Statistics

# Vax Has Slight But Waning Edge In Old But Harms The Young

## Berenson’s Post

Many are asking about deaths rates in the vaxxed and unvaxxed in England, because of a post by Berenson.

The deaths rates by vaxxed and unvaxxed depend on age. The vax has some waning efficacy for the old, but it’s not good for the young. Let’s see the details.

The source is ONS. Berenson’s only graph in that post is this:

He says:

The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.

The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range….

I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct…

I don’t know how to explain this other than vaccine-caused mortality.

Alas, there is an error here caused by lumping all the data together. We’ll see below that the death rate for unvaxxed is higher than for the two-shot (“fully”) vaxxed—in all but the young, where the rates reverse.

This is both modest and horrible news. Again, let’s see why.

## Death Rates by Vax Status and Age

The data is richer than Berenson shows, and is presented by ONS in four age buckets (“10-59” “60-69” “70-79” “80+”) and four vax status buckets (“Unvaccinated”, “Within 21 days of first dose”, “21 days or more after first dose”, “Second dose”). It’s most unfortunate they don’t break the young out separately.

The data runs from January through the end of September 2021 (October and November are missing). The data are weekly number of all cause deaths and the population size of the age and vax group for that week.

Let’s look at Berenson’s plot reimagined, but we’ll use all the data and present each age and vax bucket. Since having all in one plot would be too busy, I produce separate ones for each age bucket. The y-axis is in “scientific notation”, wherein e.g. “2e+07” = 20,000,000 (7 zeros), and “6e-05” = 0.00006 (5 decimal points), etc. Note carefully the range changes for each plot.

I think putting rates in terms of 100,000, as both Berenson and ONS did, can be misleading, so I show the actual rates.

Well, you can see it. The older unvaxxed have higher attributed all cause death rates than the two-shot vaxxed now. Except in the young, where the two-shot vaxxed are worse off. Before we discuss why, here are the populations of each group by age.

Let’s discuss the population sizes first, since it’s easier and because it is key.

Start with the oldest group, the 80+, and work backwards. It’s very plain the oldest got vaxxed first. The waves of increasing vax status (no vax shrinks, <21 days rises then shrinks, etc.). This starts first in 80+, then 70-79, then 60-69. It’s here the limitation of not separating out the young in the 10-59 group first shows, since most under 17-20 or so are not vaxxed, but many 20 and above are.

Anyway, you can clearly see the number of unvaxxed in all but the young is very low, whereas the unvaxxed (necessarily) started out high in each group.

What is key is to recall that people can and some must show up in each vax group at different time periods (unless they stay unvaxxed). That means when considering deaths we have to think about who got vaxxed and when.

It is also plain that vax rates for the older folks have maxed out, and did so months ago. Unless England wants to be like Austria is contemplating, and to ship the unvaxxed to camps where they can concentrate on their unvaxxed status before being invited to large buildings where the vax will be forcibly administered, perhaps in gaseous form. Danke, Herr Schallenberg! More on that tomorrow.

Let’s start with the 80+ death rates. The red (unvaxxed) is higher than the purple (two shot), but it appears the gap is closing. This is almost certainly because the powers of the gene therapy treatment, which causes your own body to produce spike proteins, wanes in time. We know this by looking at red-purple differences back in January, where the unvaxxed were dying at much higher rates. But this is also when many of the unvaxxed people started getting shots. That caused an uptick in the purple line (less healthy people getting vaxxed).

But all has been steady since about June. The closing difference at the end has to be caused by something, and the only something available to us are the vaxs’ powers.

Now look at the green line, which is “Within 21 days of first dose”. The choppiness is because of the small sample size, so don’t read too much into it. The shot, back in January, first appears to confer some benefit, but as the weakest move from the unvaxxed into the one shot column, the rates quickly coincide. The rates of the <21 days of the first shot in September, since June, is no different than no shot.

Here’s the kicker. That blue line is “21 days or more after first dose”, but (of course) still shy of the second shot. It has the worst rates of all!

This backs the arguments people like our friend eugyppius have been making, and the points I have been making since the beginning. Any shot that is purposely designed to weaken you and make your body make you sick, makes you vulnerable. The first shot now seems, as just said, to do almost nothing at first, but then you open yourself up to infection, possibly from a variant, and you have a higher chance of dying from Covid, until you get the second shot.

So if you’re getting the first shot, you had better get the second, which appears to confer some benefit, and maybe before the recommended 28 days, else you could be in deep kimchi. Of course, that benefit is not very large—nowhere near the touted rates in the high 90s—and it also wears off in time. You are a little but not much better off than the unvaxxed, except for a time.

The story is exactly the same, but happening later in the time, for 70-79 year olds, and 60-69 year olds, where the danger of waiting after the first shot is relatively the largest.

Let’s switch to the youngest, the 10-59 year olds. Again, it’s a pity ONS didn’t bust this out into, say, 24 and younger and those from 25-59. Because it’s almost certainly (we know from our own CDC data) the case that those around 24 or 25, or maybe slightly older, will be just like the other groups.

We have to recall in this graph that many, say, 17 and younger were not vaxxed at all in January, and only increasingly are now. And the young die at lower rates.

Well, it’s plain. The unvaxxed have lower death rates than the two-shot vaxxed. The two-shot vaxxed are in as bad a shape as those with just one shot after three weeks.

What’s weird is that green line, the early one-shotters, is best (the big jump at the end is due to a small sample size). This is a result of mixing the young, who are in no appreciable danger of Covid, with the relatively older, who have more risk. Careful, now. The people in the denominator, if they don’t get the second shot within 21 days, move into the denominator of the blue line.

That means the first shot, even in the young, provides some benefit, but then, after three weeks, things move very quickly south.

Again, there is no evidence here in favor of vaxxing the young indiscriminately (there is always a case for vaxxing kids with certain comorbidities). Indeed, the evidence suggests the opposite: do not vax children en masse.

This is the official data. Surely England’s Experts can read it as well as we can, or better. What’s their official line on all this?

## Bonus 1 Relative Rate Reduction Plots

The post was already long, so I break out the relative risk reduction of the vaxxed to the unvaxxed. The red lines represent no reduction. “Reduction” is a word like “profit”, in that it can be negative, i.e. a loss. Meaning the vax can cause harm; this is shown when the “reduction” is negative.

Here they are, and some words after.

In the youngest group, except for that small number of first shots under three weeks, the vax is worse. Same reasons. The swooping low in late spring is because ONS didn’t bust out the young from the older, as explained above.

In the other groups, looking just at the purple, two-shot line, you can easily see the waning efficacy. Down, down she goes. For the 80+, it’s now about 25%. Remember when they said it was near 100%? Good times.

The trend in these is clear, as above. Don’t vax the young. Vax the old at risk, but don’t get too excited about the results. The vax is much worse, four to five times as bad, for the young than it is good for the old.

There is no evidence here that suggests mandating the jab, or forcing it à la Austria, will do anything except bring grief.

## Bonus 1 Absolute Rate Reduction Plots

Since relative rates can, and do, exaggerate, and because I love my readers, here are the absolute risk reductions. These are the numbers that should, but alas are usually not, of interest to public health. They are the numbers that best predict what will happen, whereas the relative ones (again) exaggerate.

You can figure these out by yourself at this point. As far as public health goes, i.e. medical decisions for large groups of people, there is no support here for mandates—look at the absolute differences for the old—and even much evidence mandates will do much harm—same for the young.

Buy my new book and own your enemies: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Statistics

### 47 replies »

1. The government response was never about public health.
Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to invent one.
The will to power is everything. The Constitution and the wishes and welfare of the peasantry are nothing.
There is no law, only Zuul.

2. Ryan says:

Alarming news but unsurprising.

Maybe I am misreading, but wasn’t Berenson’s post about all cause mortality?

3. Ar says:

Can you add the 3 different vaccinated groups together? I looked at the data it should be possible but I am not an excel wizard

4. Sheri says:

My apologies, but all these graphs and stuff are just wasted. The numbers are lies and all of it was political from day one. You can make models all day long, but humans are evil and will lie about numbers, success, etc no matter what you post. Model the decline and fall of humanity and the rise of stupidity. At least that model might reflect something useful. The rest is all fiction.

5. Robin says:

Briggs,

Difficult to understand the comparison – Berenson mentions all cause mortality – your charts show COVID deaths only, not all cause mortality, correct?

I understand that Berenson’s simplified comparison is compromised by Simpson’s Paradox, but I think that an all causes consideration will also reveal other potentially vax related excess death effects.

But in any case it seems strange to separate the two dose vs one dose – they are not statistically independent when it comes to all cause vax-related death counts.

When I’ve looked into the ONS numbers wrt all cause deaths, it has led me to the conclusion that the only statistically independent groups are the unvaxxed and then everybody else lumped together.

6. Robin says:

Definition: By unvaxxed group I mean those with zero doses.

7. Kathleen says:

The attack on the young by this pack of murderous degenerates must be the hill.

Short version of what is going on with older farts like me for those that share my impatience.

The covid is REAL for old farts.

BUT if you IMMEDIATELY launch effective treatment you will get through it. (Zelenko, FLCCC, America’s Frontline Doctors) Get set up NOW — if you haven’t got it yet dollars to donuts you’re gonna get it this winter.

AND you will not be using a product that was developed and/or tested by VIVISECTIONING living babies (Resident trolls – yes! that’s factual! look it up! I do not engage with trolls.)

AND you will not be starting down a road of progressively trashing your immune system, etc.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712#pane-pcw-details

8. Briggs says:

All,

See update on my dumb mistake in mislabeling, that readers caught — thank you.

The argument some have is why not only compare covid deaths, since the vax is supposed to prevent covid.

But since the vax makes you make yourself sick, you open yourself up to other maladies. You could have fewer covid but more (say) heart disease deaths. Etc.

As for Robin’s and others’ points about statistically independent, that’s covered. I say that people can show up in different groups, depending on timing.

9. Briggs says:

Sheri, thanks for stopping by and telling us everything we do is wasted effort, again. Keep it up. Maybe someday we’ll stop if you just tell us enough times.

10. Hagfish Bagpipe says:

But Briggs, what we want to know is, according to the numbers — is it better to take the jab or to stick one’s head in the oven?

Speaking of covid, tangentially, Barenboim has quite a good take on the Goldberg variations. Such an interesting contrast to Gould’s. Speaking of Glenn, this Bach bit with Lenny cures covid.

11. Briggs says:

Hagfish,

Depends on how hot the oven is.

12. witzbold says:

Others are suggesting that data 10-59 group is subject to Simpson’s paradox, i.e. average age in vaxxed 10-59 and unvaxxed 10-59 is quite different and hence explains different death rates, or not?

13. Briggs says:

witzbold,

Certainly that can describe some of it. That’s why we wish they could have broken the ages down more. In any case, the burden of proof is on those who want to vax kids. Let them demonstrate the exact numbers, not just guess, as we’re forced to.

Even apart from that, the analysis of the rates in the other age groups stands.

Plus we have our CDC numbers to go on. We have the all cause and attributed deaths of the younger groups. We did this in a couple of updates back. Problem there is, our CDC doesn’t release the data on vaxxed and unvaxxed. We lump all together and so have to guess.

Too much guessing going on. Why don’t all these agencies release all the data/

14. bgc says:

I have seen data where the “unvax” category included recent, and ‘partially’ vaxed… I don’t know how unvax is defined here. But there are so many possible tricks and concealments at the stage of in data classification it seems impossible to check them all. e.g. If memory serves – Eli Lilly apparently (according to David Healy) concealed a 9 percent suicide rate from the Zyprexa arm in randomized trials (which is an extremely high level BTW) by reporting only side effects that occurred in ’10 percent or more’ subjects. This 10% cut-off was stated explicitly, so they were not ‘lying’. Seemingly, nobody dreamed that this would mean that a high suicide rate went unreported, yet that was so…

15. Joshua Ellinger says:

I think you are completely misreading the data.

The death rate is strongly correlated with age. The likelihood to get vaccinated is also correlated with age. All The unvaccinated population is younger (and probably healthier) and that probably explains all of the differences that you are seeing. The death rate of the vaccinated group is moving towards the unvaccinated group as more young people get vaccinated.

The case for giving vaccines to people under 25% has never been justifiable on a cohort mortality basis. It is justified on reducing the amount of COVID in circulation to protect everyone but, in reality, it is because the majority would rather force everyone to take the same risk as a price of living in modern society than have to wear masks in public forever.

It feels perfectly reasonable to me that, as a society, we say “We are going to give you medical treatment if you show up at the hospital dying of COVID so, in return, you have get a vaccine to make that less likely.”

16. Robin says:

@bcg

I have no doubt that when things really get out of hand by Jan/Feb next year, the worldwide definition of vaxxed will be boosted + 14 days, and everything else will be defined as unvaxxed (as it was in Israel since the summer).

The WHO was taking a lead in these initiatives until recently – maybe since their Chief Scientist has been threatened by the death penalty in India (which led them to delete a great deal of their social media history) they have decided to take a more subdued role.

Sheri – I love the graphs and the math involved that Briggs prints!! Keep up the great work Briggs!!

18. Witzbold says:

I am really quite concerned about the category “>21 days after 1st dose”!

Individuals who choose vaccination normally transition successively through the categories from:
“Unvaccinated” ->

>21 days after 1st dose ->
“Second dose”
As the vaccination campaign rolls out, the unvaccinated category shrinks, 2nd dose category grows and, along the way, the vaccinated cycle through the tweener categories. Apart from the (particularly?) small minority which may choose to decline the 2nd injection, there should be a constant turnover within the category >21 days after 1st dose.

Because of the age prioritised early vaccine rollout in the UK and the very high uptake in the older age groups this category “>21 days after 1st dose” has remained very small since May for groups >80 and 70-79; and since June for 60-69 group.

However, in this category, mortality begins to successively rise for >80 in late March , for 70-79 in mid-April , and for 60-69 late May. Note the uptick in cases in the UK started around mid May.

I am emphisizing the older age groups because there seems to be a clear age group temporal correlation, whereas the 10-59 seems too confounded.

What the hell is going on?

(Full disclosure: I am in this category of those who declined their 2nd dose)

19. Kathleen says:

It has seemed fairly obvious that the number of fatalities among us old farts has been seriously goosed up by slapping those not paying enough attention (meaning large swaths) into induced comas, ramming a tube down them, and pumping them full of Remdesivir.

In other words, not just denying treatments that work, inflicting protocols that outright kill.

So seems that plays a big part in the numbers.

But, just to add to the number crunching.

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MDY2MTY2NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDQzOTE3NTEsIl8iOiJEVUh4MiIsImlhdCI6MTYzNzU2MjgzMCwiZXhwIjoxNjM3NTY2NDMwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjk1Nzc2Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.Bou0j1ihDYOiI1V5H_gRf2vw7jY0skpvIQpejNm_VkU

20. Joy says:

But since the vax makes you make yourself sick, you open yourself up to other maladies. You could have fewer covid but more (say) heart disease deaths. Etc.
That is very muddled

Not just a false premise, written as a statement of tact, but false reasoning about causes of illness and death
generally.

Come the day, will the skeptic gang, be the only ones who’ll be able to tell if it was the vaccine or the mask, which caused the dementia? heart disease? cancer? Will they have their own special way to tell?
It might be time for a Venn Diagramme! One lady on telly just said the word:
“venn diagframme”. (true, not making it up, as I typed)
So, maybe it actually is
Perhaps with polite primary colours, or pink, with glitter added for the vaccinated!
Trouble is, glitter can stick, so if you play about with it, some always ends up on your nose
Only the properly trained should be allowed to do such important work

21. Dennis says:

So predictable. LOL.

Though I’m surprised we didn’t get a more robust claim that, despite the evidence before our lying eyes, all is in fact just peachy keen in the UK and, hurr durr, the jabs are working…praised be to Whitty et al.!

22. J W Wells says:

‘the vax makes you make yourself sick’
The way the Mrna works reminds me of the Groucho Marks line – he was the first one to make spaghetti with bicarbonate of soda, thus causing and curing indigestion at the same time.

23. C-Marie says:

Kathleen, The knowledge referred to, is not the belief that vivisectioning of live babies is going on, but the objection is to the use of murdered babies tissue, even of fifty years ago, which tissue has been reproduced, so they say, that none of the original babies’ tissues are being used, but that reasoning is faulty in that though the babies’ tissue might not still be scientifically detectable, nonetheless, God knows the truth, and so we who are not “old farts” even though of 78 years given by God for the work He has for us to accomplish as led and guided by His Holy Spirit, absolutely refuse the vexxinations that have any associationa at all with murdered babies’ tissue.

Yes, we have received vaccinations in the past with such associations, but did not have such knowledge of their origins at the time.

God bless, C-Marie

24. Leslie says:

25. Dennis says:

The mRNA jabs turn people into spike protein factories.

The spike protein is pathogenic.

The vaccine, basically, IS the virus.

And unlike naturally produced antibodies, which show robust defense against variants as well, the antibodies produced in response to the vaccine-induced spike proteins don’t help as well (if at all) to ward off variants.

The mRNA producers know this. It is part of the plandemic MO all along.

26. Joy says:

C Marie, we all believe we are led by the Holy Sprit, if we are Christians. No point trying to pretend you know better than the Pope and the other millions of christians. Millions of Catholics have taken the vaccination. Well informed and intelligent Catholics, too.

The Pope is not against the vaccination.
God gave us a Spirit not of fear but of love and a sound mind. None of the recent commentary has looked remotely like that.

If you believe in truth, big T, little t, and logic, you know that religious beliefs such as yours, or even mine, on the vaccination, has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of vaccines or whether they cause harm. No point anybody trying to mix those things up. It is a false position to try to adopt. If logic matters.

27. Joy says:

Though I’m surprised we didn’t get a more robust claim that, despite the evidence before our lying eyes, all is in fact just peachy keen in the UK and, hurr durr, the jabs are working…praised be to Whitty et al.!

projection, and you ruin a good song, too.
My favourite’s Take It To The Limit.
Also very apt, these days.
Bring back Donald Trump.

28. Joy says:

This one,
https://youtu.be/tJkW0Clsvrk

No, my favourite is the last resort, can’t decide. Live version’s best.
Important to TRY to make up your mind about those things which matter.
Jam or cream first?
Depends if you’re using a knife or a spoon and how you want it to look

29. Dennis says:

“Millions of Catholics have taken the vaccination. Well informed and intelligent Catholics, too…”

More like ill-informed, brainwashed Regime-compliant dupes.

“The Pope is not against the vaccination.”

Even if there were no fundamental legitimacy issues with the whole Franciscan papacy, his position on the jabs is not an ex-Cathedra matter of dogma, and is not binding anyone, Catholic or otherwise, any more than it would be if he said the sky is actually green and the sun sets in the east (unless, perhaps, you’re Rex Mottram!).

30. Joy says:

Dennis,
Yeah, tell us what we don’t know,
Tell Marie who is making the false claim that she has special knowledge of what is the truth about the morality of the vaccine. It’s just another false claim. If it were stated as belief it would not be false.
Also, what the Pope says isn’t binding on me whatever it is he says. Only on you as a Catholic.
My point is that there is no truthful claim of arbitration that is dispositive on the matter of the morality of the vaccine. Just false claims thereof.

More importantly do you understand as yet that if you find a person who has died in the UK, from anywhere, that they have an eighty eight percent chance, to use frequentist language, of falling into the vaccinated category? Do you understand that point? Can you answer without a non sequitur?
Let’s see, “yes” or “no” and a few short words will suffice

31. Kathleen says:

Spot on Dennis.

I’m on the same page as you, C. Marie. I am well aware of all the history involved in HEK-293 and PER. C6.

32. Dennis says:

Nothing Marie said was a “false claim,” nor is the question of vaccine morality something about which there can be no “truthful claim of arbitration,” as you put it. To say otherwise is basically to deny there can ever be any Truth whatsoever about anything, just opinions (a very modern attitude, including among those who call themselves Christian – see the Abortion-loving so-called-devout-Catholic Biden, for example – so you’re in plentiful company; I’m sure Swordfish is on your side there as well).

“More importantly do you understand as yet that if you find a person who has died in the UK, from anywhere, that they have an eighty eight percent chance, to use frequentist language, of falling into the vaccinated category?”

I don’t think “frequentist” is an actual word, but more importantly that paragraph is confusing on a couple points: (1) I assume you mean died from/with Covid? As stated above, the first sentence could mean “finding a person who has died” anywhere in the UK of anything, and (2) So, if 88% of those dying (of/with Covid) have been vaccinated, then you agree the jabs are not preventing either illness or death from/with Covid, and in fact, the vast vast majority of such deaths (88% you say!) are among the vaccinated?

If, in re (2), you actually intended to say what the plain meaning of your paragraph above says, then QED…I rest my case regarding the dangerousness and uselessness of the Covid jabs. Even Joy concedes 88% of deaths are “falling into the vaccinated category.”

33. Dennis says:

Regarding the mandates and the hysterical drive to get everyone vaxxed – even kids as young as 5 who clearly don’t need them for Covid, and for whom the jabs pose particular unjustified risks of adverse events and deaths – RFK Jr. makes a point in his book about why Fauci et al. are so hell-bent on coercing everyone to comply, which I hadn’t seen before: they need to eliminate the unvaxxed control group to help hide the extent of adverse effects and deaths from these jabs (exactly what Fauci already did when, in an act of scientific malfeasance and sabotage, he arbitrarily ended and unblinded Pfizer’s projected 3-year trial after 6 months, then vaxxed the control group – thus making it impossible to properly track adverse events, especially long-term effects and ADE/pathogenic priming).

For anyone looking at the evidence objectively over the course who his entire 37-year reign as NIAID head – not just his Covid actions – it is clear Fauci is not simply some well-meaning public servant who made some bad calls and honest mistakes that didn’t work out mow and then. He is a willfully malevolent and criminally evil man, probably a genuine psychopath. Never mind just being fired – the case for his criminal indictment and conviction is clear, and he should spend the rest of his pathetic life in the harshest jail conditions possible (frankly, that would still be too nice a punishment).

34. Thou shalt not sacrifice the young on the altar of the old.
If you don’t have a future, the past is irrelevant.
The disease, the response, and the vexxine are all planned to reduce the human population and make people compliant to the new regime. Medicine and public health has nothing to do with any of it. For crying out loud, people, Africa and India are nearly ideal test cases showing what works and what doesn’t. Europe and North America are doubling down on stupid/evil.

35. spudjr60 says:

In other news
Valneva Announces European Commission Approval of Advance Purchase Agreement for up to 60 Million Doses of Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine VLA2001 – Nov-10-2021

The Valneva vaccine is the one developed the old fashioned way.
What are the odds that the FDA will approve this French developed drug?

36. Shecky R says:

So basically your approach is let’s compare apples & oranges and then talk about pomegranates, all the while leaving out measly variables like sunshine, water, soil, and drought; got it… just sayin’.

37. Briggs says:

It’s all fruit, Sheck.

38. Gene says:

There confounders that are not controlled. The young that vaccinated cohort likely have more risk factors than the unvaccinated cohort. This alone can describe the difference in mortality.

39. Joy says:

I take that as a no to the non sequitur question.
Regarding C Marie’s comment? she can speak for herself. I do recall YOU calling her delusional in the past.
Now, you’re telling a different story.
C Marie is making the kind of claim about the provable knowable truth of God. Which is clearly not provable or knowable in anything but a private way. If you take my comment otherwise that’s your interpretation.

C Marie makes a claim of a lack of morality and lying, on part of those who promote the vaccination.
That is dishonest on its face.

What you or she or I believe, is another matter entirely.
As for trying to make a claim about my being a ‘relativist’ with regards to the truth.
No, you’re just wrong.
As you know, I have been making that point directly for quite a few weeks.
It is you and the likes of those who won’t face simple truths that are falling to the trap of thinking you can pick and chose the truth as and when it suits you. If someone is wrong and shown to be so, then in a truthful debate, people admit their error or wrongdoing.
This response is to your first paragraph ONLY. I have read no further since there’s no point wasting time if you can’t keep consistent, always, and make step wise arguments, why would someone want to try to make progress with that?

That is a variation on where we’ve been before. You simply try every other way around but allowing simple truth to stand.
Definition:
I use the term simple truth in cases of self evident or logical truth, even before reaching the more advanced errors of logical fallacy.

On the matter of relative truth or ‘post modern relativism’.
I had never met someone who subscribed, or thought they did, to that philosophical view.
Util the day I met a friend of a friend who is lovely but very hippie and left wing. Falls for every kind of appeal to emotion, or just thought, when asked that the truth is what the individual says it is. After about two minutes gap, between tube stops, she changed her mind, seeing the logical truth of the situation. Yet this did not alter the view or belief, or hope, in so much of the hippie mindset.
That does not make her evil nor me better. I liked her very much, which is rare, but it did show me that I’m quite at odds with those who are supposed to be on the ‘right’.

40. Joy says:

Someone up above refers still to “covid deaths” in the UK.
For accuracy:
We don’t have a figure for covid deaths in the UK.
We have “died within 28 days of a positive Covid 19 test”.

41. Dennis says:

“I take that as a no to the non sequitur question.”

My response was not a non sequitur, but rather an attempt to actually understand what you were trying to say above. You’re the one who claimed that 88% (frankly, even I think you are high there) of Covid deaths are among the vaccinated. I answered your question as straightforwardly as possible given the confusing nature of your previous statement. You threw out a rather surprising claim regarding percentage of deaths among the vaccinated which clearly undermines your basic claim all along that the jabs are working well and everything is wonderful in the UK (hence the reason I thought you in fact must have meant to say something other than what the plain meaning of your words above actually said). But, instead of clarifying your statement, you simply pile on the confusion and dodge the issue.

“C Marie makes a claim of a lack of morality and lying, on part of those who promote the vaccination.
That is dishonest on its face.”

No – she is quite right. Those who promote these Covid jabs are indeed immoral liars – at best, at worst outright criminals – and those who promote mandates and coerced jabs are tyrants as well.

42. Dennis says:

“Someone up above refers still to “covid deaths” in the UK.
For accuracy:
We don’t have a figure for covid deaths in the UK.
We have “died within 28 days of a positive Covid 19 test”

See Rittenhouse thread for response to same thing you just posted there.

This is wonderful news. Further proof that “Covid death” figures bandied about in the UK, and pretty much everywhere, are a sham.

43. David says:

Some people are red/green color blind