What have the Germans ever done for us?

On the ONS website if you care to look :rolleyes:
They aren't overinflated.

The methodology of "28 days" is to allow quick reporting.

Clearly at the beginning of a wave it's accurate, less so later on.


You are just spreading conspiracist theory nonsense.

I've asked loads of times to give me a comparison of risk of the vaccine to risk of Covid.....and you can't.
 
Sponsored Links
Is it possible that x years from now x number of adverse conditions and/or deaths could be linked back to covid vaccines? Of course, anything is possible.

However, and believe me I'd have preferred not to have the vaccine in an ideal world, what exactly was/is the alternative to those saying we shouldn't have gone down this route? Unless you think the whole covid thing is a bit of a scam (please explain the deaths if that's the case) if the masses had said 'no' to vaccines and staying at home, distancing etc, the deaths could have been millions more by now. So surely vaccines are the lesser of greater risks, no?

Also, consider this. Unless you live off-grid and only eat your own home grown food and buy virtually nothing from retailers, you are exposed to multiple different chemicals daily. Yes they're deemed 'safe' by various agencies however we don't really know what the long term effects are. Whether through; food you ingest that has been sprayed with chemicals; food that's been processed in various ways; chemicals you use to keep yourself and clothes smelling nice; medications you take; smelling vehicle exhaust fumes; spraying your garden with weed killer etc etc.

My point is, if we want to avoid things that are potentially dangerous for us, how do we realistically live day to day? Yes of course we can reduce our exposure, but still. And surely there's an upside to vaccines e.g. the ones children get to avoid them contracting various illnesses that used to be a blight on many.

I'll be honest with you and I mentioned this in another thread. If I was fortunate enough to live in a secluded house and didn't have to go out (e.g. millionaire) I very likely wouldn't have had the vaccine as I'd be happy enough living as a modern day hermit, with my luxuries of course! However for most of us, that's not our reality. We need to socially interact. So, on balance, surely getting vaccinated makes sense?
 
Yeah, probably best to stop looking at this screen too! In fact, that reminds me. Had one of those 5G nutters on a FB group last year. I pointed out that the bandwidths of 5g are no more dangerous than the bandwidths of 4g and 3g - those have known risks, but we live with them - and told them that if they are really worried about 5G, rather than telling everybody on the internet, the best thing to do is throw your phone away and quit the internet. They didn't like that suggestion.
 
Yeah, probably best to stop looking at this screen too! In fact, that reminds me. Had one of those 5G nutters on a FB group last year. I pointed out that the bandwidths of 5g are no more dangerous than the bandwidths of 4g and 3g - those have known risks, but we live with them - and told them that if they are really worried about 5G, rather than telling everybody on the internet, the best thing to do is throw your phone away and quit the internet. They didn't like that suggestion.
This is where, unless people are genuine die-hard believers in not engaging with technology and its benefits, their arguments start to fall apart quite quickly. For example someone might proport to be anti Internet, anti-mobile technology etc. On one level fine. However if they find themselves stuck on top of a mountain in danger of death, I bet they'd be more than happy to be rescued by services that use these technologies to pinpoint locations and exchange information. In that scenario, I bet most 'anti' people would be more than happy to set their moral stance aside for a few hours.

Same with big pharma arguments. I bet most against big pharma would be more than happy to be injected with some of their products if it was going to save their life.

We live in a tech enabled world. That is only going to increase. Whether we like it or not.
 
Sponsored Links
They aren't overinflated.

The methodology of "28 days" is to allow quick reporting.

Clearly at the beginning of a wave it's accurate, less so later on.


You are just spreading conspiracist theory nonsense.

I've asked loads of times to give me a comparison of risk of the vaccine to risk of Covid.....and you can't.
Just because you don't like the answers I have given, doesn't mean I haven't given them...

But to humour you, let's try again...

Dying with covid isn't the same as dying of covid. Even the simple minded must agree with that.
But the death figures are indeed over inflated since the former is the basis for the calculations, thus an over inflated risk...

As for the risk of the vaccine, who knows...

And that's the point...

Could you have predicted the blood clots and strokes a few months ago?

Can you now predict the possible side effects/deaths in the future from a jab(s) that haven't been long term tested?

But isn't it amazing that people who have the ability of individual thought and wish to find out the facts before making a choice get labelled as 'conspiracy theorists' by those who will go along with anything they are told! (n)
 
Dying with covid isn't the same as dying of covid. Even the simple minded must agree with that.

It's a bit like when you get run over. You are rarely killed by the car, it is hitting the road that kills you. But we don't say "poor old Mike, got killed after he landed on a road really hard".

People are dying.

We have ways of reducing the number dying.

You are not helping.
 
Dying with covid isn't the same as dying of covid.

Correct.

But the death figures are indeed over inflated since the former is the basis for the calculations, thus an over inflated risk...

The ONS are crystal clear on the definitions, you posted them yourself. If they are tasked with reporting one set of figures, including that you have had a positive test in the preceding 28 days, then they tell you clearly that is what they are doing, and they then report exactly what they find, they aren't over inflating anything. They are only reporting what they see.
 
The ONS are crystal clear on the definitions, you posted them yourself. If they are tasked with reporting one set of figures, including that you have had a positive test in the preceding 28 days, then they tell you clearly that is what they are doing, and they then report exactly what they find, they aren't over inflating anything. They are only reporting what they see.
So if someone doesn't die of the 'virus', they still get reported as dying of it in the official figures...

'Tasked with' as you correctly say...

Orwell was so so right!

"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad"

Swallow whatever you are told to swallow if it makes you happy...

It also makes you look pretty dumb, but then that's the recipe for blind obedience!
 
they still get reported as dying of it in the official figures...

No, dying with it if you had a positive test in the previous 28 days, not of it. You quoted the ONS, it really is quite simple.
 
And could you care to tell us why should you sacrifice yourself (or one of yours) when the drug companies have majorly legal indemnity?
What’s the difference between 'legal indemnity' that you have been claiming for ages and 'majorly legal indemnity' regarding drugs companies producing the vaccine that you are now claiming? Is that the start of a backdown?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top