UK Gov 'vaccinated' kids 4423% to die any cause & 13,633% die of COVID than 'Unvaccinated'

originally posted by: Skepticape
Why speak for another poster?

Because I, unlike you, understood their point.

No obviously they cannot die of both. It is one or the other.

What do you think comorbidity means?

Got it, you think you are superior and don’t have anything to offer of substance. Thanks for letting ATS know we can dismiss your contribution!


a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: Skepticape
Where are you trying to find disagreement? I've never said the experimental vaccines are effective or safe, or appropriate for kids...precisely why I remain unvaccinated myself.
Ask me something specific and I'll answer truthfully, but I don't understand which bit you wish me to explain now, or where we disagree?

I was not but you keep saying no and the stating then same point I’ve offered you.

Some posters seem to want domination vs discussion here on ATS (see above) when it seems we are agreeing. a reply to: angeltone

Explain what their point was and how exactly it disagrees with mine since you understand so much.

a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: Skepticape
Got it, you think you are superior and don’t have anything to offer of substance. Thanks for letting ATS know we can dismiss your contribution!

Actually, I just reminded you what comorbidity means.

Also on page 1 I showed how the equation used in the source in the OP is wrong, which means the premise of the thread is wrong. That seems like something of substance to me.

Of course you can dismiss whatever you want for whatever reason. We are all free to do that.

a reply to: Skepticape
There is nothing to explain:

I'm not surprised that vaccinated UK kids have a high death rate, because ONLY really unwell kids got the vaccines.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Skepticape
There is nothing to explain:

I'm not surprised that vaccinated UK kids have a high death rate, because ONLY really unwell kids got the vaccines.

Hi, I'm only quoting the quote, to claim ownership of the original quote lol.
I didn't check the percentage deaths in the OP or anything, I based it on the initial vaccines for kids, covid history, as I've seen it. It was massively pushed on only the most poorly kids first, those who were unlikely to live long anyway.
So, when I saw the high death rate claims of vaccinated kids, I was not surprised, because healthy kids are overwhelmingly not vaccinated in the UK.
I still don't even know anyone who died of covid who was otherwise healthy...just seems like an over hyped flu to me, definitely not worth jabbing healthy kids.

a reply to: angeltone
Yep, that is exactly what I took away from your posts. It made me think of another thing that keeps being posted about the vaccines where people use the data on a site called howbadismybatch which shows some batches associated with a greater number of deaths than others.

It has made some people come to the conclusion that some batches are "hot" and others might be placebo. They totally leave out of the equation the fact that, like in your observation, certain batches early on where administered to very unhealthy people so it is no surprise that there would be a higher death rate within those groups.

Are the government fudging the numbers?

I mean. So for instance im looking at the numbers for ever vaccinated in December of 2021 and the ever vaccinated numbers are lower than everything... how can it be lower? It's table one of the spreadsheet.

Spreadsheet linky

Monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for all cause deaths, deaths involving COVID-19 and deaths not involving COVID-19, per 100,000 person-years, England, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022

December 2021 - standardized per 100,000 person years.
1358.0 unvaxxed
1661.8 1st dose < 21 days
3678.3 1st dose > 21 days
1702.2 2nd dose < 21 days
2209.4 2nd dose > 21 days
4354.1 3rd dose < 21 days
1068.5 3rd dose > 21 days
827.0 vaxxed ever

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Skepticape
Got it, you think you are superior and don’t have anything to offer of substance. Thanks for letting ATS know we can dismiss your contribution!

Actually, I just reminded you what comorbidity means.

Also on page 1 I showed how the equation used in the source in the OP is wrong, which means the premise of the thread is wrong. That seems like something of substance to me.

Of course you can dismiss whatever you want for whatever reason. We are all free to do that.

Actually I don’t need a reminder, thanks for pretending I didn’t already know. I would have appreciated you actually responding to my question rather than the attitude.

I fully agree with this. Thank you, most ATS posters don’t provide such interactions, again see above lol

originally posted by: angeltone

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Skepticape
There is nothing to explain:

I'm not surprised that vaccinated UK kids have a high death rate, because ONLY really unwell kids got the vaccines.

Hi, I'm only quoting the quote, to claim ownership of the original quote lol.
I didn't check the percentage deaths in the OP or anything, I based it on the initial vaccines for kids, covid history, as I've seen it. It was massively pushed on only the most poorly kids first, those who were unlikely to live long anyway.
So, when I saw the high death rate claims of vaccinated kids, I was not surprised, because healthy kids are overwhelmingly not vaccinated in the UK.
I still don't even know anyone who died of covid who was otherwise healthy...just seems like an over hyped flu to me, definitely not worth jabbing healthy kids.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Skepticape
Why speak for another poster?

Because I, unlike you, understood their point.

No obviously they cannot die of both. It is one or the other.

What do you think comorbidity means?

I hope you’re willing to apologize for your misunderstanding one what I do and do not understand. Much appreciated.

originally posted by: Skepticape
Actually I don’t need a reminder, thanks for pretending I didn’t already know.

Your posts indicated otherwise.

I would have appreciated you actually responding to my question rather than the attitude.

There was only one question in your post: "Why speak for another poster?" and I did answer it.

Then you made an incorrect statement: "No obviously they cannot die of both. It is one or the other." which is why I mentioned comorbidity.

a reply to: daskakik that was one awful apology!

I guess you plan on keeping me waiting. I appreciated the original posters reply which speaks for them much better than you did.

a reply to: Skepticape
It wasn't an apology.

Why would I apologize for not answering your question, when I in fact did answer the one question you asked?

Ah, you’re confused! Makes sense with your posts here.

See your under the assumption you are special and only you hold understanding and knowledge and need to educate the rest of us. That’s what you should be apologizing for to me as you are wrong in that thought process. When you’re able to step down from that high horse I’ll be waiting. Until then!

a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: Skepticape
I'm not on a high horse, I quoted your post and pointed out the one question.

The funny thing is that the post from angeltone that you lauded was actually a reply to my post to you saying no explanation was required.

I then replied to them again stating that what they said, in that same post you liked, was the reason why I replied to you like I did.

Funny how that turned out, don't you think?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Skepticape
I'm not on a high horse, I quoted your post and pointed out the one question.

The funny thing is that the post from angeltone that you lauded was actually a reply to my post to you saying no explanation was required.

I then replied to them again stating that what they said, in that same post you liked, was the reason why I replied to you like I did.

Funny how that turned out, don't you think?

And you again hold the assumption you have some understanding I do not, and refused to apologize for this, pretending you should be apologizing for not answering a question.

You’re like a bad girlfriend needing to rehash what was just discussed.

The poster you spoke for again much better represented themselves than you- and I don’t find that funny in fact it’s kind of my point to you.

What makes you think I “ liked “ a post?

More to the subject of the OP- these vaccines for sick children are not protecting them as the data shows.

a reply to: Skepticape
You have a pretty shoddy short term memory. You didn't post this " I would have appreciated you actually responding to my question rather than the attitude." and now you want to act like it wasn't about the question?

The poster you spoke for again much better represented themselves than you- and I don’t find that funny in fact it’s kind of my point to you.

Yes, but they did so in reply to the attitude filled reply I made to you. That is what makes it funny.