What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Covid 19 now?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

What rule book are you on?

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

Good that you have come to this realisation finally.

Now stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Comparing the virus to the vaccine fatality rates is just extraordinary.

See how the swine flu vaccine was pulled out of the market by causing much fewer serious adverse reactions and deaths. You can compare a vaccine to another vaccine

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

Good that you have come to this realisation finally.

Now stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Comparing the virus to the vaccine fatality rates is just extraordinary.

See how the swine flu vaccine was pulled out of the market by causing much fewer serious adverse reactions and deaths. You can compare a vaccine to another vaccine

Why would UK policy be based on demographics in Afghanistan?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

I think you should accept the IFR as being very low and even lower now and you should not engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

Good that you have come to this realisation finally.

Now stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Comparing the virus to the vaccine fatality rates is just extraordinary.

See how the swine flu vaccine was pulled out of the market by causing much fewer serious adverse reactions and deaths. You can compare a vaccine to another vaccine

Why would UK policy be based on demographics in Afghanistan?

Also you should stop defending the lockdowns that are causing a number of non Covid excess deaths.
Lockdown advocacy and support must stop.

The IFR was never too high but a low figure and the situation was massively exaggerated to impose the lockdowns, to curtail freedoms, and to test these new experimental products to unsuspected populations.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

I think you should accept the IFR as being very low and even lower now and you should not engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Estimates for IFR in the UK pre vaccination in the was around 1% (some lower some higher) . If that's low or not us a matter of perspective.

Through the full population it would be around 650,000 people. That's almost twice the number who died in ww2. Its also clear previous infection does not provide perfect protection so that number would go up.

Eta - I do agree it is much lower now.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

So a tiny fraction of covid deaths and lifes saved by the vaccines.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

Good that you have come to this realisation finally.

Now stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Comparing the virus to the vaccine fatality rates is just extraordinary.

See how the swine flu vaccine was pulled out of the market by causing much fewer serious adverse reactions and deaths. You can compare a vaccine to another vaccine

Why would UK policy be based on demographics in Afghanistan?

Also you should stop defending the lockdowns that are causing a number of non Covid excess deaths.
Lockdown advocacy and support must stop.

The IFR was never too high but a low figure and the situation was massively exaggerated to impose the lockdowns, to curtail freedoms, and to test these new experimental products to unsuspected populations.

You didn't answer if the UK should consider the demographics of Afghanistan for its Internal covid policy.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

So a tiny fraction of covid deaths and lifes saved by the vaccines.

What are you talking about??
Vaccines were pulled out of the market for a handful of deaths in the past. Killing thousands is scandalous and any such product should have been withdrawn from the market.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

I think you should accept the IFR as being very low and even lower now and you should not engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Estimates for IFR in the UK pre vaccination in the was around 1% (some lower some higher) . If that's low or not us a matter of perspective.

Through the full population it would be around 650,000 people. That's almost twice the number who died in ww2. Its also clear previous infection does not provide perfect protection so that number would go up.

Eta - I do agree it is much lower now.

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

Good that you have come to this realisation finally.

Now stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Comparing the virus to the vaccine fatality rates is just extraordinary.

See how the swine flu vaccine was pulled out of the market by causing much fewer serious adverse reactions and deaths. You can compare a vaccine to another vaccine

Why would UK policy be based on demographics in Afghanistan?

Also you should stop defending the lockdowns that are causing a number of non Covid excess deaths.
Lockdown advocacy and support must stop.

The IFR was never too high but a low figure and the situation was massively exaggerated to impose the lockdowns, to curtail freedoms, and to test these new experimental products to unsuspected populations.

You didn't answer if the UK should consider the demographics of Afghanistan for its Internal covid policy.

I don't know what the demographics of Afghanistan are.

But the UK never had a high local IFR. It's only inflated by vaccine apologists.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

So a tiny fraction of covid deaths and lifes saved by the vaccines.

What are you talking about??
Vaccines were pulled out of the market for a handful of deaths in the past. Killing thousands is scandalous and any such product should have been withdrawn from the market.

People die from reaction to antibiotics.

Should they be pulled off the market?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

So a tiny fraction of covid deaths and lifes saved by the vaccines.

What are you talking about??
Vaccines were pulled out of the market for a handful of deaths in the past. Killing thousands is scandalous and any such product should have been withdrawn from the market.

People die from reaction to antibiotics.

Should they be pulled off the market?

If thousands die. Then yes.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.medrxiv.org...

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested

Regardless of the attempts made to inflate the numbers for political and ideological reasons.

Also thanks for showing , again ,you can have more than one IFR.

Per age group. Yes you are allowed to make these calculations to see how deadly the disease is in various age groups. But when you describe the disease you give one figure. The global average infection fatality rate.

You don't politicalize the issue and you don't engage in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals or advocate for lockdowns.

You are allowed?

Can you link to the rule book that defines what demographic splits you are allowed to do please.

Yes, allowed to create what you want to see how deadly the disease is in various groups. But the global average IFR is what describes the disease.

It's what describes the fatality rate of the disease globably.

IFR is based on the population you are examining.

Good that you have come to this realisation finally.

Now stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Comparing the virus to the vaccine fatality rates is just extraordinary.

See how the swine flu vaccine was pulled out of the market by causing much fewer serious adverse reactions and deaths. You can compare a vaccine to another vaccine

Why would UK policy be based on demographics in Afghanistan?

Also you should stop defending the lockdowns that are causing a number of non Covid excess deaths.
Lockdown advocacy and support must stop.

The IFR was never too high but a low figure and the situation was massively exaggerated to impose the lockdowns, to curtail freedoms, and to test these new experimental products to unsuspected populations.

You didn't answer if the UK should consider the demographics of Afghanistan for its Internal covid policy.

I don't know what the demographics of Afghanistan are.

But the UK never had a high local IFR. It's only inflated by vaccine apologists.

Have provided links showing the IFR in the UK.

You are arguing only global IFR is a measure of the disease. That means global demographics. So please explain why the UK should include Afghanistan demographics in its covid policy decisions?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

So a tiny fraction of covid deaths and lifes saved by the vaccines.

What are you talking about??
Vaccines were pulled out of the market for a handful of deaths in the past. Killing thousands is scandalous and any such product should have been withdrawn from the market.

People die from reaction to antibiotics.
Should they be pulled off the market?

What a terrible argument. But let me repeat this.
Yes of course they should be pulled out of the market if they cause thousands or even hundreds of deaths.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was pulled out of most markets due to health and safety concerns.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot


Stop the vaccine apologetics please.
Are you sure they are 60 deaths only from the vaccines in the UK?

IFR of Covid-19 was 0.15%

More than you are 'sure' the Global IFR is .15%.

60 deaths was the approximate recorded number of deaths towards end of last year.

It could be more or less based on accuracy of recording, time lags etc. Same as number of covid deaths are affected by the same things.

Your global IFR is based on recorded deaths including in countries with less complete or strictly managed data then divided by an estimated value of infections. There are also alternative estimates giving very different figures.

Even if we go with the figure of 60 deaths per almost 50 million fully vaccinated people, imagine what to happens when we scale up to 5.5 billion people who have been vaccinated (at least) over the last 2+ years.

With the most conservative estimates you are running into thousands of deaths caused by all products in the market.

So a tiny fraction of covid deaths and lifes saved by the vaccines.

What are you talking about??
Vaccines were pulled out of the market for a handful of deaths in the past. Killing thousands is scandalous and any such product should have been withdrawn from the market.

People die from reaction to antibiotics.

Should they be pulled off the market?

If thousands die. Then yes.

Even through they save millions.

Your post demonstrates exactly why your opinion on covid vaccination and lockdowns shouldn't be treated seriously.