The jab ..

[Z4C_er]

I don't want to be lied to but I don't believe there is a conspiracy

I don't want to believe there is a conspiracy, but when things don't add up, and when they don't add up time after time and there seems to be a pattern or a logical extension, then I start thinking.
I'd love the world to be all rosy and sweet with companies that look after own best interests, but I'm not naïve.
So, it's a good question to ask why would a nurse falsely put down the cause of death? Why would a trained nurse be told to essentially commit fraud?
She's not the only one. There are too many instances of this.

 

[Flyingfifer]

I've been careful not to get into the discussion of view points my concern is that its possibly easier for those of us not brought up in the digital age to 'feel' more certain of what we know.

Its estimated that one week of the New York times has more information that someone would have come across in a lifetime in the 18th Century - people knew stuff but their knowledge was narrow and deep not broad based as today. I mean they knew everything about the land they worked - it was experiential 'craft' knowledge. If they did not learn (observe it themselves) they had to listen to what others said; some they would trust and others not.

As kids we go through a similar process we learn from (trust) our parents; then teachers; then books and friends; pre internet we read papers and your view was formed by the paper you took - socialist worker; Sun; Telegraph - you had to trust the editors. Radio and TV also but now we are prepared to question more and we know some sources have done us over BBC for one! oh and MPs and Governments do do - weapons of mass destruction for example.

The hard part now is deciding who to trust .... but just because every now and again an MP lies (as they have always done) or someone presents the same facts as a different truth it doesn't mean that they will always do that. Assuming they always will lie is going to beak your head.

The information I gave is taken from a short presentation I used to show to staff to get them thinking (I was in education by the way). Its an oldish presentation but still thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06BXgWbGvA

I like the overall ideas expressed here although I would posit a slightly different angle, people now have immediate access to effectively all the world's knowledge that means that when lies are being told it is now a simple matter to actually check, I think at this stage so many examples where those that used to be trusted have been demonstrated as having lied either explicitly or more insidiously through the absence of certain details or contexts in order to push a specific narrative. That is certainly my experience, I used to trust basically absolutely Channel 4 news above basically all else however as of late they are pursuing a political slant and its more and more obvious to me. I now trust none of the main stream media (MSM) and will stick almost entirely with a spread of independent journalists/commentators on YouTube for my news and analysis while obviously applying my own common sense, morality and logic.

 

[exdos]

I used to trust basically absolutely Channel 4 news above basically all else however as of late they are pursuing a political slant and its more and more obvious to me.

I too was an avid watcher and truster of C4 News, but over the past 4 years or so, they've done nothing except push the globalist agenda in all their reports. It's not news reporting now it's just shameless propaganda.

 

[Crazy Harry]

I've been careful not to get into the discussion of view points my concern is that its possibly easier for those of us not brought up in the digital age to 'feel' more certain of what we know.

Its estimated that one week of the New York times has more information that someone would have come across in a lifetime in the 18th Century - people knew stuff but their knowledge was narrow and deep not broad based as today. I mean they knew everything about the land they worked - it was experiential 'craft' knowledge. If they did not learn (observe it themselves) they had to listen to what others said; some they would trust and others not.

As kids we go through a similar process we learn from (trust) our parents; then teachers; then books and friends; pre internet we read papers and your view was formed by the paper you took - socialist worker; Sun; Telegraph - you had to trust the editors. Radio and TV also but now we are prepared to question more and we know some sources have done us over BBC for one! oh and MPs and Governments do do - weapons of mass destruction for example.

The hard part now is deciding who to trust .... but just because every now and again an MP lies (as they have always done) or someone presents the same facts as a different truth it doesn't mean that they will always do that. Assuming they always will lie is going to beak your head.

The information I gave is taken from a short presentation I used to show to staff to get them thinking (I was in education by the way). Its an oldish presentation but still thought provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06BXgWbGvA

I like the overall ideas expressed here although I would posit a slightly different angle, people now have immediate access to effectively all the world's knowledge that means that when lies are being told it is now a simple matter to actually check, I think at this stage so many examples where those that used to be trusted have been demonstrated as having lied either explicitly or more insidiously through the absence of certain details or contexts in order to push a specific narrative. That is certainly my experience, I used to trust basically absolutely Channel 4 news above basically all else however as of late they are pursuing a political slant and its more and more obvious to me. I now trust none of the main stream media (MSM) and will stick almost entirely with a spread of independent journalists/commentators on YouTube for my news and analysis while obviously applying my own common sense, morality and logic.

... and that's fine (I actually mean that rather than being sarcastic) however not all things end up on the internet and all truths / knowledge / information that is posted has already been edited by the 'world view' of who ever posts. Its the truth through their eyes.

 

[Flyingfifer]

... and that's fine (I actually mean that rather than being sarcastic) however not all things end up on the internet and all truths / knowledge / information that is posted has already been edited by the 'world view' of who ever posts. Its the truth through their eyes.

Totally agree

 

[Flyingfifer]

I too was an avid watcher and truster of C4 News, but over the past 4 years or so, they've done nothing except push the globalist agenda in all their reports. It's not news reporting now it's just shameless propaganda.

The killer for me was the comment made when covering the brexit protests
Jon Snow: "There are a lot of white men in this crowd."

U w0t m8

 

[Nictrix]

As kids we go through a similar process we learn from (trust) our parents;

And this is where it all starts to go wrong. Your parents tell you that santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny are real :lol:

 

[Vornwend]

I don't want to be lied to but I don't believe there is a conspiracy

I don't want to believe there is a conspiracy, but when things don't add up, and when they don't add up time after time and there seems to be a pattern or a logical extension, then I start thinking.
I'd love the world to be all rosy and sweet with companies that look after own best interests, but I'm not naïve.
So, it's a good question to ask why would a nurse falsely put down the cause of death? Why would a trained nurse be told to essentially commit fraud?
She's not the only one. There are too many instances of this.

Too many instances of misrecording perhaps but not anywhere near 85,000 and certainly not an explanation of excess deaths from all causes which does add up. I doubt whether you could list even a 100 cases of clear and deliberate misrecording (not asking you to btw). So its surely a huge stretch to take a handful of anecdotal cases and extrapolate that into what would need to be a conspiracy involving thousands upon thousands of individuals acting counter to their training, guidelines and morals.

As far as the ONS goes it's a publicly funded body, itself employing thousands of staff, it is accountable to but independent from Parliament. It is subject to significant internal and external scrutiny and governance and I'm quite happy to believe what it's reporting. I can't see what it's motive would be in reporting false or misleading numbers even if it thought it could get away with it.

Hey, what - Santa isn't real???

 

[Nanu]

Eventually I suspect you won't be able to get on a plane unless you have had the vaccine. If people don't want it then fine but life may not be as cushy without it

 

[Old-Duckman]

Eventually I suspect you won't be able to get on a plane unless you have had the vaccine. If people don't want it then fine but life may not be as cushy without it

I have no doubt that your prediction will come true.

That said, in answer to my question earlier in this thread, "If the vaccine doesn't prevent one from getting the virus nor stop one from spreading it, what's the point?"

The reply I got was (sorry I don't recall the member's screen name). Was it basically lessens the symptoms if you do contract the virus.

Sooooo, they are going to not allow me to fly (and God only knows what else will be restricted or forbidden) so that I don't get a more extreme case of the virus...!!!?? (Which has a 99%+ survival rate according to the CDC)

Do you all not yet see that this is more about control than it is about health?

There are none so blind than those who WILL not see.

 

[exdos]

I appreciate that it's a small sample there but going off it the 0.052 translates into a 99.948% survival rate from the vaccine (over all ages)
and depending on who's figures you use there is a 99.97% survival rate from the virus.

Since the roll out of the vaccines has prioritised the elderly and those in nursing homes, a survival rate of 99.948% amongst the vaccinated, considerably exceeds the survival rate from the virus in that cohort.

 

[exdos]

See: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327

An extract:
"The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under."

Also:
"It reported that 0.04% of 10-19 year olds would probably require hospital care—as would 1.0% of people in their 20s, 3.4% of people aged 30-39, 4.3% aged 40-49, 8.2% aged 50-59, 11.8% in their 60s, 16.6% in their 70s, and 18.4% of those over 80"

 

[exdos]

And this from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

[ProfCJJ]

My mum in Malta (in her 80’s) gets vaccinated today - being the ever dutiful son I sent her the following picture telling her: this chap had the vaccine a few weeks ago and now look what happened to him!!!

Even in her 80’s though my mother has figured out my sense of humour and completely ignored me!

 

[exdos]

Have you got the figures for 30-39 without medical conditions? All I can find is a daily mail article from the end of last year with 44 people aged between 20-39 since the start of 2020.

It's very flawed but I just want to work out my own chances with and without the virus statistically speaking. My gut says there is not alot in it and to trust my immune system.

I don't.

Your chances of dying appear very small, but your risk of infecting others, should you contract the virus, are exactly the same as for anyone else infected by the virus. Therefore, out of altruism, those in the age groups which have a low risk of death from C-19 should volunteer for vaccination to protect those in the highest risk groups, even if they don't personally come into contact with others in those groups. I would speculate that the risks from vaccination will be even lower than those from contracting the virus for all age groups.

 

[exdos]

We have pretty much given a year of our lives (the healthy under 60's who have a very low chance of severe illness or death) having locked us up for most of it

We have ALL pretty much given a year of our lives to C-19 not just you and the younger generations

 

[exdos]

That is very true but I would rather not lose the 3rd and 2nd year of a growing business and would willingly sacrifice 2 year's retirement where I have to look at a calendar to see what day of the week it is.

Retirement is the reward after a lifetime of work. Report back in 30 years' time

 

[Nanu]

Eventually I suspect you won't be able to get on a plane unless you have had the vaccine. If people don't want it then fine but life may not be as cushy without it

I have no doubt that your prediction will come true.

That said, in answer to my question earlier in this thread, "If the vaccine doesn't prevent one from getting the virus nor stop one from spreading it, what's the point?"

The reply I got was (sorry I don't recall the member's screen name). Was it basically lessens the symptoms if you do contract the virus.

Sooooo, they are going to not allow me to fly (and God only knows what else will be restricted or forbidden) so that I don't get a more extreme case of the virus...!!!?? (Which has a 99%+ survival rate according to the CDC)


Do you all not yet see that this is more about control than it is about health?

There are none so blind than those who WILL not see.

How is it about control? No one is forcing anyone to have the jab. Your life your decision. Every decision we make in life has consequences. Each person makes their decisions based on their situation. I would be happy if nobody has the jab, that would put me at the front of the queue, making me a very happy bunny.

 

[Nanu]

Having the jab is not all about survival rates. If we can reduce the numbers needing intensive care, we can get the hospitals back to doing what they should be doing, caring for others with Cancer and other serious diseases the outcome of which could be death.

 

[Z4C_er]

Your chances of dying appear very small, but your risk of infecting others, should you contract the virus, are exactly the same as for anyone else infected by the virus. Therefore, out of altruism, those in the age groups which have a low risk of death from C-19 should volunteer for vaccination to protect those in the highest risk groups, even if they don't personally come into contact with others in those groups. I would speculate that the risks from vaccination will be even lower than those from contracting the virus for all age groups.

So, my Mother-In-Law just had her second shot, as did my elderly neighbour. You know what's changed for them?
Nothing. They're still isolated, they're still at risk.
So I've got to ask, what is the point of being vaccinated if you're still being house bound? How is this supposed to be a success?
There are contributors on this thread who either know someone or have had it themselves.
I ask you. Sincerely.
What has changed in your life? What are the benefits?