Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Quicken

  1. 8 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

    The ONS data your article refers to shows that anyone who has received an injection accounts for:

    69.6% of non-C19 deaths

    60.8% of non-C19 deaths and deaths involving C19

    24.01% of deaths involving C19

    The 458 figure you quote as dying at least 21 days after second dose involving C19 is the smaller proportion of another 99.2% (57,263) who died at least 21 days after 2nd dose as non-Covid.



    In other words mostly the injected are dying.

    Did you not notice how they vaccinated the old and clinically vulnerable people first? 

  2. 3 hours ago, FallingAwake said:


    How do they factor in vaccination rates?

    Case in point: according to the government dashboard, on February 1st only 17.7% of people 16 and over had had Jab 1, and just 0.9% were on Jab 2. By March 1st that had risen to 37.7% and 1.6%. By April 1st these figures were 57.6% and 9.1%. By May 1st, these were 63.5% and 28.2%. (Source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations )

    Almost by definition, then, the vast majority of people who would die in February were unvaccinated. Only 0.9% were even "fully vaccinated", if by this you mean x2 jabs.

    The same would be true of March and April, during which no more than 28.2% (by May 1st) were "fully vaccinated".

    In other words, unless you can explain otherwise, the deaths are naturally going to be heavily skewed, because the majority of people weren't "fully vaccinated" until 4th June, when the number of people (aged 16 or over) receiving a 2nd dose hit 50%. Conveniently, the report you cite goes up to July ;)

    In short: dubious use of statistics, when the majority of people, by definition, weren't "fully vaccinated" anyway during the reporting period.

    I'll accept that, if the stats were properly weighted, it would show an advantage (in terms of death) to being fully vaccinated, but I don't think the figures are quite saying what you think they're saying.

    In fact, this should be a case study in how statistics can be used to make a misleading argument.

    Now we should look at the stats from July onwards, when the majority of people were actually "fully vaccinated", and see if they say the same thing..... :D

    See the age standardised mortality rates graph. Of course they need to update with more recent data, but the ONS is always laggy.

  3. 18 hours ago, Si1 said:



    "we are left with the kind of blatant triangulation that results in the Government simultaneously protecting the wealthy while also bloating the welfare state.

    It does make you wonder though: if the Tories aren’t going to make the tough choices and argue for a bit of fiscal discipline, who will? And are they really right to be so sure that the older generations care so little about their children and grandchildren? "

    Apparently so: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/10/pensioners-governments-tax-triple-lock-pensions-rise-national-insurance

  4. I like your thinking wighty. Tasty target there. What I find really laughable is that the public watched the pandemic spending and nhs covid takeover, and yet didn't see big tax rises coming down the track as night follows day. Big drop in tory polling this week, plus special bleating like this in the grauniad:


    I think this is just the first hammer blow. You aint seen nothing yet.

    A lot of countries are in the same boat of course. What will widespread tax rises do to the global economy? Interesting times.

  5. 3 hours ago, Dorkins said:

    Now that they have this "new" tax which is definitely not rebranded NI my guess is they will keep cranking that one up.

    Quite possibly. It reminds me strongly of the german solidarity surcharge nominally introduced to pay for reunification but still around. That is an extra 5.5% of the existing rate paid on income, capital gains and corporate tax (dividends are taxed like cap gains using the 25% flat tax). So e.g. 25% flat tax becomes 25*1.055 or 26.375%

    Plenty of room for this to grow into something very similar.




  6. 7 hours ago, Insane said:

    I would disagree with that strongly. 

    Women have all options open to them when it comes to children and are told to choose for themselves what and when they want. 

    There is far more in the media re must have a career first than have a baby. 

    But while we are on the subject many women have left it to late becoming filled with regret and disappointment. The other one I have come across a few times is have an abortion don't let a baby get in the way of your life there are many women about who never get over abortions especially late term ones ,but that never really gets spoken about does it. 

    Nonsense. Have you ever been to a wedding? There is still a strong social expectation that women will want children and an accompanying stigma about those women who choose not to.

  7. On 06/09/2021 at 00:08, Insane said:

    I am all for Equal Rights but I do think society is suffering right now the way families have to have both parents working full time. But the Con to Women you must have a career or you are unfulfilled is still widely peddled.  


    The con that you must have babies or you are unfulfilled is peddled much, much more widely.

  8. 15 hours ago, scottbeard said:

    The reason for that is the original idea is it's a contribution to a compulsory pensions and insurance scheme.

    Rich people don't get more State pension or more unemployment benefit - so why should they pay a higher contribution to the scheme?

    Rich people already pay proportionately more income tax overall. 

    Many rich people pay neither income tax nor national insurance. Poorer PAYE people generally lack the same options.

  9. 1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

    Well, that lot weren't there on the Sars-Cov-3 conspiracy theory. Novices.


    lane 1, positive control of pET-MS2-3V plasmid using the primers S-SARS1 and HA300RT-A; lane 2, RT-PCR of SARS-CoV1 plus SARS-CoV2 plus SARS-CoV3 plus HCV+HA300 using the primers S-SARS1 and HA300RT-A2

    (quote can be found under fig 3.)

    They're clearly just using a poorly considered within-paper numbering system. The relevant genbank accession (accession no. AY864806) is here: 


    And here's the 2006 paper it is from (where it is called BJ202)


    Weak. Very weak


  10. 42 minutes ago, nightowl said:

    Labour have come out against such covid passports (well they will depending on the contents of the bill presented..so as decisive as ever). Lib Dems won't vote for them out of principle and some backbenchers may not vote for it with 40 already saying they wont.

    Risk a vote in the HofC, or risk an embarrassing U turn?

    I expect it'll be a u-turn unless they can find 'a third way'. Maybe mask wearing in clubs, lol.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.