MU52: I completely understand why you, personally, would be worried. And of course I don't want anyone to die. But for every one of you, there's thousands of young people who, for example, are having their educations and future prospects curtailed, people suffering mentally (on top of the pandemic of mental health problems in this country), and people that have lost their businesses/jobs/houses.
I'm sorry, but it's not worth it.
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 24 seconds ago
OK, fine, that's true - but then you have no evidence that they cause more good than harm do you? So why do you label anyone who questions lockdowns or the approved narrative as a crazy conspiracy nut?
You wanted facts and figures - in my last post I gave facts and figures that are from the NHS/Government sources directly.
The University of Cambridge debating society just had a debate on the efficacy of lockdowns and concluded that they don't work/cause more harm than good. Just as scientists from some of the world's leading universities signed the Great Barrington Declaration. But I guess they're the wrong 'brand' of scientist is this case right? They're not members of The Science(TM).
It's worrying to me we should 'follow the science' but only certain scientists that fit the narrative. We should 'listen to experts' unless they question lockdowns. And we should ban people on social media if they say anything contrary to the agreed narrative. We may as well live in China.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't called anyone a nut on conspiracy theorist. But lockdowns do work in halting the sppread, the evidenbce is in front of our eyes
but what harm they do cannot be measured so the safe option is to lockdown/
The deaths are real deaths, not all people in their nineties, and in any event are entitles to the same care as someone in their thirties.
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 minute ago
MU52: I completely understand why you, personally, would be worried. And of course I don't want anyone to die. But for every one of you, there's thousands of young people who, for example, are having their educations and future prospects curtailed, people suffering mentally (on top of the pandemic of mental health problems in this country), and people that have lost their businesses/jobs/houses.
I'm sorry, but it's not worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it may or not be 'worth' it. Ethics is a very difficult subject, often with no right answer.
Also MU52: Loads of countries have done the same as the UK, true, but plenty haven't locked down as many times or as harshly as us and generally, across the world, most have had the same outcome in terms of % of population dead and cases rising and falling throughout the year.
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 19 hours, 1 minute ago
Articles like this and people that post antivaxx crap should be banned from the site.
Misinformation leads to death
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not anti vax at all you moron, I am not putting out any misinformation either, just questioning the difference in reporting a death.
SpecialWUM: If all you can pick out of my huge rant is that one line which I admit is conjecture, then it's clear that you're picking and choosing which facts you pay attention to. Just admit it, lockdowns aren't worth the collateral damage, it's OK, you can say it. You'll be labelled a conspiracy theorist of course though
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 18 hours, 7 minutes ago
You and I both daredevil.
My pal's dad died of it during the first wave. Mid 50s with no underlying health conditions.
My pal who literally lives next door to me was in hospital for a week with it a couple of weeks ago, on oxygen. She's home now but is knackered just walking about her flat.. I've had to drive her to the local shop which is only a two minute walk away coz she doesn't have the energy or breath to walk it. She's 32.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, but thats a minority, in reality, only a small portion of healthy people die of Covid.
You give two examples, I will give 3 examples.
My 3 neighbours got Covid and were a little uncomfortable, and now they are better again.
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 17 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Mi Pelea (U18355)
posted 3 minutes ago
I haven’t said that I’m anti vaccine, anti lockdown or that covid19 is not a deadly disease, but because I have shown examples of covid deaths not actually being covid deaths I am the Qanon Shaman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have one example which could be construed as non-Covid if you believe the family over the medical professionals who recorded the death
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You provided two examples of healthy people dying of it. Not sure why your examples are superior to that of others.
You seem to act an an authority on Covid when you are just like us, anoymous people on a footy forum. You are no more credible than the people you accuse of nog being credible
MU52: 'what harm they do cannot be measured so the safe option is to lockdown'
That is crazy. So the options are: lockdown, not knowing what the after-effects will be, to save some of the 0.17% of the population that have died. How is that the 'safe' option? If it was even 5% of the population dying it might make sense, but 0.17%?
comment by Mi Pelea (U18355)
posted 17 hours, 27 minutes ago
You do realise the vaccine is to protect the person who has been vaccinated from experiencing covid symptoms, and even after being vaccinated, said person can transmit the disease to others, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no substantial prove yet to make any conclusions about that
Also MU52: I never said people in their nineties don't deserve to be protected but saving them a few months of their life in a care home, at the expense of people who need to work and live right now, is unfair IMO.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 day ago
OP's point is simply that when people die (for any reason) after having covid, it's classed as a covid death so it should follow that people dying (for any reason) after having the vaccine are classed as 'vaccine deaths'.
That proposition obviously raises uncomfortable questions for most of you so you're deflecting it with silly conspiracy talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, not sure why people call me stupid over that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it's likey that the virus played some part in the deaths.
And unlikely that the vaccine did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it fecking did, they said so, the vaccine compounded issues and cause death. Without the vaccine they probably would have lived. I am not making this up ffs.
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 3 minutes ago
SpecialWUM: If all you can pick out of my huge rant is that one line which I admit is conjecture, then it's clear that you're picking and choosing which facts you pay attention to. Just admit it, lockdowns aren't worth the collateral damage, it's OK, you can say it. You'll be labelled a conspiracy theorist of course though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a question for you, what would have been the impact of not locking down and allowing the virus to spread unchecked through the population?
Cases increasing every day, doubling every three days (here in the UK March 2020 before lockdown)
Maybe have a think of the short and long term repercussions on basic infrastructure, services, economy, and mental health.
Of course this is not a scenario you would want to take into consideration as defeats your argument. Talk about picking and choosing!
Plenty of data available from past infections/pandemics that may help you.
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 day ago
OP's point is simply that when people die (for any reason) after having covid, it's classed as a covid death so it should follow that people dying (for any reason) after having the vaccine are classed as 'vaccine deaths'.
That proposition obviously raises uncomfortable questions for most of you so you're deflecting it with silly conspiracy talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, not sure why people call me stupid over that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it's likey that the virus played some part in the deaths.
And unlikely that the vaccine did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it fecking did, they said so, the vaccine compounded issues and cause death. Without the vaccine they probably would have lived. I am not making this up ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.which compared to the other numbers involved is very small indeed. But if they, or we, wish to count those as vaccine deaths okay. Until last week our deaths were more than 1500 per day.
SpecialWUM:
Like most viruses, a lot of people would have got it - most of them in care homes, passing quietly in their sleep as per - and almost everyone else would have anything from no symptoms to a bad cold, and then be virtually immune for at least the next 6 months.
The NHS wouldn't be 'overwhelmed' (despite being at just 77% capacity even at the height of the latest spike, as I mentioned) because we wouldn't be sending the elderly to hospital en masse.
Then, as with all pandemics, the number of deaths would subside and we'd have a yearly fluctuation with the seasons.
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 13 minutes ago
MU52: 'what harm they do cannot be measured so the safe option is to lockdown'
That is crazy. So the options are: lockdown, not knowing what the after-effects will be, to save some of the 0.17% of the population that have died. How is that the 'safe' option? If it was even 5% of the population dying it might make sense, but 0.17%?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is around 100,000 people, so a safe option doesn't seem crazy to me. It sounds a lot more than . 17%doesn't it.
MU52: Yeah 100,000 is a lot, but as a % of population it's not a lot at all. Sounds cold, I know, but it IS only 0.17% of the UK population and the vast majority were close to death anyway.
But we've compromised the lives of millions to 'save' the 0.17%. Crazy
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 5 minutes ago
SpecialWUM:
Like most viruses, a lot of people would have got it - most of them in care homes, passing quietly in their sleep as per - and almost everyone else would have anything from no symptoms to a bad cold, and then be virtually immune for at least the next 6 months.
The NHS wouldn't be 'overwhelmed' (despite being at just 77% capacity even at the height of the latest spike, as I mentioned) because we wouldn't be sending the elderly to hospital en masse.
Then, as with all pandemics, the number of deaths would subside and we'd have a yearly fluctuation with the seasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The NHS hasn't been overwhelmed because of the measures taken.
I'm going to leave you with your delusions. The models, using actual data are available, infection/mortality rates etc. but they don't fit your narrative so won't be of much interest to you.
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 9 minutes ago
MU52: Yeah 100,000 is a lot, but as a % of population it's not a lot at all. Sounds cold, I know, but it IS only 0.17% of the UK population and the vast majority were close to death anyway.
But we've compromised the lives of millions to 'save' the 0.17%. Crazy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus christ. It's only 0.17% because all the measures to stop the spread of the virus have been taken, plus improvements made over the past 10 months in treating people infected.
If you want a clearer picture of the actual number that have saved, again do some more research.
WUM: I'm saying the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' (according to the media) because we are sending every old lady with a sniffle to hospital - where they then catch covid if they don't have it already.
But if we just let covid run it's course and didn't lockdown, they would quietly pass away in care homes like they do normally.
"But if we just let covid run it's course and didn't lockdown, they would quietly pass away in care homes like they do normally."
Quietly?
Clearly you have no experience of a Covid ward, suggest you speak to someone who works on one.
SpecialWUM:
Most in here are insisting that 'we can't possibly know what the after-effects of lockdown will be' but then you also can't speculate on what the death figure would be if we didn't have lockdown - but you are, because it suits your argument.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the death rate was 10 times worse without lockdown, that'd still only be 1.7% of the population, and most of them would be close to death anyway as you know. Horrible, yes, but not reason enough to warrant mentally and physically imprisoning the rest of the country endlessly.
You're doing the classic pro-lockdowner tactic of claiming everything positive is because of lockdown, and all the negative effects are unknowable.
Also, you're conveniently ignoring what I said about every old lady with a sniffle being sent to hospital, thus overwhelming hospitals.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-are-covid-19-vaccines-causing-deaths/a-56458746
Sign in if you want to comment
Vaccine deaths
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 10/2/21
MU52: I completely understand why you, personally, would be worried. And of course I don't want anyone to die. But for every one of you, there's thousands of young people who, for example, are having their educations and future prospects curtailed, people suffering mentally (on top of the pandemic of mental health problems in this country), and people that have lost their businesses/jobs/houses.
I'm sorry, but it's not worth it.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 24 seconds ago
OK, fine, that's true - but then you have no evidence that they cause more good than harm do you? So why do you label anyone who questions lockdowns or the approved narrative as a crazy conspiracy nut?
You wanted facts and figures - in my last post I gave facts and figures that are from the NHS/Government sources directly.
The University of Cambridge debating society just had a debate on the efficacy of lockdowns and concluded that they don't work/cause more harm than good. Just as scientists from some of the world's leading universities signed the Great Barrington Declaration. But I guess they're the wrong 'brand' of scientist is this case right? They're not members of The Science(TM).
It's worrying to me we should 'follow the science' but only certain scientists that fit the narrative. We should 'listen to experts' unless they question lockdowns. And we should ban people on social media if they say anything contrary to the agreed narrative. We may as well live in China.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't called anyone a nut on conspiracy theorist. But lockdowns do work in halting the sppread, the evidenbce is in front of our eyes
but what harm they do cannot be measured so the safe option is to lockdown/
The deaths are real deaths, not all people in their nineties, and in any event are entitles to the same care as someone in their thirties.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 minute ago
MU52: I completely understand why you, personally, would be worried. And of course I don't want anyone to die. But for every one of you, there's thousands of young people who, for example, are having their educations and future prospects curtailed, people suffering mentally (on top of the pandemic of mental health problems in this country), and people that have lost their businesses/jobs/houses.
I'm sorry, but it's not worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it may or not be 'worth' it. Ethics is a very difficult subject, often with no right answer.
posted on 10/2/21
Also MU52: Loads of countries have done the same as the UK, true, but plenty haven't locked down as many times or as harshly as us and generally, across the world, most have had the same outcome in terms of % of population dead and cases rising and falling throughout the year.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 19 hours, 1 minute ago
Articles like this and people that post antivaxx crap should be banned from the site.
Misinformation leads to death
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not anti vax at all you moron, I am not putting out any misinformation either, just questioning the difference in reporting a death.
posted on 10/2/21
SpecialWUM: If all you can pick out of my huge rant is that one line which I admit is conjecture, then it's clear that you're picking and choosing which facts you pay attention to. Just admit it, lockdowns aren't worth the collateral damage, it's OK, you can say it. You'll be labelled a conspiracy theorist of course though
posted on 10/2/21
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 18 hours, 7 minutes ago
You and I both daredevil.
My pal's dad died of it during the first wave. Mid 50s with no underlying health conditions.
My pal who literally lives next door to me was in hospital for a week with it a couple of weeks ago, on oxygen. She's home now but is knackered just walking about her flat.. I've had to drive her to the local shop which is only a two minute walk away coz she doesn't have the energy or breath to walk it. She's 32.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, but thats a minority, in reality, only a small portion of healthy people die of Covid.
You give two examples, I will give 3 examples.
My 3 neighbours got Covid and were a little uncomfortable, and now they are better again.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 17 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Mi Pelea (U18355)
posted 3 minutes ago
I haven’t said that I’m anti vaccine, anti lockdown or that covid19 is not a deadly disease, but because I have shown examples of covid deaths not actually being covid deaths I am the Qanon Shaman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have one example which could be construed as non-Covid if you believe the family over the medical professionals who recorded the death
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You provided two examples of healthy people dying of it. Not sure why your examples are superior to that of others.
You seem to act an an authority on Covid when you are just like us, anoymous people on a footy forum. You are no more credible than the people you accuse of nog being credible
posted on 10/2/21
MU52: 'what harm they do cannot be measured so the safe option is to lockdown'
That is crazy. So the options are: lockdown, not knowing what the after-effects will be, to save some of the 0.17% of the population that have died. How is that the 'safe' option? If it was even 5% of the population dying it might make sense, but 0.17%?
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Mi Pelea (U18355)
posted 17 hours, 27 minutes ago
You do realise the vaccine is to protect the person who has been vaccinated from experiencing covid symptoms, and even after being vaccinated, said person can transmit the disease to others, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no substantial prove yet to make any conclusions about that
posted on 10/2/21
Also MU52: I never said people in their nineties don't deserve to be protected but saving them a few months of their life in a care home, at the expense of people who need to work and live right now, is unfair IMO.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 day ago
OP's point is simply that when people die (for any reason) after having covid, it's classed as a covid death so it should follow that people dying (for any reason) after having the vaccine are classed as 'vaccine deaths'.
That proposition obviously raises uncomfortable questions for most of you so you're deflecting it with silly conspiracy talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, not sure why people call me stupid over that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it's likey that the virus played some part in the deaths.
And unlikely that the vaccine did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it fecking did, they said so, the vaccine compounded issues and cause death. Without the vaccine they probably would have lived. I am not making this up ffs.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 3 minutes ago
SpecialWUM: If all you can pick out of my huge rant is that one line which I admit is conjecture, then it's clear that you're picking and choosing which facts you pay attention to. Just admit it, lockdowns aren't worth the collateral damage, it's OK, you can say it. You'll be labelled a conspiracy theorist of course though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a question for you, what would have been the impact of not locking down and allowing the virus to spread unchecked through the population?
Cases increasing every day, doubling every three days (here in the UK March 2020 before lockdown)
Maybe have a think of the short and long term repercussions on basic infrastructure, services, economy, and mental health.
Of course this is not a scenario you would want to take into consideration as defeats your argument. Talk about picking and choosing!
Plenty of data available from past infections/pandemics that may help you.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 1 day ago
OP's point is simply that when people die (for any reason) after having covid, it's classed as a covid death so it should follow that people dying (for any reason) after having the vaccine are classed as 'vaccine deaths'.
That proposition obviously raises uncomfortable questions for most of you so you're deflecting it with silly conspiracy talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, not sure why people call me stupid over that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it's likey that the virus played some part in the deaths.
And unlikely that the vaccine did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it fecking did, they said so, the vaccine compounded issues and cause death. Without the vaccine they probably would have lived. I am not making this up ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.which compared to the other numbers involved is very small indeed. But if they, or we, wish to count those as vaccine deaths okay. Until last week our deaths were more than 1500 per day.
posted on 10/2/21
SpecialWUM:
Like most viruses, a lot of people would have got it - most of them in care homes, passing quietly in their sleep as per - and almost everyone else would have anything from no symptoms to a bad cold, and then be virtually immune for at least the next 6 months.
The NHS wouldn't be 'overwhelmed' (despite being at just 77% capacity even at the height of the latest spike, as I mentioned) because we wouldn't be sending the elderly to hospital en masse.
Then, as with all pandemics, the number of deaths would subside and we'd have a yearly fluctuation with the seasons.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 13 minutes ago
MU52: 'what harm they do cannot be measured so the safe option is to lockdown'
That is crazy. So the options are: lockdown, not knowing what the after-effects will be, to save some of the 0.17% of the population that have died. How is that the 'safe' option? If it was even 5% of the population dying it might make sense, but 0.17%?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is around 100,000 people, so a safe option doesn't seem crazy to me. It sounds a lot more than . 17%doesn't it.
posted on 10/2/21
MU52: Yeah 100,000 is a lot, but as a % of population it's not a lot at all. Sounds cold, I know, but it IS only 0.17% of the UK population and the vast majority were close to death anyway.
But we've compromised the lives of millions to 'save' the 0.17%. Crazy
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 5 minutes ago
SpecialWUM:
Like most viruses, a lot of people would have got it - most of them in care homes, passing quietly in their sleep as per - and almost everyone else would have anything from no symptoms to a bad cold, and then be virtually immune for at least the next 6 months.
The NHS wouldn't be 'overwhelmed' (despite being at just 77% capacity even at the height of the latest spike, as I mentioned) because we wouldn't be sending the elderly to hospital en masse.
Then, as with all pandemics, the number of deaths would subside and we'd have a yearly fluctuation with the seasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The NHS hasn't been overwhelmed because of the measures taken.
I'm going to leave you with your delusions. The models, using actual data are available, infection/mortality rates etc. but they don't fit your narrative so won't be of much interest to you.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Henry Chinaski (U21800)
posted 9 minutes ago
MU52: Yeah 100,000 is a lot, but as a % of population it's not a lot at all. Sounds cold, I know, but it IS only 0.17% of the UK population and the vast majority were close to death anyway.
But we've compromised the lives of millions to 'save' the 0.17%. Crazy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus christ. It's only 0.17% because all the measures to stop the spread of the virus have been taken, plus improvements made over the past 10 months in treating people infected.
If you want a clearer picture of the actual number that have saved, again do some more research.
posted on 10/2/21
WUM: I'm saying the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' (according to the media) because we are sending every old lady with a sniffle to hospital - where they then catch covid if they don't have it already.
But if we just let covid run it's course and didn't lockdown, they would quietly pass away in care homes like they do normally.
posted on 10/2/21
"But if we just let covid run it's course and didn't lockdown, they would quietly pass away in care homes like they do normally."
Quietly?
Clearly you have no experience of a Covid ward, suggest you speak to someone who works on one.
posted on 10/2/21
SpecialWUM:
Most in here are insisting that 'we can't possibly know what the after-effects of lockdown will be' but then you also can't speculate on what the death figure would be if we didn't have lockdown - but you are, because it suits your argument.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the death rate was 10 times worse without lockdown, that'd still only be 1.7% of the population, and most of them would be close to death anyway as you know. Horrible, yes, but not reason enough to warrant mentally and physically imprisoning the rest of the country endlessly.
posted on 10/2/21
You're doing the classic pro-lockdowner tactic of claiming everything positive is because of lockdown, and all the negative effects are unknowable.
posted on 10/2/21
Also, you're conveniently ignoring what I said about every old lady with a sniffle being sent to hospital, thus overwhelming hospitals.
posted on 10/2/21
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-are-covid-19-vaccines-causing-deaths/a-56458746
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10