This is correct, which demonstrates that obviously your assumptions are incorrect. If the death rate was 0.03% we would expect 20,166 people in the UK to die if every single person in the UK, including all of the elderly and infants, contracted COVID. The UK already has 140,000 deaths, and not everyone in the UK is infected with COVID. The current fatality rate is 1.56% in the UK - a wealthy country with one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
Vaccinated People Easily Transmit COVID-19 Delta Variant in Households: UK Study By Jack Phillips (Epoch Times) October 28, 2021 Updated: October 29, 2021 The Delta COVID-19 variant can easily transmit from vaccinated people to their household members, said a recent UK study, although its researchers concluded that vaccinations and boosters are the way forward. A year-long study from the Imperial College London published in The Lancet on Thursday found that the Delta variant is still highly transmissible within a vaccinated population...
To what assumptions do you refer? I believe you are the one making assumptions. The numbers are the numbers; the proportion of deaths classified as "covid" in the UK and US, nations with great health care, far exceeds the proportion in much poorer nations with more questionable health care. You're assuming that this is 'just the way it is'? In the past year and a half I have read dozens of news articles reporting the testimonies of health care workers and others who say that people have died needlessly through medical mishandling and that deaths from all sorts of causes are being misclassified as covid deaths. The fatality rate you cite fully supports those testimonies. But some people prefer to assume that there is no 'funny business' going on and that the ones who are reaping massive financial harvests from this situation can be fully trusted to tell us 'the truth.'
Vaccines do help prevent the spread of disease. They eradicated smallpox; they're getting close to eradicating polio. The fact less people have had them for measles resulted in the incidence of measles in the UK population increasing. Vaccines give immunity and that reduces the incidence of the disease in a population. That reduces the individual's risk of catching any infectious disease. You miss the point I was making. Unless someone has a disease of their immune system then, yes, they will produce antibodies to it and more importantly memory cells. The more people with immunity the lower the incidence of the disease. That is the aim of herd immunity. It significantly reduces the incidence of a disease. However, when SARS-CoV-2 emerged no human had any immunity to it. That is why it was readily spread through the population. It also emerged when it was winter in the Northern Hemisphere where a huge part of the world's population exists. Viruses likes SARS-CoV-2 spread much more in winter because we generally tend to be closer together indoors. It was these reasons that we needed measures to reduce the overall incidence of COVID-19 in the population, to protect the vulnerable and to prevent healthcare services being overwhelmed. We also saw as a result of these methods, e.g. social distancing that the incidence of flu was much lower last winter. Viruses mutate anyway. They do not mutate in response to any drug intervention. This has been demonstrated many times by research. It is similar to the error people make in thinking that antibiotics cause bacteria to mutate. Mutations are not a direct response to the presence of any drug. What does happen is that mutations which are not susceptible to the drugs are the ones that survive and multiply. It is simple natural selection. It's one reason that pathogens are always one step ahead. We need to develop new drugs to tackle new forms of pathogens that emerge. It is not always the case that viruses become less hamful and it does take an exceddingly long time for that to happen. Yes I understand that you do not fully understand the science, but that's fine. It is a fallcy that mRNA technology is new. It's not. It's simply the first time it's been used to develop a vaccine. There's really no biological reason to think it is going to cause long term harm. It isn't as if the human body has never encountered mRNA before. It exists is every living organism. I would be interested to know how you think mRNA is going to cause harm. That is contradictory. You said we do not have enough data to show that there is no long term benefits or harm from those vaccines which were developed using mRNA technology. The absence of such data means we cannot know if people are suffering long term disabilities from mRNA vaccines. I would be interested to know how her doctor knows this. Any good doctor would know that if B happens after A that A may not be the cause of B. The fact B happened after A may simply be coincidence. Now if this lady has been vaccinated and then suffered heart inflammation it would be foolish to rule out the vaccine as the cause. It would also be advisable that she not have another dose until the cause of her heart inflammation has been discovered. So, I would like to know how he determined the vaccine was the cause. I have heard nothing about governments granting pharmaceutical companies exemption from liability if their vaccines cause harm. can you support this with any evidence? Yes, governments have helped fund the development of vaccines. It is a reason, inter alia, that enabled such speedy development. You have talked much about the putative dangers of mRNA vaccines. They are not the only COVID-19 vaccines. Others have been developed using older methods such as the AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines. I apologise in advance for any spelling msitakes, grammatical errors or typos in this post. I checked it and re-checked until I started going cross eyed!
I am unaware of any other pandemic in my lifetime. Perhaps the absence of one is the reason there has not been this kind of reason previously. It is your right to not care how many people die from a contagious disease so you can maintain your freedom of choice. I have had three doses of the vaccine now. I wasn't particularly concerned about having COVID-19. I did it to help reduce the incidence of this disease and to protect the more vulnerable members of society. I did it not to surrender my freedoms but as an act of charity. I think in some places it may be being imposed because people are refusing to take the vaccine because they can. I am aware that there is a totally different mindset in the USA and UK. That is not, before it is perceived as one, any sort of criticism. From numerous things I have read over many yaers that seems to be a simple fact. There is a lot of encouragement and persuasion to have the vaccine here in the UK. However, the governemnt have not mandated people have it. Perhaps the reason for governments (federal or state) mandating it in the USA is because people are simply thinking I don't have to have it so I won't.
Given that people living in the same household have significant and sustained exposure to each other, that would seem to be a given. The evidence I see in Australia is that double vaccinated people are not dying from the virus, and are significantly under represented in hospital, and essentially absent from the Intensive Care wards.
Leaving aside his other unorthodox beliefs, Tolstoy makes a compelling argument in "The Kingdom of God is Within You" that the State is perhaps the most anti-Christian of institutions, owed no duty beyond what a Christian owes anyone, to love his neighbor and, in as much as he is able, to be at peace with everyone.
Yes, I agree that vaccines have helped prevent the spread of diseases. But I think you're overlooking (or ignoring?) my point that these so-called 'vaccines' for Covid are not doing the same. And they will not be able to do so because the mRNA instruction only helped with one variant. And as you well know, viruses mutate all the time. Not only will these shots not help with the new variations, they also are shown to lose efficacy much sooner than the traditional 'deadened virus' vaccines you have come to know and love. I haven't overlooked your point, but please don't overlook mine: natural immunity from having Covid-19 and getting over it is far more effective than the shots. First, the immune response is more broad and provides protection against variants (the shots don't do this). Second, natural immunity is being shown by researchers to last longer than the jab's helpful effects. We are seeing short term harms, including deaths, associated with these shots. But you are correct in the sense that the short term effects (such as cardiac inflammation might lessen and resolve, given enough time. I would not want to 'bet the farm' on that, however. Since I am not privy to that doctor's full knowledge or to the doctor-patient confidential relationship, I will never be able to say "how her doctor knows this," but he apparently was certain enough to tell her that getting another dose would risk death. The lady had indeed been vaccinated and then suffered the heart damage within days afterward. I have also read news stories about teenage boys who quickly suffered heart damage within a week or less of taking the jab; one died and the other was left very weak. It is well-known in the US that we in the US cannot sue the pharmas if their vaccines hurt or kill anyone; here is a link to a CNBC story. Similar indemification has been granted in other countries such as Australia, India, and other nations. I've read about other South American countries facing this, but can no longer find those links. Yes, these companies are showing their greed when they insist upon indemnification by nations' governments. As I said, they will earn over $100 Billion this year. They have their pocketbooks, not our best interests, at heart.
You have had a pandemic every year of your life. From the day that you were born, every single year 100-200,000 people died from the flu.
NIH estimates that worldwide annual respiratory deaths associated with influenza average 389,000 people per year. For an interesting look into the past, here is the "60 Minutes" report on the swine flu vaccine of the 1970s. That was back in the days when reporters actually investigated things.
Pandemic of course is the new trendy word they use, because they don't want to call it a plague or a pestilence. The word epidemic was most frequently used in the 20th century, but the term pandemic has been used predominantly in the 21st century, where it seems everything must be bigger and better, faster and flashier, and most importantly more newsworthy. I for one would be happy to call it a plague.
@Botolph, what do you Australians think of the proposal by Andrews in Victoria to make permanent the temporary emergency powers which are set to expire in December? Do you feel these powers are potentially subject to misuse?
That will always happen. That's the a reason, inter alia, we have boosters for some vaccines, e.g. flu and now COVID-19. Most viruses do mutate. Fortunately, smallpox was not among them and that was one of the many reasons why we eradicated it. It's because whether you are infected by a virus or receive a vaccine you may not have immunity to variants of the virus that develop at a later time. As I said previously, that is why pathogens are always a step ahead of us. It is also the reason why people are now being encouraged to have boosters. The vaccines against COVID-19 do and will help revent the spread of the disease. Because SARS-CoV-2 is an emerging virus which is novel to the human population no one was immune to it. Therefore, because of the delay in the immu system's response to a novel pathogen the virus could rapidly develop in any infected person and they could pass it on quite readily because it is a respiratory virus. However, immunsation reduces the virla load in individuals making them less infectious. It is not so much the vaccine that is not effective but the human immune system. During an infection the immune system produces, among other substances and cells, antibodies to fight the infection. The same cells the produce antibodies produce 'memory cells'. Over time the number of antibodies in the circulation decrease. It is when re-infected with the same pathogen that 'memory cells' generate a much faster response to a seond or subsequent infection. With some infections the immune system 'oses its memory'. That is why for some viral disease we require boosters and for other swe do not. So it's not so much that COVID-19 vaccines aren't so good or that other vaccines aren't so good but that for some viral, and other infectious, diseases the immune system 'loses its memory'. Nothing new there. We know natural immunity works better than artifical immunity provided by vaccines. However, when you are faced with a novel pathogen causing a pandemic how many people are you prepared to allow to die so that natural herd immunity will develop? Again we shouldn't jump to conclusions. First, it takes time to investigate a link between any drug and an adverse reaction. Let's be cautious and wait for the verdict. I think what is happening here could be that people who have never heard of these things before or have never bothered to study them are now taking an interest because of COVID-19. The vaccines for COVID-19 shouldn't be taken out of context. There is no drug that is 100% safe and consequently no vaccine can be 100% safe. It is possible to predict some patients who will have an adverse reaction and they are not given vaccines. I am also a little confused as to concern over people who may have had an adverse reaction to a vaccine, which may, sadly, have resulted in their death, and on the other hand being prepared to have large numbers die from SARS-CoV-2 infection until natural herd immunity develops. Therefore, the safe thing to say at this stage is that we do not know and need to wait the outcome of research. We should not be jumping to the conclusion that all these adverse effects are the result of vaccination. Nor should we make out COVID-19 vaccines are worse than others in producing advers effects. I have done some 'digging' into the indemnity issue and find that governments are indeed granting such imdenity. I don't agree with that. I think we have to accept that pharmaceutical companies are not charitable organisations. They do exist to make a profit. The system is far from perfect but it's all we have. As one doctor said to me I have two options either I give my patient a medicine from a large pharmaceutical company or nothing. In general the first option is better. If we don't have the big pharmaceutical companies developing new medicines then what are we to do? Certainly, one thing is for governments to introduce better and stricter regulation of these companies.
No, I have not. Seasonal flu is not a pandemic. It is a widespread endemic disease that is occurs simultaneously in many parts of the world rather than spreading, usually rapidly, from a more localised source. The last flu pandemic was in 2009-10. There are currently two pandemics: COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS.
Did they lock down the planet and permanently rewire the workings of human society then? Disease 1 (“epidemic”): kills 389,000 people a year. Disease 2 (“pandemic”): kills 389,000 people a year. Average good-intentioned person: disease 2 is oh so different from disease 1. Look it has a different name, and everything! Pan- versus Epi-, can’t you tell, a huge difference! We need to completely alter all existing human societies and forever install an Omni-regime across the entire planet Earth. Me:
I agree that "the safe thing to say at this stage is that we do not know" as much as we would like to know, and we need to await the outcome of research. We need to wait and "look before we leap" by taking an unproven substance into our bodies. "We should not," as you say, "be jumping to the conclusion" that these mRNA shots are more beneficial than harmful, especially since shortcuts were taken in their creation. According to this article and some others I've read previously, researchers have been surprised to learn that the mRNA does not remain localized at the site of the injection as they'd expected; instead it goes into the bloodstream and throughout the body, causing unintended side effects like blood clots. Moreover, Pfizer did not perform all of the standard tests that the scientific community has come to expect of all new proposed vaccines, and some other tests they did perform were not done according to acceptable, standardized procedure. I understand that you, like most people, have a high opinion of vaccinations from a historical standpoint and from learned experience. So do I, believe it or not. Unlike most people, though, I recognize that past experiences and past track records of deadened-virus vaccines does not necessarily translate 1:1 to an mRNA injection, because we lack the good track record and past good experiences for mRNA shots. The pharmaceuticals, as well as some other large health organizations (many of whom receive large donations from certain mega-wealthy individuals), are counting on people to fail to differentiate. They are counting (their money) on us to assume and believe that they are acting with complete honesty and integrity, solely out of the goodness of their benevolent and loving hearts, to produce and recommend only those things which are in our best interests. And it's working! Most people place their faith and trust in these organizations, some of whom are overtly for-profit and some of whom are (in all likelihood) covertly profiting. I, on the other hand, am wary of these groups' motives and have no faith in them to exercise selfless beneficence on my behalf. I have infinitely more faith in Christ the Healer to preserve His saints on earth than I have in WHO, CDC, Big Pharma, Bill Gates Foundation, etc.; but I recognize that the unredeemed sinners in this world (which make up the great majority) have no such faith in our Lord, so they are obsessively eager to grasp at straws to prolong their days. Hopefully the Lord's redeemed will cast not away their confidence in His mighty power to keep them alive until their appointed times of departure, to join Him in His glory.
Generally we think it is an overreach. I am however more concerned about what is happening in NSW (un Covid-19 related) where the case is being made that the Premier and Cabinet Ministers must always follows advice from bureaucrats, which to me seems to be a radical undoing of democracy, where we elect people to make decisions. Victoria has had the harshest and longest lockdowns and the most cases and deaths, and the Premier does seem to have pursued a control agenda in a way that we did not in NSW. The difference between the approaches has been found in the personalities of the two Premiers, where Gladys went about persuading and encouraging, where as Dan went about a demand for compliance. Gladys asked, explained and encouraged and her Press Conferences went for about 20 minutes, where she spoke for maybe 8 of them. Dan demanded and compelled and his Press Conferences regularly went on for 3 hours where he spoke for 2.45 of them. That being said, the American presentation of the matter is a gloss. The truth is Dan should have asked his parliament for an extension of the State of Emergency for 90 days, so they can wrap up the last of it. My hope is that Dan does not get his wish in this. Sory t laugh a bit at this, but the last person who told be that he wouldn't have a vaccine because he didn;t know what was in it, was happily eating a Big Mac and had no idea what was in that either. Me too. However I don't see it as an either/or. It may well be the the whit and wisdom which which God has endowed our species has enabled us to develop such protections in the face of this pestilence, and as such they may be both the product of big pharma and part of God's creative gift. living longer is not quite the same thing as eternal life, so in that we agree.
My apologies, it was @Stalwart who made the assumption that the survivability rate was 99.97% (and therefore the fatality rate was 0.03%). If every single person in the UK (or the US if you want to use those figures) caught COVID tomorrow, and they all survived, the fatality rate would still be higher than 0.03% based off the number of people who have already died. That is COVID has already killed more than 0.03% of the population of both countries (20,166 people in the UK, 98,850 people in the US). Even if we take deaths with COVID as mostly unrelated to COVID, they could not possibly be that unrelated. In 2019, 2,854,838 Americans died. In 2020, 3,427,321 Americans died. That's a 20% jump in the death rate! So clearly COVID must have killed some people. Even if you think it's less than the 750,000 deaths on paper, it's more than 98,850 people. Stalwart's number is just baseless.