BBC Presenter killed by Vaccine

You continued to ignore my point in that thread. I was never claiming vaccinated people fare worse, just that the fact the study seemed to indicate that was strongly suggestive that the vaccine may likely not have had a very high effectiveness rate.
Oftentimes studies are not the most accurate and may have big margins of error, but if there is an incredibly huge correlation between two things, it is very unlikely that any single study would show an inverse correlation.

 

Just good fortune that it wasn't one yard away.

 

every vaccine and drug given is engineered

 

Evidently you are clueless about actual vaccines.

 

you think that vaccines are 100% from nature and not created in a lab? Really?

That is funny, and the irony of you calling someone clueless is off the charts.

 

But that study did NOT show an inverse correlation... because it didn't consider the denominator. The pool of unvaccinated people in the UK is now much smaller than the pool of vaccinated people. I showed you the numbers from your own article... and when you divide the numbers by the denominator (that is, you divide how many got sick by how many total people existed at the time in the UK for each category) then the correlation reverses and you see that percentage-wise, the unvaccinated people fared worse (unsurprisingly).

I even told you how this impression of faring worse by only looking at the absolute numbers without the percentages, can be falsely ascertained from a superficial look at the data (until you factor in the denominator like I did and your article failed to do) and I provided you with a logical explanation (while this isn't in that article, it's what we've seen elsewhere): because the vaccinated who fared poorly are a pre-selected population (a.k.a. sample bias). They are the old and frail and could not mount an efficient defense from the vaccines. It's the very elderly and infirm who don't get sufficient antibodies from the vaccine. So, because now the vast majority of Brits are vaccinated, the vaccinated ones who end up in the hospital are the very elderly (that is, the virus is getting the low-hanging fruit), the ones who were given the vaccines first (they proceeded by age group in the UK, the oldest first), the ones for whom the vaccines had more time to fade (and likely didn't have a great effect to start with) while the unvaccinated ones who ended up in the hospital were younger patients.

Study design is important. You can only show that a group truly fares better or worse than the other one, if you pair two similar groups for all the intervening factors (age - the older, the worse they fare - gender - women fare better than men - number of co-morbid conditions - the more, the worse they fare - ethnic background - minorities fare worse - and even factors like blood type and BCG vaccination, etc.). Once you have two almost identical groups, one vaccinated, the other one unvaccinated, then you can compare outcomes and see who fared worse. CONSISTENTLY throughout the world, the unvaccinated fare worse - INCLUDING in the article you posted (given that, probably just for clicks and print copy sales, they conveniently did not consider the denominator so that they could come up with the bombastic misinterpretation of the study that would impress the gullible and get more clicks and more copies sold).

I challenge you to say that what I'm saying is not logical... I mean, if you still insist with the misinterpretation of this pretty clear set of data (that is, OUT OF EACH POPULATION the unvaccinated proportionally fared worse regardless of the absolute numbers) then you're beyond help.

What I find very concerning in your posting is that EVEN AFTER I debunked your data in another thread, you go to other threads and you keep insisting with the mischaracterization. That indicates to me that you have an agenda to portray the vaccinated in a worse light than the data indicates. Just by reading the bulk of the anti-vaxxer CRAP that you post, I frankly think that yes, you do have an agenda, and I've asked if you're being paid to spout the GARBAGE that you do.

---------

PS - Also, one needs to consider the striking data out of Israel, in two studies that have been linked to here, one by me, one by another poster: one looking at 150,000 people who had booster shots, which then DRAMATICALLY decreased their likelihood of both catching Delta and being hospitalized due to the Delta variant, and another one that looked at freaking 1.2 million people who had booster shots, showing that their titers of antibodies went up ten-fold.

It is quite clear from those studies (I consider the large number of subjects to deliver a rather unquestionable answer) that a booster shot restores full efficacy of these vaccines against the Delta variant. Even the vaccinated people who fared poorly in your article, would likely not have fared as poorly, if they had a booster shot.

Another interesting thing is that you can't just transfer UK data to the USA because in the UK a very significant chunk of the population got the AstraZeneca shot which has consistently performed worse than the mRNA vaccines that were given to the vast majority of Americans.

Over here in America we see a much clearer advantage for the vaccinated regarding how they fare. The vast majority of people getting sick and dying in the United States are the unvaccinated, in bigger proportion than what your article shows in the United Kingdom.

 

You won't accept such a link until you understand the positive effects of vaccination. Vaccination is the key to ending the pandemic.

The more anti-vaxxers exist, the longer whole mankind has to suffer from Coronavirus.

 

Another person killed by NOT having had the vaccine:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doctor-says-death-imminent-woman-143430079.html

Very sad story.