[armchairdweller]

The UK ONS data used to have the obvious flaw that people dropping dead 3 days after their first dose were defined as „unvaccinated“. In this regard, the significant uptick in deaths in summer 2021 in „unvaccinated“ looked interesting to say the least.

How are they doing their definitions now? Could not find it.

Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot:

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2022/sterfte-e...

https://opendata.ecdc.europa.eu/covid19/

By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product. Meanwhile governments all over the world continue to be reluctant to issue data on e.g. „long covid“ or immune system problems in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, although this data would settle the debate once and for all if its outcome is in favor of getting the shots.

„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point.

[pw201]

The ONS data linked the comment you're replying to is clear that it counts "vaccinated" from the day of vaccination. What ONS data are you referring to which "used to have the obvious flaw that people dropping dead 3 days after their first dose were defined as unvaccinated"?

> By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product.

Where?

[armchairdweller]

> Where?

Given previous experience with people who years into this still want to be served everything on a silver plate, entering any discussion with you will be futile. You responded solely for the dompamin your brain gives you when you trample onto people that an "authority" presented you as outsiders to your tribe. No factual argument will convince you.

Even with all the easily verifiable information in this thread alone you did not make the effort to check for yourself, and are so convinced of your position that you aren't even embarrassed about demonstrating your ignorance.

It is incredibly easy to find by now. In mid 2021 you had to search, think about and analyze the excess mortality stats yourself to see the obvious signal, now it's being discussed widely. But you will never start this journey on your own out of fear your will be expelled from your perceived tribe.

[pw201]

This technique is called "SHOUT HERE, ARGUMENT WEAK".

> easily verifiable information in this thread

As others have pointed out, none of the information you've posted in this thread supports the conclusion you think it does. You questioned whether the ONS mortality data linked to by kadkadels had a problem you say ONS data used to have. It did not, as it was easy to see by clicking through the link. You haven't been able to produce any ONS data which ever had this problem, which is strange.

You then linked to some Dutch data which, when translated, concludes that "Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction."

You did not check either of these links yourself, so it's a bit rich to criticise others for failing to do so.

[kadkadels]

Rule number 1: don't argue with conspiracy theorists, they will come up with all sorts of nonsense.

>„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point.

Have they? Show me some of those manipulated fact checkers, please. With reputable sources, I'm not inclined to read bullshit.

>By now there is a hell lot of data pointing at issues with the novel pharmaceutical product.

Not really, no. Or show us some data.

>Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot:

conveniently only available in dutch, but online translators to the rescue:

>https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2022/sterfte-e...

where the first paragraph in 6.4 translates as follows:

>The analyses show a lower or comparable likelihood of dying from causes other than COVID-19 in the first weeks after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to the vaccination status before receiving the respective dose. This holds true for all age groups and also for long-term care users. Based on these results, there is no population-level evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse reaction.

Oops. Well, you tried.

[armchairdweller]

You seem to be really emotional about this. Need to say, the psychogram of those who defend pharma relentlessly to this day is very interesting. I see anger, insults, trampling onto what an obviously fascist authority teached them at the end of 2021 is „below them“ to elevate oneself. Ignorance of obvious data, sidelining.

By now I have seen enough actual data - and on top of that a lot of sad „anecdata“ in my direct surroundings - to pay attention at least. Given its prevalence I am sure you have seen the anecdata as well. Have you called someone who claimed to have a vax damage or who told you a relative died from the vax a „conspiracy theorist“ yet?

One good alternative point to start your journey in 2024 could be the US civilian labor force disability data. And no, I won’t waste time to search for that for you, given that you began your „response“ by attaching a label because it soothes you mentally. It has all been out there for long time and has been linked countless times.

The little section you got from google translating is a government-approved interpretation of this data. I have seen several others. You can download the data and fact-check for yourself.

[lazyasciiart]

> Have you called someone who claimed to have a vax damage or who told you a relative died from the vax a „conspiracy theorist“ yet?

Not to her face, no. Not in those words, at least. But that’s because it would upset my mother to have to deal with her idiot conspiracy theorist sister complaining about me being rude, so I am scrupulously polite while dismissing all her crap and she is increasingly sensible about not mentioning it around me. Just as well I started this effort before covid happened or it might not have been enough.

[kadkadels]

>You seem to be really emotional about this.

I'm not, don't worry :)

>Need to say, the psychogram of those who defend pharma relentlessly to this day is very interesting. I see anger, insults

The only one who is hurling insults and seems quite angry is you.

>fascist authority

ah yes, just call regulatory agencies "fascist", that makes total sense.

>attaching a label because it soothes you mentally

once again an insult instead of data

>The little section you got from google translating is a government-approved interpretation of this data

No it's not. It's what scientists say. Are they fascists too now?

[armchairdweller]

> ah yes, just call regulatory agencies "fascist", that makes total sense

People were fired for not taking a novel pharmaceutical product, warp-speeded by Donald Trump and sold as a cure-all. They lost their livelihood over exercising a fundamental human right.

In places like Canada they could not use public transport or leave the country. In some countries they could not enter supermarkets. Austria decided to fine them steeply and monthly. In the US 60% of one political side agreed with throwing them into camps and discussed it openly.

Across all media and in society they were labeled and treated as pariahs.

Meanwhile they observed obvious carnage in their friends and family and could only watch.

What did you do at the end of 2021 while all of this happened?

[mike_hearn]

The Dutch data has the same problem as the ONS data that I describe in my other comment:

> For the first mRNA vaccination, almost all [hazard ratios], for the different weeks after vaccination and different subgroups, are significantly lower than 1, which indicates a reduced risk of non-COVID-19 death shortly after vaccination.

Obviously vaccination is not supposed to reduce your risk from things unrelated to COVID-19 yet in their data it does. This isn't because it's some magical cure-all. It's because their data is biased. The correct hazard ratio is found only in the 12-49 age group.

As they say in their discussion, this is because "in the event of a very short remaining life expectancy, (a subsequent dose of) COVID-19 vaccination may be decided against ... Vaccination is also postponed in the event of a fever ... This is also called the 'healthy vaccine effect' and it is difficult to correct for this in observational research ... the results should be interpreted with caution"

They also have the problem that "people who have been vaccinated, but have not given permission for registration in CIMS, have been incorrectly classified as unvaccinated (5 to 7 percent of the people)" which means that "This will have influenced the analysis of the risk of death after the first vaccination, because in this analysis the unvaccinated person time served as a reference"

So this dataset is not usable for detecting vaccine side effects or induced deaths. It is a hopelessly corrupted dataset in which large numbers of people are misclassified and it's not a randomized study.

But this is public health research, so after saying results should be interpreted with caution they go ahead and make the totally incautious claim that "Based on these results there are no indications at a population level that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse event." which is a false statement. Their data doesn't allow them to draw such conclusions.

The reason this topic is neuralgic is because if you want to be scientifically correct then you can't actually know whether vaccines reduced deaths or not, but people really want to believe they did. The trials that were supposed to unambiguously measure this failed, in the sense that they showed no effect on deaths and yielded incorrect conclusions about reductions in infection rates (the number started at 95% effective and then was regularly revised, this is not supposed to happen and was due to their time windowing problems). Then attempts to measure it using mass datasets collected outside of RT context all yield incorrect conclusions due to dataset bias, but are presented as definitive anyway for political reasons.

Science is truly in a bad shape :(

[armchairdweller]

Thank you for this summary. I have seen some analyses (including from the „pro vax“ side, even though it is to be despised for their fascist behavior alone) that made the Dutch data appear more useful for these questions. But tbh, what did I expect - last time I checked the Dutch government still voted against doing an honest investigation into the ongoing excess deaths too.

Is there any official data of this kind you would trust right now?

To be fair, I have seen enough by now; the main open question for me is what role endemic covid in all those believing the cure-all narrative and going out partying before milder variants came out played.