Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

Initially hey thought that it was going to be like the original SARS virus, which is about 10 times more deadly than Covid-19, and which was primarily transmitted on hard surfaces, which is why we were told to wipe everything with bleach, but not to wear masks.

When the found out that it had a lower mortality rate but was airborn they changed the advices.

Do you have some evidence to show that the IFR of COVID-19 was 10 times higher (initially).

To remind you that the estimation of IFR by Professor John Ioannidis and his colleagues which revealed 0.15% was done using the original virus together with the first few variants. So what you are saying isn't true.

See my links to the post I made above.

The problem here is IFR is different across several different published articles and is still very contentous and is still being debated.
For some reason the bottom of my post is not being seen?
Nature

One of the most contested statistics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality ratio (IFR): the proportion of those infected who will go on to die from that infection. In the first general wave of the pandemic, estimates of the overall COVID-19 IFR ranged from 0.01 to 2.3%, with a review combining estimates across studies reporting an overall estimate of 0.68% (0.53–0.82%)

I made a big error earlier and I'm still suffering a spiced rum hangover!

I think it has been settled long time ago through one of the most cited papers in the world by Dr John Ioannidis. It has around 492 citations and is being published pretty much everywhere including the WHO. It's actually the reference frame for all research thereafter.

Yes it has been debated quite a lot but if a peer reviewed paper has been cited by another 492 scientists it means that the true IFR is very close to what was estimated i.e 0.15% which is very small.

Here it is again

apps.who.int...


And a more recent updated version of estimations

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


There is no much doubt that Covid-19 is a mild disease for most of us with a very small IFR and despite the attempts to present it as the Spanish Flu.

It was never the case and there is historical precedence with the other coronaviruses and especially OC43 which had a very similar IFR.

originally posted by: nonspecific
It must be a different United Kingdom that I and everyone I know lives in then.


a reply to: zosimov

I remember hearing about this. There was a big problem. Mostly with London's Jewish and Muslim communities as well as North africans and afro-caribeans. Link So they had to get a whole bunch of celebrities and community leaders in to try to persuade people to get vaxxed.

There was a whole bunch of controversy because nobody in authority wanted to say that minorities were being influenced by social media reports from the old country, particularly posts claiming that vaccines were being used by the US to sterilize Muslims.

They ended up compromising by saying that it was a general mistrust of authority.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

The worst case scenario wasn't evaluated properly due to panic, incompetence, politics, and lack of understanding of infectious diseases as well as their history. Anyone with a basic understanding and having read the history of infectious diseases can easily deduce that coronaviruses have very small infection fatality rates, infecting a large number of the population and killing very few in comparison.

In the case of OC43 which likely caused the 1889-1890 pandemic the IFR was between 0.1% to 0.3%. You wouldn't expect anything different for SARS-CoV-2, it actually has an IFR close to 0.15%, and you can deduce that the other human coronaviruses have caused in the past pandemics and regional epidemics with similar IFRs

The reaction to Covid-19 was what we call shambles. Most infectious diseases experts and epidemiologists knew well how infectious or lethal was Covid-19 from the beginning (first few months). But politics blended with science and here are the results of the worst policy ever.

In the UK the push for preventative measures was coming from the exerts and largely resisted by the goverment until it became obvious there was little choice.

That's not quite how I remember it. Both the MSM and the social media news that I get from the UK said that the UK government was pushing for herd immunity through gradual exposure due to the fears that doing anything drastic would destroy the economy and harm children's educations, and that it was the opposition political parties who were pushing for harsh lockdowns and the school teachers who wanted the schools closed.

The UK government was aware from the beginning that covid was mostly just a bad case of the flu, and that it was only the elderly and people with comorbidity who needed protecting, but they were forced into locking down after the political opposition parties persuaded the public that the government needed to do more.

It's why the UK closed it's schools and brought in masks after most other places. It's also why the lockdown was more restrictive in Scotland and Wales than in England, because Scotland and Wales have separate governments that align with the opposition, while England aligns with the government.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

Broadcasting the idea that anyone who chooses not to take the experimental shot is choosing not to save lives is bullying behavior which causes real harm in daily interactions for those who buy into it.

You really can't see that?

By the time that ad was released the UK had already approved the vax for general release. It was one of the most researched vaxes in UK history, so it was hardly experimental.

Even if it was its been getting on for 18 months now and over 50 million people have had the jab.

I suppose we are supposed to buy the "it takes a few years for its deadly nature to really kick in" line now there's been very little adverse reaction?


a reply to: AaarghZombies

a reply to: AaarghZombies

For a vaccine to be released for wide use then you need to know the short, medium, and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups as well as all risk groups.

Does anyone know them?

I wouldn't think so.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

The worst case scenario wasn't evaluated properly due to panic, incompetence, politics, and lack of understanding of infectious diseases as well as their history. Anyone with a basic understanding and having read the history of infectious diseases can easily deduce that coronaviruses have very small infection fatality rates, infecting a large number of the population and killing very few in comparison.

In the case of OC43 which likely caused the 1889-1890 pandemic the IFR was between 0.1% to 0.3%. You wouldn't expect anything different for SARS-CoV-2, it actually has an IFR close to 0.15%, and you can deduce that the other human coronaviruses have caused in the past pandemics and regional epidemics with similar IFRs

The reaction to Covid-19 was what we call shambles. Most infectious diseases experts and epidemiologists knew well how infectious or lethal was Covid-19 from the beginning (first few months). But politics blended with science and here are the results of the worst policy ever.

In the UK the push for preventative measures was coming from the exerts and largely resisted by the goverment until it became obvious there was little choice.

That's not quite how I remember it. Both the MSM and the social media news that I get from the UK said that the UK government was pushing for herd immunity through gradual exposure due to the fears that doing anything drastic would destroy the economy and harm children's educations, and that it was the opposition political parties who were pushing for harsh lockdowns and the school teachers who wanted the schools closed.

The UK government was aware from the beginning that covid was mostly just a bad case of the flu, and that it was only the elderly and people with comorbidity who needed protecting, but they were forced into locking down after the political opposition parties persuaded the public that the government needed to do more.

It's why the UK closed it's schools and brought in masks after most other places. It's also why the lockdown was more restrictive in Scotland and Wales than in England, because Scotland and Wales have separate governments that align with the opposition, while England aligns with the government.

Covid isn't a bad flu (or flu at all).

The heard imunity view was only for the first week or so and quickly discounted as an option.

It's a bit of a generalisation but the Scottish and Welsh responce were structer as that was more in line with the advice.

Downing Street often adopted the least strict approach or rejected out right SAGE recommendations.

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...=Fro m%20%251%24s&aoh=16646434531545&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Sunak recently said whe felt they should have rejected the scientific advice more often.

That isn't always a bad thing as goverment should look at the bigger picture but the priorities were very different.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I think it has been settled long time ago through one of the most cited papers in the world by Dr John Ioannidis. It has around 492 citations and is being published pretty much everywhere including the WHO. It's actually the reference frame for all research thereafter.

I wouldn't agree quite just yet thats it's settled, there are a few people who disagree with Ioannidis.

yeaaaaaaah nothing happened in the uk, nobody forced anyone to do anything......

Yeah pointless lockdowns, yeah wasting zillions of furloughs and tanking the economy, nothing. Just nothing.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well realistically they don't need to cover it up any more when 80% of their population is vaccinated with at least 1 or more shots. I am still waiting for the US government to admit more then "We screwed up" and buried articles. Although here in the US my guess is vaccines aren't as high as they claim which is why they are still advertising and pushing for covid vaccines. Most politicians would of been satisfied with the 78% vaccination rate.

See it doesn't destroy any conspiracy as the conspiracy just became 'fact' instead of remaining a conspiracy. I remember them saying that 'conspiracy theories' are in short supply because almost all of them have been turned over to be real especially in the case of covid. It took months for this to be done, and people have took these theories and even included the date when those theories became 'fact' based on the claims being said, and what officials had said and then back peddled on.

Speakin of which, if any of you have image that can you send to me

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: AaarghZombies

For a vaccine to be released for wide use then you need to know the short, medium, and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups as well as all risk groups.

Does anyone know them?

I wouldn't think so.

Yes to the first two. The vax was researched for about 6 months before being released which covers medium and short, and for the third - most vaxes aren't researched for more than about 6 months before being approved so you're asking for something that's actually rather unusual.

For example, the flu vax is absolutely never researched for more than a few months before being approved.

It's been almost two years, and a couple of billion people have had at least two shots, and we're not knee deep in dead.

This is the most researched vax in history.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I think it has been settled long time ago through one of the most cited papers in the world by Dr John Ioannidis. It has around 492 citations and is being published pretty much everywhere including the WHO. It's actually the reference frame for all research thereafter.

I wouldn't agree quite just yet thats it's settled, there are a few people who disagree with Ioannidis.

Maybe there are but after there years into the pandemic I don't think there is much disagreement and especially when his paper has been cited by 492 other scientists which implies that they have recognised the validity of his results. It's probably the most cited paper that exists. It's unlikely that you will find 492 citations for any other paper in any field.

It's also published in one of the Bulletins of the WHO. I mean it's a fact that COVID-19 has a very small IFR just as anyone else would expect with coronaviruses.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well realistically they don't need to cover it up any more /quote]

This isn't a case of "any more", they admitted to it in the first few months, it was pretty hard to miss actually because an extremely well respected female journalist with the BBC died of a blood clot form the Astrazenecca shot and her face was all over the MSM.

The EU admitted that there was a problem after 15 deaths, and changed their entire vax strategy almost overnight.

Yes, 15, and only 15. 15 named people who can be confirmed to have been alive before covid, and who can be confirmed as having died. That's literally all that it took. 15 deaths to change the vax policy of a block with over 360 million people in it.

There was no cover up, if anything they panicked and changed strategy based on the belief that the vax was more dangerous than it really was. So an over reaction rather than denial.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

This is the most researched vax in history.

It is literally experimental, with changing ingredients.
With your daily barrage of msm garbage, you still can't list the ingredients in it.
Can you?
-no

Here is a zombie that IS qualified
Vax zombie

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: AaarghZombies

For a vaccine to be released for wide use then you need to know the short, medium, and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups as well as all risk groups.

Does anyone know them?

I wouldn't think so.

Yes to the first two. The vax was researched for about 6 months before being released which covers medium and short, and for the third - most vaxes aren't researched for more than about 6 months before being approved so you're asking for something that's actually rather unusual.

For example, the flu vax is absolutely never researched for more than a few months before being approved.

It's been almost two years, and a couple of billion people have had at least two shots, and we're not knee deep in dead.

This is the most researched vax in history.

I don't think you have understood how vaccines are released for wide use but this is not the subject of the thread. It will take a bit of extensive reading by the way.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

The worst case scenario wasn't evaluated properly due to panic, incompetence, politics, and lack of understanding of infectious diseases as well as their history. Anyone with a basic understanding and having read the history of infectious diseases can easily deduce that coronaviruses have very small infection fatality rates, infecting a large number of the population and killing very few in comparison.

In the case of OC43 which likely caused the 1889-1890 pandemic the IFR was between 0.1% to 0.3%. You wouldn't expect anything different for SARS-CoV-2, it actually has an IFR close to 0.15%, and you can deduce that the other human coronaviruses have caused in the past pandemics and regional epidemics with similar IFRs

The reaction to Covid-19 was what we call shambles. Most infectious diseases experts and epidemiologists knew well how infectious or lethal was Covid-19 from the beginning (first few months). But politics blended with science and here are the results of the worst policy ever.

In the UK the push for preventative measures was coming from the exerts and largely resisted by the goverment until it became obvious there was little choice.

That's not quite how I remember it. Both the MSM and the social media news that I get from the UK said that the UK government was pushing for herd immunity through gradual exposure due to the fears that doing anything drastic would destroy the economy and harm children's educations, and that it was the opposition political parties who were pushing for harsh lockdowns and the school teachers who wanted the schools closed.

The UK government was aware from the beginning that covid was mostly just a bad case of the flu, and that it was only the elderly and people with comorbidity who needed protecting, but they were forced into locking down after the political opposition parties persuaded the public that the government needed to do more.

It's why the UK closed it's schools and brought in masks after most other places. It's also why the lockdown was more restrictive in Scotland and Wales than in England, because Scotland and Wales have separate governments that align with the opposition, while England aligns with the government.

Covid isn't a bad flu (or flu at all).

The heard imunity view was only for the first week or so and quickly discounted as an option.

It's a bit of a generalisation but the Scottish and Welsh responce were structer as that was more in line with the advice.

Downing Street often adopted the least strict approach or rejected out right SAGE recommendations.

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...=Fro m%20%251%24s&aoh=16646434531545&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Sunak recently said whe felt they should have rejected the scientific advice more often.

That isn't always a bad thing as goverment should look at the bigger picture but the priorities were very different.

In other words, the UK government did the exact opposite of what they are often accused of doing in all of the conspiracies that say that this is a plandemic or population control?

Wales' lockdown wasn't "a little more in line with advice", it was so strict that women faced arrest if they went out to buy tampons, because they were considered not to be sufficiently essential.

Scotland wanted to pull a Spain, but held back because it was afraid that England would gain an economic advantage by not doing the same.

It was all over the MSM that Scottish people who lived near the border were going to pubs in England because they opened up sooner.

What possible use would the ingredients for an mrna vaccine be to the every day man on the street?

Take a look at the food you eat and tell me if you know what even half of those long complicated chemical ingredients are or do if you can.

That's if they are even listed as a lot of stuff just has "flavourings" on the list, what's in the coke people drink every day?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: AaarghZombies

This is the most researched vax in history.

It is literally experimental, with changing ingredients.
With your daily barrage of msm garbage, you still can't list the ingredients in it.
Can you?
-no

Here is a zombie that IS qualified
Vax zombie

originally posted by: thethinkingman

If anyone wants to dispute any of this. They can go ahead and explain in their own detailed words, with their own detailed knowledge how and what the mechanisms would be for this virus to harm and kill you and just to make it even easier for you, you can specifically explain how lisa shaw was killed by it. But i very much doubt any of you will because you cant just easily search that up on google in 5 minutes and pretend YOU know.

Its not a mRNA vaccine, but a viral vector based one and not approved in the US due to shabby testing...so who knows...

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: AaarghZombies

This is the most researched vax in history.

It is literally experimental, with changing ingredients.
With your daily barrage of msm garbage, you still can't list the ingredients in it.
Can you?
-no

Here is a zombie that IS qualified
Vax zombie

He clearly hasn't understood how vaccines are released for wide use. There is plenty of confusion in his arguments.

There is more confusion elsewhere where COVID-19 is portrayed as the Spanish Flu although these are two different diseases affecting different parts of the population and with different infection fatality rates

Spanish flu had an IFR of 10%
COVID-19 has an IFR of about 0.15%

See my other thread if you want to make the right comparisons

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In n addition there is plenty of research in terms of adverse reactions from any vaccine not just from the Covid MRNA ones.

Elsewhere it was claimed that nobody ever died or seriously injured from the Covid vaccines. But that's also false given that this thread is about a person who has died because of the vaccine and received (his partner received) compensation.

But is it just one person who has died and seriously injured? Or there are more? What about the medium and long term effects?

Where was it claimed no one has died from a covid 19 vaccine?

I don't think anyone is thinking or saying that regardless of the opinion they hold on the matter.


a reply to: Asmodeus3