I'm confused as to what your question is? Please explain and i'll try answer
It's not a question, it was reply, hence the quote.
I'm confused as to what your question is? Please explain and i'll try answer
Ah okay.It's not a question, it was reply, hence the quote.
And what about those who might not be able to.have a vaccine for medical reasons?
Ah okay.
I would continue to follow ONS figures on excess mortality to assess whether this can now be considered a true pandemic.
Because:
Covid Deaths / (antibody test rate x population) = IFR
45,000 / (6% x 66,000,000)
45,000 / 3,960,000
1.1% = IFR
You can't argue with the IFR, it's a result of an extremely simple equation. So you must either be arguing deaths or % of people with antibody's?
The react study was done in July, I'm pretty sure it covered the basis of our initial infection quite well.
If someone has immunity, then I'm guessing they can't get the virus, or are a lot less susceptible. If this is the case then it must be more transmissible, as the number of infected is a result of how well a virus gets passed on.
1) It either passes on to everyone, not very easily
2) or it passes on to half exceptionally easy and the other half not at all
T Cell immunity would be great, but if that's correct then this transmits around way worse than we thought.
This is such a terrible graph!Yeah, I mentioned I think it's more like 60k further up (-5k to +55k), I was basically low balling my own argument with 45k, as is it offers less for others to fight back with. Anything extra taking us up to the excess mortality figure is likely caused by covid anyway, or caused by hospitals being busy and treatments being missed. Take covid away and those go away.
View attachment 7931
This is such a terrible graph!
Where did you find this? Completely misleading.
View attachment 7933
So as you'll be able to see from the graph since the first initial 'wave' and outbreak of COVID there have been minimal excess deaths, this includes since a surge in infections. No doubt COVID had an awful affect from March to late April but since excess deaths are very very low.
IFR is definitely not 1.1% @Statto1 your fag packet maths goes against a peer reviewed published study that has been linked and reviewed in video in this thread.
Also if anti bodies disappear as claimed (ignoring b memory cells / t cells) then 6% now doesn't mean that's the actual number of cases infected in total during this time... The 7-8% that had it in march have of course disappeared of the figures.
Yeah, guess we are back to square 1 and approaching 100% of us completely vulnerable again. Uh-oh....
And here is data on excess deaths literally released this morning from PHE:
Excess all-cause (EuroMOMO) mortality in subpopulations, UK In week 42 2020 in England, no statistically significant excess mortality by week of death above the upper 2 z-score threshold was seen overall or by age group. Excess mortality was observed sub-nationally (all ages) in the North East, North West and East Midlands regions after correcting GRO disaggregate data for reporting delay with the standardised EuroMOMO algorithm (Figure 3). This data is provisional due to the time delay in registration; numbers may vary from week to week.
This is such a terrible graph!
Where did you find this? Completely misleading.
View attachment 7933
So as you'll be able to see from the graph since the first initial 'wave' and outbreak of COVID there have been minimal excess deaths, this includes since a surge in infections. No doubt COVID had an awful affect from March to late April but since excess deaths are very very low.
IFR is definitely not 1.1% @Statto1 your fag packet maths goes against a peer reviewed published study that has been linked and reviewed in video in this thread.
I made it, extremely quickly with the raw ONS data, is got 5 yr average, 2017,2018 and 2019 on there. I used to show it like the one above but people kept calming that excess deaths had evened itself back out, as in we didn't still have 55k excess deaths.
Nobody is claiming excess deaths were high after the outbreak, my graph isn't claiming that. But it does show we've started to creep up again, just as we go into winter, as expected.
The graph I showed is the same thing, except excess is cumulative.
lol - the actual paper has it as 1.16% in the UK, that the paper shows as a source.
Also if anti bodies disappear as claimed (ignoring b memory cells / t cells) then 6% now doesn't mean that's the actual number of cases infected in total during this time... The 7-8% that had it in march have of course disappeared off the figures.
As for your tracking and cashless society comment... You really think it will be for the good of most people to have their entire lives controlled by electronic automation that will be able to stop their lives whenever there is a 'glitch' or they're hacked or .. god forbid someone in power decides they don't like the things you're saying.
It is a future of total transparency for normal people with 0 transparency for the most powerful people in society. Cool.
Right but the paper was a meta analysis i.e. you look at many studies and then get to an overall figure based on those figures.
The UK study was an outlier so whilst it contributes to the analysis it's figure isn't the 'correct' figure. Unless maybe we are genetically inferior.
I
I said tracked, I didn't say anything about being controlled, I don't see a QR code running someone's brain, jesus.
lol - the actual paper has it as 1.16% in the UK, that the paper shows as a source.