ of people in hospitals are unvacced since we have a much lower vac rate compared to UK. But damn... When 40% of the population makes up 85% of those in the hospitals it doesn't look good for the unvacced no matter how many people the virus has little effect on, or how others try to manipulate numbers to say vacced people are worst off.

originally posted by: flice

Highly effective against Delta is somewhat of a stretch to be honest.

I'm just citing the OP's report that show high 90% for 25 weeks and almost 100% with first booster with Delta...

Delta has the issue that Omicron is beating it, and with more mutation the immunity caused by Omicron will also prevent Delta.

Yep and the chart shows not until 2nd booster is omicron in the 90% too.

Also, those numbers could be cherry picked by date interval. What is the base date and when was the cut off?

Its from the UK health department, but once again its what the OP used...lol

Ofcourse we have everyone on various news casts and video clips in the early days litterally saying "it protects against infection!!"

I been saying for like 1.5 years now that it doesn't make you a bubble boy, it is to reduce serious conditions.

Got jabbed twice. Got Delta 4 months after 2nd jab. Got Omicron in early February.

We should have stayed open all the way. Vaxxed the weak and elderly (who are dying anyways now, despite being vaccinated, many of them 3 times), and then handled hospitalizations with medicine.

How old are you and did you have any issues with Omicron?

Agree 100%

In years time, when they do a cost benefit of the vaccine vs. what would could have saved with just medicine, will show that the total societal cost was not worth the save of the difference in lives that could have been saved with medicine, opposed to how many we ASSUME got saved by the vaccine.

It was not worth it, end of story.

None of it was...

I have said when they announced 85% of the old and high risk were vaccinated they should have said we won our mission and left it there as an option for anyone else. Everyone was trying to cover their asses more than caring about people. Trump was the bad one for pushing back against lock down etc...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Since almost all the deaths are in the at-risk populations, and the at risk populations are almost all vaccinated, I'm shocked it's not higher than 92%. It's a meaningless figure by itself. To give it meaning you need to look at various groups, and compare percentage of people in those groups who died/fell seriously ill in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated populations in that particular group.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The vaccines have accomplished their mission of putting tens of millions of people on a path to long-term illnesses, that will require many years of treatments, making tons of money for the medical world.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well first RNA is not gene therapy, that would be DNA, and second, the first mRNA human trials were about 10 years ago, so experimental??? maybe not so much.

First , look up the definition of RNA .
They are very intertwined with each other and bodily functions .
Second , what trials of mRNA ?
Why is it ongoing ?
Since the trials are ongoing , why release a vaccine which , at the time of release , was still in trial stage ?

(BTW , I am vaccinated)

Your turn .

originally posted by: Gothmog

First , look up the definition of RNA .

RNA is a molecule that performs a simple function. mDNA would be gene therapy, not mRNA. Your body has 1000s of different RNAs that do the same thing as virus RNA that is the same as mRNA. To suggest mRNA is gene therapy is disingenuous to say the least. Its just a label to use when you have little facts to back up your point. So do you call all viruses gene therapy too since they will dump a million times more RNA into your body than the vaccine?

Second , what trials of mRNA ?
Why is it ongoing ?
Since the trials are ongoing , why release a vaccine which , at the time of release , was still in trial stage ?

Not sure what your question is... The first human trails with mRNA was around 2012 with rabies. They were actually working to use it against the heavy hitter like rabies, Ebola etc. When COVID came along the process was long in use and it took them like 2 days to sequence the COVID RNA.

The vaccine trials are over as all trails go, after ALL trails for ALL drugs it goes into monitoring mode once phase 3 is done. The vaccine trials were pretty extensive and quicker compared to other ones because they basically had an unlimited number of people infected to test. I think they used like 30,000 which is an unheard of number in other trials mainly because they just can't find the people sick to use.

(BTW , I am vaccinated)

Good for you, and I don't really care.

a reply to: Xtrozero
Ermmm.... the mRNA technology to deliver a vaccine has never been licensed. So, compound that with the fact the actual SARS-CoV-2 vaccine itself is still under an EUA you have a double whammy of neither the method/delivery mechanism nor the vaccine itself have been licensed.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

False, it is not under an EUA. Not sure why these lies persist, it makes anything else you say untrustworthy.

originally posted by: angelchemuel

Ermmm.... the mRNA technology to deliver a vaccine has never been licensed. So, compound that with the fact the actual SARS-CoV-2 vaccine itself is still under an EUA you have a double whammy of neither the method/delivery mechanism nor the vaccine itself have been licensed.
Rainbows
Jane

OK so, I was commenting on the "experimental drug" comment. It is not really experimental nor a drug...lol You are talking paper work.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Show me where either the mRNA (delivery system) or the C19 vaccine (the drug) have either been granted full license anywhere for any of the pharma's.
Cromaraty is only a name change license, not a license for mRNA or the vaccine.... just in case you have got a little confused.

originally posted by: Bringittothelight
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Wow this doesn’t look good for anyone

People who think the "break through" infections are important, are missing the boat. The medical community, including Walensky/Fauci don't care. It's long-term vaccine-induced maladies that will generate a few Trillion dollars for them over the next 20 years. THAT is what the medical community cares about and is now looking forward to. Covid-19 is yesterday's news.

originally posted by: carewemust

The vaccines have accomplished their mission of putting tens of millions of people on a path to long-term illnesses, that will require many years of treatments, making tons of money for the medical world.

Hmmm sounds like a long term career path, thanks

a reply to: angelchemuel

Like I said, stop repeating stupid lies easily disproved.

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older

www.fda.gov...

Not EUA, fully approved.

a reply to: network dude
SOURCE REPORT
Have you read all of this and understand it?

Because from what I have read and the parts a truly understand. it's saying that the vaccine is working.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Just look around you at people you know and mysterious things that are happening like blood clots and heart attack

But none of that is happening to the people around me. And all the people around me are vaccinated.
But two of the people around that were not vaccinated did die from covid.
So yes I for one am paying attention to what is going on around me and that's why I too have been vaccinated.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: angelchemuel

False, it is not under an EUA. Not sure why these lies persist, it makes anything else you say untrustworthy.

This is more disinformation. It's not approved in the United States because they only use the EUA pfizer biontech and not coriminaty which is not available, therefor it's EUA in the US.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Narvasis

Ohhhhh AZ, you crack me up with your BS! So based on this response, are you saying that the difference in strains of covid didn’t have any kind of different affect for “vaccinated” people vs “unvaccinated” people? Cause that’s what it sounds like. You are trying to say that amount of deaths have plummeted and it’s because of the experimental gene therapy, instead of what it actually is, the change in strain for everyone regardless of being injected, combined with herd immunity. Try to keep defending an ineffective, dangerous experiment. Have you not seen the Pfizer data released due to the FOI act? Or did you ignore it cause it doesn’t fit your narrative? You accuse people of cherrypicking data then cherrypick yourself in the same breath, without supplying any links to back up your filth that you spew. No wonder why people stopped wasting their time replying to you.

Well first RNA is not gene therapy, that would be DNA, and second, the first mRNA human trials were about 10 years ago, so experimental??? maybe not so much.

But yeah, just keep pushing your talking points...lol

All these reports including the OP's show the unvacced get it much worst. Most states in America still push 85%+ of people in hospitals are unvacced since we have a much lower vac rate compared to UK. But damn... When 40% of the population makes up 85% of those in the hospitals it doesn't look good for the unvacced no matter how many people the virus has little effect on, or how others try to manipulate numbers to say vacced people are worst off.

It's gene therapy, it modifies DNA via reverse transcriptase. There were multiple threads about a study that showed exactly how within 6 hours the mRNA vaccines are modifying nuclear DNA.

SOURCE