IOM Covid removing restrictions

[The Bastard]

18 minutes ago, Ativa said:

A lot are though.  The vast majority of us didn’t need it.

You don't know that though. If you were vaxed and didn't get symptomatic COVID, you may well have actually fought off the infection thanks to the vaccine without ever knowing it. Because the majority got vaxed, it also limited the spread of the infection. We just didn't see the level of deaths that we saw pre-vax.

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

it also limited the spread of the infection. 

I'm pretty sure it didn't.

[Ativa]

8 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

You don't know that though. If you were vaxed and didn't get symptomatic COVID, you may well have actually fought off the infection thanks to the vaccine without ever knowing it. Because the majority got vaxed, it also limited the spread of the infection. We just didn't see the level of deaths that we saw pre-vax.

People got it without noticing pre vaccine as well.

Most of us didn’t need the vaccine and could have gone about our lives without it and with no lockdowns etc without ever becoming ill.

Mass vaccination and lockdowns were to protect the vulnerable, not the majority.

I am not saying that wasn’t the right thing to do, but there was no need for for healthy people to put their lives on hold or be jabbed for their own protection.

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, Ativa said:

People got it without noticing pre vaccine as well.

Most of us didn’t need the vaccine and could have gone about our lives without it and with no lockdowns etc without ever becoming ill.

Mass vaccination and lockdowns were to protect the vulnerable, not the majority.

I am not saying that wasn’t the right thing to do, but there was no need for for healthy people to put their lives on hold or be jabbed for their own protection.

That really is a false narrative. In the early days, before lockdowns, quarantines, closed borders Covid 19 killed the fit and healthy, as well as the vulnerable. Those measures reduced transmission and death. Vaccination reduced it further. It protected many more than the vulnerable.

My post about Igualada demonstrates. Scaled to the IoM, without closed borders and lockdown, we’d have had 65 deaths in the 3 weeks after the first case was identified.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

31 minutes ago, Ativa said:

People got it without noticing pre vaccine as well.

Most of us didn’t need the vaccine and could have gone about our lives without it and with no lockdowns etc without ever becoming ill.

Mass vaccination and lockdowns were to protect the vulnerable, not the majority.

I am not saying that wasn’t the right thing to do, but there was no need for for healthy people to put their lives on hold or be jabbed for their own protection.

You don’t need a seatbelt until you crash.

Your odds of crashing aren’t changed by you wearing the seatbelt.

But if you crash, you’re really quite glad you did wear your belt.

The rate for severe illness with COVID if you’re fit and healthy is reasonably low, however, the adverse effects of any vaccine are far lower.

So, it’s a numbers game right? Which do you take the chance with?

There used to be an argument that seatbelts increased injury rates, which they did. But, the reason is surprisingly simple, you can’t be injured if you’re already dead. What do you think happened to fatality rates?

Do you take a smaller risk to avoid a chance of a bigger risk? Or do you risk the bigger risk to avoid the smaller one?

The lockdowns were really about transmission rate. Much like anything, healthcare and society as a whole has a finite capacity to cope with absence and sickness. The transmission rate of COVID as a novel virus meant that exceeding it was possible, and in some cases, it did happen.

Redirecting resources from one part of the healthcare system to another meant a lot of routine stuff fell by the wayside. We see examples of that all the time, even before COVID where hospitals or groups of hospitals would/do declare emergencies because the volume of patients exceeded their capacity to cope. 

[The Bastard]

26 minutes ago, Ativa said:

People got it without noticing pre vaccine as well.

Most of us didn’t need the vaccine and could have gone about our lives without it and with no lockdowns etc without ever becoming ill.

Mass vaccination and lockdowns were to protect the vulnerable, not the majority.

I am not saying that wasn’t the right thing to do, but there was no need for for healthy people to put their lives on hold or be jabbed for their own protection.

You've got no evidence to back up your statement that most of us didn't need the vaccine.

You are not considering how many were unknowingly infected but fought off the infection thanks to vaccination, how many infections were limited, how many transmissions were slowed, how many hospital admissions were prevented. How many people would otherwise have died on a ventilator, or more likely, waiting in a corridor at a makeshift emergency medical centre for a ventilator.

Looking at the data, there was definitely a need for "healthy" people to be vaccinated.

As you would expect the disease hit older and more vulnerable people (such as the immunosuppressed) hardest, but the ONS say that a tenth of all deaths in the UK were those with no preexisting health conditions who weren't in a risk group. That included children and young adults. 20% of infections needed treatment with Oxygen or with ventilation, which is significantly higher than the usual seasonal infections.

Lockdowns were essential to protect the majority. With the rate of infection pre-vaccination, and with such a high rate of critical care required, the health service would have been overwhelmed in days, as would other critical services. Lockdowns kept businesses open, core services provided, saved lives until vaccination limited the impact. There was pain, but it was necessary pain.

[Gladys]

There is a counter argument and that is about self-determination.  So whatever your view is about the pandemic or the measures to curb it, and no one really knew how it would pan out, you take your own approach.  Obviously within the law, (and those confessions by Potiron really do remove any credibility from their argument) but within your own risk appetite and circumstances. 

But, if you don't want to take measures such as the vax, or you do want the vax,  that is entirely your own decision, but either way,  you have to accept any limitations or adverse effects that will place on you. 

There is a more important debate, IMHO,  and that is about whether we should be targeting limited resources such as health care rather than the blanket approach that we currently have. 

[genericUserName]

50 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There is a more important debate, IMHO,  and that is about whether we should be targeting limited resources such as health care rather than the blanket approach that we currently have. 

There is a more important debate, IMHO, and that is about why health care resources are so limited. The answer, almost certainly, is that some companies in some sectors which earn huge profits but employ relatively few people (relative to that income) could reasonably afford to be paying a little tax. Not so much that it would be worth their while to relocate. 

[Gladys]

49 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

There is a more important debate, IMHO, and that is about why health care resources are so limited. The answer, almost certainly, is that some companies in some sectors which earn huge profits but employ relatively few people (relative to that income) could reasonably afford to be paying a little tax. Not so much that it would be worth their while to relocate. 

My point is more fundamental than even that. 

[Roxanne]

There seems to be quite a bit of 'rewriting' history since Covid no longer is the threat it once was. Reading this thread appears to back that up. is it the unvaxed individuals who made it through without dying who are feeling more buoyed now or is it just a general feeling? I would suggest it's the former.

[genericUserName]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

is it the unvaxed individuals who made it through without dying who are feeling more buoyed now or is it just a general feeling? I would suggest it's the former.

We never hear much from the many unvaxed individuals who did not make it through without dying.

I wonder why that is?

[wrighty]

I'm reluctant to contribute to this thread at this stage because it's sort of descended into flat earth territory.  I will remind readers of one thing however - Northern Italy, March 2020. Their modern, well equipped, well funded health service was overwhelmed, with decisions being made as to which patients were unlikely to survive and had to be turned away. On the IOM we avoided that, but held the planning meetings to work out in advance who would be turned away should we similarly be overwhelmed. It was lockdown and our border policy that made the difference.  Covid was deadly serious in 2020.

We've now got herd immunity (through vaccination and immunity after infection - please also recall that immunity is not all or nothing - if 'immune' you get a shorter, less severe illness, and are less likely to pass it on) and covid has become akin to a common cold.  Even the common cold could be serious if frail, immune-suppressed etc.  I had the initial vaccines, and the first booster.  I'm not having any more as I don't think it's necessary for me.  I've had covid at least twice, and it was, for me, basically nothing. 

I don't think I've been brainwashed by the BBC/Big Pharma etc, and I'm generally considered to be an intelligent, sensible individual.  No doubt Positron will be along soon to claim otherwise 🙄

[Roxanne]

1 hour ago, genericUserName said:

We never hear much from the many unvaxed individuals who did not make it through without dying.

I wonder why that is?

You knew what I meant. 

[WTF]

52 minutes ago, wrighty said:

 On the IOM we avoided that, but held the planning meetings to work out in advance who would be turned away should we similarly be overwhelmed. 

so who/which groups of people would have been turned away on island then ??  

[Black Mirror]

On 4/4/2023 at 7:01 PM, AcousticallyChallenged said:

If the majority of people are vaccinated, then, it's a number games right?

A bigger fraction of a small number is much bigger than a small fraction of a much bigger number?

Science innit.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

UK population: 67.33 million

53,813,491 first doses given, per the UK gubbymint.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

So, we can remember our sums back from school, long ago as that may be for you.

53,813,491 divided by 67,330,000 = 0.7992498292

So, we can round that to 0.799 and times that by 100 for our percentage.

79.9% of the British population have had at least one dose.

This is freely available data.

Plus, you can solve your numbers discrepancy with the following from the ONS:

Also, @Black Mirror you haven't explained the logic behind citing Dr Classen, who decries any form of vaccination. You of all people should be able to identify someone with an axe to grind.

So, you're resorting to calling people stupid, because that's the best you've got?

Gosh, you must've spent so much time on it too.

 

On 4/4/2023 at 6:22 PM, Black Mirror said:

The BBC is not an impartial observer. As the master propagandist of the British establishment, it is concerned with narratives rather than objective reporting of news and information. Its most common tool is selective reporting; ignoring all the bits that don’t fit the official narrative. Occasionally, when confronted with too much embarrassing evidence, it can resort to falsehoods and open lies, presented with that patina of professionalism, those dry voices and self-righteous glances we are all familiar with.

According to official figures, circa 94% of people hospitalised with Covid or dying from Covid are vaccinated. This is in part due the the higher probability of older/vulnerable people to be vaccinated from Covid. Nevertheless, the BBC reporting of what was happening in those hospital wards was pure rubbish, fed to the gullible. Thanks P.K. for reminding it to us, much appreciated.

In the following I will briefly illustrate another glaring example of deliberate BBC misinformation.

According to ONS (Office of National Statistics) figures in the UK a 7% of people in my age-band (the 50-60 years old) has never had a Covid jab. We know from plenty of other sources (telephone surveys etc) that the actual figure for my age-bad is circa 14%, and that 20-26% of the overall UK population never had the jab, more than double official ONS estimate for the overall UK population. Analogously, in the US the CDC is stating that 85% of the overall population had the jab; when we know that 71% of US adults had the jab at the least once and 29% never had it (Rasmussen reports etc).

This happens because ONS data are based on a subset of England residents that excludes all those not registered with a GP and not registered in the 2011 census; it is missing some 8 million adults who are not at all representative of those in the ONS sample.

If the proportion of never-jabbed is underestimated by a factor 2, the rate of incidence of serious/deadly Covid (as well as any other illness and kind of death) among the never-jabbed must be overestimated by the same factor 2.

My illustration of this issue is simplified (see the paper of the 2nd attachment and relative Substack threads if you wish to delve into the details). Briefly, the ONS was aware of the bias and tried to correct it, but their correction is also flawed. The authors of the paper attached below “What the ONS Mortality Covid-19 Surveillance Data can tell us about Vaccine Safety and Efficacy” made a detailed analysis of the problem and confronted the ONS. The ONS replied to them and basically admitted everything. Read it by yourself in the third paragraph of the letter of the third attachment below: “As ONS makes clear in its publication, this analysis is not intended to be, nor it is appropriate for, understanding vaccine effectiveness.”

The conclusion is that the ONS dataset is so compromised with inaccuracies, anomalies, and biases that it cannot be used to reliably determine vaccine efficacy and safety (precise words of the authors of the paper of the second attachment).

Nevertheless, as you would expect, the ONS sent its estimate of vaccine effectiveness based on the wrong population sample to the BBC an the BBC, guess, made no question of the data and published and reported that very flawed conclusion to the unsuspecting public; last February it made the official BBC news. BBC lies.

Was all that deception a conspiracy? Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, their WEF chummies wanting to depopulate the world with a bioweapon masked as vaccine? No, that is what the Alt-Right would say to denigrate those it hates most. There is actually a more prosaic explanation: stupidity; plain stupidity. The Branch Covidians are some of the most fitting examples of those social theories of human stupidity for explaining totalitarianism. Here are some examples.

Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity:

    https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/

Or

 

Cipolla’s 5 Laws of Human Stupidity:   

 

Jung is also mostly helpful with explaining the epidemic of madness; how an entire population can become mentally ill:   

 

P.K.’s and AcousticallyChallenged’s mindset is what those videos are about. Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acoustically-Challenged:

The BBC says that those sick with Covid in the hospital wards have committed the original sin of not being vaccinated (unvaccinated, unvaccinated, unvaccinated…). Turns out, according to government figures, 94% of those patients had been vaccinated.

The BBC says that 8% of us had not had the vaccine. The real figure is the upper range of 20-26% (and circa 30% of the US adult population).

Hence, estimation of vaccine effectiveness must be grossly overestimated, because the denominator of the fraction of covid incidence among the un-vaccinated is underestimated by a factor two.

You see no problem with all of the above dissonance. The official narrative must be right, because it is the government and the BBC that state it and the government and the BBC must be good and trustful. Any evidence of the contrary must be dismissed outright because coming from a dissonant voice unreconciled with the establishment.

Three weeks ago Andrew Bridgen made one of his speeches on the harms of the Covid vaccine and the chambers of parliament emptied almost immediately. MPs did not want to hear any vaccine criticism. If they had valid counterarguments, they would have confronted him for sure. But they knew that he was going to quote government figures, or figures from reputable sources that are difficult to dispute. Thus, they just left the room. Rishi Sunak had given them a clue when a bit earlier shouted “the vaccines are safe and effective” (full stop, argument closed).

Most of those who used to post to this thread are now in the same frame of mind as those MPs. They are not engaged anymore; for their sanity, they moved on from the Covid scaremongering and refusing to talk about it and refusing any further boosters; and most likely not even reading this annoying Manx Forums thread. They don’t want any more arguments.

You, Acoustically-Challenged, you are in an entirely different class. You want to believe! You cannot accept that the institutions you love and trust so much could, would, do something wrong to you. It is simply not possible, in your world. Your peace of mind derives from being a true believer.

You really should look at the three videos I attached to my previous posting; especially the third one inspired to Carl Young’s teaching. Such a good representation of the branch covidians; your spitting image is in there!

And just vacate the room, like the others who once believed. I had expected it to end in this way. Never expected the brainwashed fools to concede me the crown of logic.