O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Yes.

New Zealand was able to almost completely prevent the widespread circulation of covid in 2020 and 2021 by the use of closed borders and internal restrictions. It experienced negative excess deaths in both years (including during the mass vaccination campaign conducted in 2021). In February 2022 the country began to lift border restrictions and there were covid outbreaks. Unsurprisingly, they coincided with a level of excess deaths in 2022 and 2023.

The ten countries with the lowest excess deaths by % (New Zealand, Denmark, Australia, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany and Malta) are also ten of the most highly vaccinated. By way of contrast, the 10 countries with the highest excess deaths (North-Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovakia, Kosovo and Moldova) have much lower vaccination rates.

Go figure.

And a rough correlation with population density for the excess deaths ??

[frogmiller]

The capacity of people that seem to be able to see different points of view are able to make their points using their opponents preferred medium.

I have used The Lancet knowing that it’s trusted by others.

The fact that they seem to be changing their stance should be worry some to those that trust it🤔

[KerrAvon]

As I said, tricky one here. Do you believe this particular article?

I believe in its existence - I've read it.

The study looks like a serious piece of work that has been published in a respected journal. It’s findings, however, are something of an outlier in that multiple studies have made contrary findings. Whether that represents quirks in the methodology used, I wouldn’t like to say without digging into it in a manner that would take far longer than I am willing or able to spare.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103

This is a meta study from 2023, which drew on 31 studies, which means that it is based on a large sample size and multiple methods, which is likely to enhance its reliability. It is also more recent than the Lancet study, which means that it was written when the dynamics of the SARS-COV-2 virus would be better understood. For that reason I prefer its findings, the key ones of which are described in the abstract in this way:

From PubMed and Embase, 31 studies were included describing the impact of original wild-type COVID-19 vaccines on disease transmission or viral load. Overall, study results showed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 transmission (range 16–95%), regardless of vaccine type or number of doses. The effect was apparent, but less pronounced against omicron (range 24–95% for pre-omicron variants versus 16–31% for omicron). Results from viral load studies were supportive, showing SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated individuals had higher Ct values, suggesting lower viral load, compared to infections among the unvaccinated. Based on these findings, well-timed vaccination programs may help reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission—even in the omicron era. Whether better-matched vaccines can improve effectiveness against transmission in the omicron era needs further study.

If you think your opinion outweighs that of RFK Jr., that's your problem.

And you think that because he’s a lawyer or because he says things that you want to believe?

You have avoided answering my question – Doesn’t it bother you that the write up on RFK’s website (he’s a lawyer don’t you know!) bears only a passing resemblance to the reality of the situation?

I have put up a link to the judgement in the LA case – the actual words of the judges – why do you think that RFK’s website misrepresents those words?

[KerrAvon]

Funnily enough, since 1955 the highest ever increase in excess deaths was 4.9%. You seem quite content that in 2022 this increased to 10%.

Here's the actual situation.

https://www.excessdeathstats.com/nz/

Only a little thought is required to debunk this particular site:

1. The obvious warning sign is that the statistical analysis upon which the website relies appears to have been conducted by a retired engineer. I have absolutely nothing against engineers – either retired or otherwise - I wish that their value received greater recogntion in the UK - but is he qualified to undertake a complicated statistical analysis? It’s a bit like relying upon a chiropodist to undertake dental work.

2. The website contains that the assertion that adjusting excess death data to take account of the increasing age of the population should be disregarded because a population doesn’t age dramatically in one year compared to the year before unless there has been a sudden influx of old people.

The point is that the age of a population increases in a predictable fashion in a matter that is well understood through the use of actuarial methods. Being older means being more likely to die in any given year, with there being marked year on year effect after the age of 65 or so:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...dom-uk-by-age/

Failing to take ageing into account in making excess death calculations will inevitably distort the outcome, particularly in a country with an aging population like NZ (or the UK). It will inevitably have added to the excess deaths in NZ.

3. The article conflates the death rate with excess deaths (as do you in your post).

4. The analysis totally ignores the effect of lifting covid restrictions on illnesses other than covid. Lockdowns and border closure would have hampered the spread of other illnesses and in particular the ‘flu, which is a major killer of the elderly (it is well known that flu deaths dropped massively in locked down countries). That would have the obvious effect of preventing the deaths of people who are at risk from ‘flu during the time of restrictions and the less obvious effect of allowing acquired immunity to wane. When lockdowns were lifted and the ‘flu was allowed to spread as it normally would it spread into a population that was more at risk from it as a consequence.

I could go on, but I am boring myself. I am trying to be kind, but the website is bolox and, with respect, if you are sheepishly accepting it as ‘the actual situation’ without applying any critical thinking to it you are going to go badly wrong.

And of course, nothing within the article explains why the excess deaths that antivaxxers claim to be attributable to the covid vaccines did not appear in 2021 – a year in which 90% of the NZ population received two doses - and why they only took off in 2022 when the country lifted its restrictions.

[KerrAvon]

It's Blackrock - the people who are gleefully supplying weapons to anyone with the money to pay.

Supporting businesses that profit from death and destruction is definitely NOT what I do. The fact that you're happy to ignore these vile actions speaks volumes about the depth of your compassion.

You seem to have gone off at a bit of a tangent there.

BlackRock is a wealth management company. They invest money on behalf of investors. I have no doubt that they invest in companies involved in the arms trade, but so do a host of other companies involved in investment such as insurers and pension providers.

I assume that they’re singled out for the opprobrium of conspiracy theorist's because they are so big?

[KerrAvon]

And a rough correlation with population density for the excess deaths ??

I don’t know if any research has been conducted on the correlation between excess deaths and population density.

The emerging picture of excess deaths is that they are highest in those countries that fared badly at reducing the spread of the virus through unvaccinated populations and it seems inevitable to me that higher population densities would favour faster spread. The UK was poor at reducing spread, but is highly vaccinated.

Countries like NZ which was very successful at reducing spread and then quickly vaccinated its population fared best, for reasons that are obvious to me.

[KerrAvon]

The capacity of people that seem to be able to see different points of view are able to make their points using their opponents preferred medium.

I have used The Lancet knowing that it’s trusted by others.

The fact that they seem to be changing their stance should be worry some to those that trust it��

Science develops over time as the understanding of an issue increases. It would be more alarming if the stance on an issue did not change in response to those increased levels of understanding.

[frogmiller]

Science develops over time as the understanding of an issue increases. It would be more alarming if the stance on an issue did not change in response to those increased levels of understanding.

From both sides?

[Eternal Optimist]

OK Kerr - you're telling me you know better than RFK Jr., The Lancet, etc., etc. - well, everyone really.

I may be wrong ( - no, really - ) but your M.O. leads me to suspect you may be financially involved in some way.

Time to come clean. Are you a paid shill for big Pharma?

[KerrAvon]

OK Kerr - you're telling me you know better than RFK Jr., The Lancet, etc., etc. - well, everyone really.

I may be wrong ( - no, really - ) but your M.O. leads me to suspect you may be financially involved in some way.

Time to come clean. Are you a paid shill for big Pharma?

Seriously, is this what you have been reduced to?