www.altyfans.co.uk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE JOIN THE ALTRINCHAM FC PATRONS SCHEME TODAY
* HELP THE CLUB THROUGH THE COVID-19 SHUTDOWN
* HELP FUND THE CLUB TO BIGGER AND BRIGHTER THINGS
* HELP THE MANAGERS ATTRACT THE PLAYERS THEY NEED TO PUSH THE CLUB FORWARD

https://www.altrinchamfc.com/club/the-patrons-scheme

+ www.altyfans.co.uk » General Category » Non Altrincham FC Talk
 " 'Covid' risk of death for overall population now no worse than seasonal 'flu"

Author Topic: " 'Covid' risk of death for overall population now no worse than seasonal 'flu"  (Read 630 times)

Hugh

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
    • View Profile

According to Professor Anthony Brookes, quoted in the Expreee, "currently the risk of death for the population as a whole is no worse than for seasonal influenza... and virtually zero for healthy teenagers". See here:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1543468/coronavirus-news-covid-risk-of-death-over-70s-vaccine-immunity-treatments

Sorry to bring "not actual evidence" on here again. Still, my advice stands - if you are considering having these covid "vaccines" that are being administered under emergency authorisation, and especially if you are a younger healthy male, it is worth fully researching the matter. And here once again is a place you could start, remembering to read it carefully, ask questions and be aware of what is not said, as well as what is said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full
Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1368
    • View Profile

The best one yet Hugh... Recycling the only scientific paper you have referenced in a new thread. Telling people to not read what is written but what isn't written... you fruit bat this isn't year 10 english literature. We're not trying to work out what message the author is trying to convey through the secondary characters love arc.

I paid attention to what was not said and I clear as day found the following...

"Hugh is fully insane and it's a bit mean to keep on mocking him, but do because he's trying to help kill people"

x
Logged

JD

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1573
    • View Profile

I think the JCVI have a level of knowledge to pay attention to!
Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1368
    • View Profile

You need to have the level of knowledge to interpret the information given correctly though... Scientific papers are not published to be interpreted by pseudo intellectuals looking to prove a point that they can't.
Logged

Hugh

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
    • View Profile

The best one yet Hugh... Recycling the only scientific paper you have referenced in a new thread. Telling people to not read what is written but what isn't written... you fruit bat this isn't year 10 english literature. We're not trying to work out what message the author is trying to convey through the secondary characters love arc.

I paid attention to what was not said and I clear as day found the following...

"Hugh is fully insane and it's a bit mean to keep on mocking him, but do because he's trying to help kill people"

x

You were reading what isn't written you loon. If it said in that Oxford study part funded by Cancer Research UK (who act as an R&D laboratory for several Big Pharma firms) that there were more deaths from myocarditis in males under 40 from "covid" than from the mRNA "vaccines", then maybe you could accuse me of killing people, this is seemingly what you did, read what was not written by not looking closely at the text. What it actually said was hospitalisations and deaths, which could mean several things, but which I take to mean the number of each added together regardless of how many it is of each. It also said the overall population, i.e. not just males under 40 - before stating straight after that for the specific group of males under 40, there was an increased risk. I should also say that it may be understating the risk from those "vaccines" as they are using a cutoff time of 28 days after injection, which may be too short. The study also did not state the risk of death from "covid" of healthy people aged 15-17, which appears to be virtually zero according to official government information. If you disagree that such people should inform themselves about the risks and benefits of this medication, I will absolutely disagree and put another view.

Now I will post a link to an article from The Independent published a few years ago when they were still allowed to write this sort of thing (the same journalist, now working for The Times, never seems to get put on this sort of assignment these days), about how pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer and Astrazeneca actively attempt to influence NHS policy. I suggest you have a good look at it and see if there is really no possible problem or conflict of interest in some of the things that are going on at the moment and damaging football (and possibly Chester "City"), instead of calling for the OT section to be shut down when you don't get your own way.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-big-pharma-links-to-nhs-policy-with-senior-mps-saying-medical-industry-uses-wealth-to-influence-government-9120187.html
And here

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/big-pharma-lobbyists-exploit-patients-and-doctors-9120189.html

 You're entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to close down debate though. Think - why is it ok for someone to go on the first team forum and say "I hope Osbourne's 'vaccinated' " without giving any reasons why, but not for me to put opinions on here with at least an attempt at reasoned argument? It's not a crime to question things, it's actually essential to dempcracy.
You may genuinely believe that it is for you to decide what is "actual" evidence, but others are entitled to dispute this.

It may be also that you are putting people at risk if you are telling healthy people to take medication from which they will derive little benefit (i.e. 15-17 year olds) without informing themselves of risks and benefits. You accuse people who disagree with you of killling people, but I may say there are those who would accuse you of collaborating in genocide.

I have never suggested that the vulnerable shouldn't take medication that might help them, just to go into it informed and with your eyes open. Seriously, where's the harm in  that? If you remember, this all started with those FL players collapsing (which you absurdly describe as "not a trend" because the increase in incidents we've seen is not over two years or something). This is what I have been trying to follow up, not vulnerable people, and at the time of that spate of incidents, I was genuinely worried that I might see something horrible at one of our matches before long (of course I still might), and wanted to know what was going on.

Oh, and if you actually trust the government over the JCVI, I would seriously question your judgment.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2022, 02:43:27 PM by Hugh »
Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1368
    • View Profile

My issue remains that your sources are complete trash, and when they are not, you misrepresent what has been said to fit your deadly point of view. It doesn't even follow common sense 99.5% of the time.

Finally, government is in control of individual roll out of something that has been globally deemed as necessary.  My opinion on the government implementing this holds no bearing at all. Just to put your mind at rest though I don't think I've seen an effective government in my adult life. This is a pandemic though, so best to keep politics out of it when assessing the virus impact.

I can't even with the big pharma response... way to make yourself look like a nut job in public. This whole pandemic has shown how small and large teams alike have helped to make breakthroughs. It makes complete sense that the manufacturing process is done by the largest companies since we need it making pretty damn fast.

I'm also not trying to get my way Hugh... I'm trying to spare the fans of a football club from having their spare time filled seeing your biased and incorrect, by almost every measurement, point of view on here. If I had my way I'd just block you after two warnings and live my life.

I look forward to your response, rolling around on the ground laughing for a few mins, weeping for humanity for a few after that and then using common sense to make you look as insane as you clearly are. Your posts are like really weak Q drops.
Logged

Hugh

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
    • View Profile

I suppose you are aware that the WHO could only define this as a "pandemic" because they changed the definition a few years back? And that this coronavirus  has been lower impact than any pandemic before the change of definition?

I remain in disagreement about your definition of "actual" evidence. Clearly some of my sources are better than others (although that doesn't necessarily mean they should be dismissed) but to me it is a very strange definition of "actual" evidence that dismisses them all as trash apart from the (part pharmaceutical  industry funded) Oxford study, which it seems you did misread, or at least misread my comment on it.

You can dispute my interpretation, but I can dispute that there is no trend until there has been an increased level of player collapses for two years (or whatever your position is - it seems to change). If you could put my mind at rest about these incidents, that might be useful, but so far you have offered nothing to alter the concerns that I - and others - have had and suggest a conclusion other than what will seem an obvious one to many.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry line is that people who question them are nuts, but you do understand, don't you, that they are there to make a profit from their products. Are you really suggesting that The Independent and Oliver Wright who wrote the piece are nitters? I would have to respectfully disagree with you. I should say I have read many many things in the newspapers over the years, including various stories about pharmaceutical industry corruption. I see absolutely no reason to believe that suddenly we should take everything we hear from the pharmaceutical industry (and their proxies) at face value - have you? If so, perhaps we should hear it.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry will say that their products are great. If we see deaths in Australia remaining low in the coming weeks as a result of these "vaccines" and despite low levels of natural immunity, I might count that as some sort of actual evidence (at least if it could be shown that it wasn't just because "omicron" is a mild variant). The reason I question things is because too often I have not seen sufficient evidence for what we have been told, and indeed on occasions we have been told downright incorrect things as you will know if you have been following this.

"I hope [Osbourne] is 'vaccinated' " is kind of biased too don't you think (on the first team forum the other  day)? And that was not an isolated incident, was it? What problem exactly do you have with people putting different opinions? I repeat that it is suppressing discussion that is dangerous. If someone puts forward a bad argument, it should be fairly easy to show it  up. If it is not a bad argument (or only partly bad) then something may be learnt from it. If you have all this "you can't say that" nonsense, people will grow suspicious and wonder what you are trying to hide.

Don't forget that none of this would be an issue if it wasn't for the coercion and disruption we are seeing - people banned from some football clubs if they don't show health i.d., our own capacity limited so that season ticket holders and regular supporters will not have any problems attending. This is extreme, unprecedented stuff, not at all normal.

 And there would not be an issue if we had not seen so many alarming incidents involving various sportsmen and spectators collapsing (and yes, I know it has happened before, but not on this scale, however much you try and gloss over it). Seven incidents in two weeks, I think it was at one point.
As I've said before, I didn't want to get involved in any more controversy after the Heathcote business, but the current nonsense has seriously impacted me both at the football and away from it. After what I have seen these past two years, I don't trust many politicians, a lot of the media and a lot of the pharmaceutical industry. And that's just the way it is. When my enjoyment of football is being impacted by all this nonsense, I reserve a right to a response, however much you may think I should be banned.

Logged

Amsterdam Alty

  • Regular First Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1368
    • View Profile

Last time Hugh... I'm not trying to prevent real discourse... I'm asking you to be better at finding evidence to support your argument. When you have found good sources you've twisted them, simple as that.

Again, because it seems you love repetition... THE VIRUS IS CAUSING THE RISE IN DEATHS NOT THE VACCINE.

You really are a tedious weapon.
Logged
+ www.altyfans.co.uk » General Category » Non Altrincham FC Talk
 " 'Covid' risk of death for overall population now no worse than seasonal 'flu"