Gandalf wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:46 pm
Ironworksfc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:41 pm
Here is some easily found data on total cases vs total deaths (on the assumption that they were actually positive for covid, given the massive amount of false positive tests) also deaths by age group where you can do some maths and easily come to the factual conclusion that the majority of the population have virtually no risk of dieing.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... me=England
On the subject of protection given by the jab, or two for that matter, here you can see all the numbers of those who have died from the novel cold post 1st and second jab vs those who have had none. Not painting a pretty picture for the jabbed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... n-20201201
Plenty more government data out there, have a search.
One comment of yours I would like to refute is "the massive amount of false positive tests". No, this is completely wrong. The problem with the tests are not the false positives but the false negatives. False positive tests are very rare indeed. Or if you have evidence to suggest otherwise please share it.
Also, there is one very important fact that you are ignoring here. Currently in the UK there are over 130,000 deaths from Covid. But remember, this is during the time of both the lockdown and the vaccine roll-out, both of which were designed to limit the spread of infection. So effectively the deaths in the UK have been 'limited' to 130,000.
So without those measures what would the figure be?
UK population is 66.65 million. The chance of dying from Covid is statistically 0.66%. So assuming the virus would sweep through the entire population (which unchecked it potentially could do), and also assuming the death rate percentage remained unchanged, that would lead to almost 440,000 deaths.
So when in a previous post you said the chance of dying from Covid was less than 1%, yes, with that statement you were correct. But what you failed to consider was how contagious Covid is. 440,000 is a huge number.
And then what you also need to consider is the amount of lives that have been saved by the NHS. We all know the NHS have been stretched to breaking point. So if the NHS did become overwhelmed then that figure of 440,000 would be much, much higher.
If you dispute any of those figures please explain why.
One comment of yours I would like to refute is "the massive amount of false positive tests". No, this is completely wrong. The problem with the tests are not the false positives but the false negatives. False positive tests are very rare indeed. Or if you have evidence to suggest otherwise please share it.
Refute away, the high cycle threshold (CT value) used
to detect the virus results in false positives, the WHO have previously released guidance on this;
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05
Also, there is one very important fact that you are ignoring here. Currently in the UK there are over 130,000 deaths from Covid. But remember, this is during the time of both the lockdown and the vaccine roll-out, both of which were designed to limit the spread of infection. So effectively the deaths in the UK have been 'limited' to 130,000.
So without those measures what would the figure be?
No different, lockdowns were utterly pointless, kick the can down the road exercise. A large proportion of those deaths could of been avoided if the government saviors hadn't knowingly sent the elderly with Covid back into care homes. The experimental covid jab (not a vaccine) is clearly not stopping hospitalisation and deaths, out did you choose to ignore that part of the government data?
UK population is 66.65 million. The chance of dying from Covid is statistically 0.66%. So assuming the virus would sweep through the entire population (which unchecked it potentially could do), and also assuming the death rate percentage remained unchanged, that would lead to almost 440,000 deaths.
So when in a previous post you said the chance of dying from Covid was less than 1%, yes, with that statement you were correct. But what you failed to consider was how contagious Covid is. 440,000 is a huge number.
How on earth did you get to that figure? In my age category and most under the age of 80, is over 99.9% survival rate.
And then what you also need to consider is the amount of lives that have been saved by the NHS. We all know the NHS have been stretched to breaking point. So if the NHS did become overwhelmed then that figure of 440,000 would be much, much higher.
Utter horse shit, no more strain for the NHS than any other year with the usual respiratory illness. Have you forgotten about the unused nightingale facilities?
If you dispute any of those figures please explain why.
[/quote]
