Coronavirus - Here for life (In high population density areas)

I donā€™t believe I did there but I am happy to acknowledge that some vaccines have had unwanted side effects in small numbers,

But I donā€™t believe there has been a vaccine that has even had a small percentage of risk attached to it in comparison to the alternative.

But Iā€™d be happy to acknowledge that Iā€™m wrong on that if somebody has the figures

Itā€™s proof that lockdowns donā€™t work.

Cases are staying steady at around 1k per day. People are still dying. The issues is that the virus is serious to a certain section of society and these people have not been protected. Over 50% of deaths related to nursing homes.

1 Like

Itā€™s some stats mate

Without context and further detail itā€™s not proof of anything.

It is.

1k deaths after lockdown came in.

They do not work.

Looks like the only time mortality was lower than average was the two weeks the pubs were open

4 Likes

Iā€™ve already ladybirded this. We donā€™t know if they are deaths because of covid or with covid or if they contracted it while in hospital or elsewhere.

If on average 3,000 people die in Jan, and bearing the above in mind, throwing out 1,000 ā€˜covid linked deathsā€™ isnā€™t proof lockdowns work or donā€™t work - itā€™s not proof of anything.

If you canā€™t comprehend that, well thatā€™s your problem

Ladybird all you want.

Lockdowns donā€™t work and thatā€™s a fact and 1k deaths whatever way they are recorded or not are absolute proof of that.

Lads were too busy drinking to be dying

5 Likes

After all their bollixin it will turn out Guinness is the cure

Looks like we were above 4k deaths at end of January this year

That stat isnā€™t proof of anything, lockdowns efficacy or otherwise.

:pint:

Lockdowns dont work but at least they do a pile of collateral damage

1 Like

Lockdowns are implemented under the lie that they save lies.

Evidently they do not.

Like death?

Agreed

Does it support or contradict my narrative? I wonā€™t bother with it if itā€™s the latter, cheers mate

1 Like

I suppose so,
But most vaccines prevent things that can kill you, the chances of dying from the vaccine tend to be minuscule in comparison with taking your chances without it.
So my point is, why would you refuse a vaccine because there have been some side effects in tiny numbers with previous vaccines.

I hope Iā€™ve made that clear, itā€™s all about odds, if I have a choice between a 1000/1 chance and a 1/1000 I know what Iā€™d do

What if thereā€™s a 1 in 1,000 chance the vaccine will kill you?