Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

There is a meaingful probability that had Andrew Marr not been vaccinated then he could have ended up in ICU or dead vs the rough few days at home he experienced. Yes he contracted covid (delta variant) after having been fully vaccinated (pfizer) but the evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of covid even if it fails to stop you contracting it in the first place is real and compelling.

Absolutely.

I thought it brought home, to those who seem to believe double vaccination = invulnerability, that you can still fall prey. Moreover, it also underlines the fact that if you were unfortunate enough to contract the virus the vaccinations reduce what would quite likely have been a touch-and-go hospitalisation experience to the status of an unpleasant couple of weeks in bed at home.

[Get Real!]

So it’s now gone from the optimistic...

“It’s safe for me to travel because I got both jabs!”

To the downgraded...

“I caught a light version of Covid thanks to the jabs!”

And soon it’ll probably lower further to...

“I only needed a ventilator for a week, thanks to the jabs!”



Note the importance of always praising the jabs… because that’s what they’re pumping out in the media all day.

[erolz66]

Note the importance of always praising the jabs… because that’s what they’re pumping out in the media all day.

It is simply a case of looking at the data and what it tells you and not just ignoring it to fit a pre decided opinion. You are in fact the one that is ignoring and discarding the data in order to maintain your 'cynical' persona which is exactly as stupid as just believing 'the media' without looking at the data. Both are just as stupid and just as dangerous. If the data did not show real evidence that the current vaccines provide material degrees of benefit vs the current variants in terms of both your chance of contracting the virus and the severity of outcomes if you do then I would not be saying this is the case, regardless of what the 'media', or you, might be saying. That is actually thinking for yourself. Just disbelieving the actual evidence and data because 'the media said it' is no less stupid than believing it for same reason.

[Get Real!]

Note the importance of always praising the jabs… because that’s what they’re pumping out in the media all day.

It is simply a case of looking at the data and what it tells you and not just ignoring it to fit a pre decided opinion. You are in fact the one that is ignoring and discarding the data in order to maintain your 'cynical' persona which is exactly as stupid as just believing 'the media' without looking at the data. Both are just as stupid and just as dangerous. If the data did not show real evidence that the current vaccines provide material degrees of benefit vs the current variants in terms of both your chance of contracting the virus and the severity of outcomes if you do then I would not be saying this is the case, regardless of what the 'media', or you, might be saying. That is actually thinking for yourself. Just disbelieving the actual evidence and data because 'the media said it' is no less stupid than believing it for same reason.

And what data is it you’re looking at if not that which they choose to publish?

ie: Notice how they no longer inform how many of the deceased were doubly-vaccinated?

[Londonrake]

And no longer whether they had other morbidities. Thus, people don’t think that the victim was likely to die anyway. I’m fit though, so it wouldn’t be the same for me. Why run the risk of getting jabbed?

Or, if people who died having been vaccinated. They were vaccinated and it didn’t help. Why run the risk……..

The graphs show the beneficial results as stark fact but as someone who believes you can’t fight a US, lab developed, bio-weapon, and other such conspiratorial crap, you’re not going to believe any of it, because it doesn’t suit your warped agenda.

Please excuse the hypocrisy here:

Twat.

[Get Real!]

In fact, I can’t think of a better way to promote those jabs than publishing comparison tables of vaccinated-deceased vs. non-vaccinated-deceased, so the masses can see the difference!

I guess the only time you wouldn’t publish is if the figures were working against you…

So yes, we read what data is available but we’re not privy to ALL the data, dear Erol!

[erolz66]

And what data is it you’re looking at if not that which they choose to publish?

ie: Notice how they no longer inform how many of the deceased were doubly-vaccinated?

Bodies like the ONS are not the media. The scientific community are not the media. The media do not produce the data, they report on it. You believe in some world wide global conspiracy if you like but personally I would need some actual evidence of such, understanding as I do the principle of occams razor. It is simply just not true to say 'they' (always the mysterious 'they') 'no longer inform how many of the deceased were doubly-vaccinated'. To make out 'they' were previously publishing figures on this and now have 'mysteriously stopped' is paphitis level twatery. Its fairly tale land. I'll just stick to the real world myself. You know the one where scientist , health care professionals and like are not 'them' but actually are just a part of 'us'.

[Get Real!]

And what data is it you’re looking at if not that which they choose to publish?

ie: Notice how they no longer inform how many of the deceased were doubly-vaccinated?

Bodies like the ONS are not the media. The scientific community are not the media. The media do not produce the data, they report on it. You believe in some world wide global conspiracy if you like but personally I would need some actual evidence of such, understanding as I do the principle of occams razor. It is simply just not true to say 'they' (always the mysterious 'they') 'no longer inform how many of the deceased were doubly-vaccinated'. To make out 'they' were previously publishing figures on this and now have 'mysteriously stopped' is paphitis level twatery. Its fairly tale land. I'll just stick to the real world myself. You know the one where scientist , health care professionals and like are not 'them' but actually are just a part of 'us'.

“They” obviously refers to governments who; via their Ministries of Health, have monopolized what Covid data gets published in their respective major newspapers.

The vast majority will not bother to search deeper into the Internet to seek more detailed answers, and governments know that.

[erolz66]

In fact, I can’t think of a better way to promote those jabs than publishing comparison tables of vaccinated-deceased vs. non-vaccinated-deceased, so the masses can see the difference!

I guess the only time you wouldn’t publish is if the figures were working against you…

So yes, we read what data is available but we’re not privy to ALL the data, dear Erol!

A classic example of an inability to comprehend data properly. If you put as much effort in trying to understand as you do in to proving what you first thought regardless of actual evidence you would be doing yourself and every one else a favour. Try reading this media report on the very figures you claim are 'mysteriously not being published'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57610998

[ant vaxers] use real figures in a misleading way, to arrive at a completely false conclusion - that the vaccine may not be working or even doing more harm than good.

This is what you and paphitis are doing. Try reading this article and understanding it, rather than just dismissing it out of hand because its from the 'media'. Use your brain and forget what you want to be true.

in a world where every single person had been vaccinated, 100% of Covid deaths would be of vaccinated people.

Can you understand that ?

[Get Real!]

You don’t need me to tell you that for every article that promotes “A” you’ll find another dozen promoting “B”.

The many conflicting reports are a testament to a Covid-stats debacle that refuses to go away.

Interestingly, you’ll also find that the State media (BBC) or (RIK in the RoC) is the one steadfastly pro-jab while the others are the most likely to be against.

Interesting times eh...