FallingAwake

Respectfully, you don't sound like a "Leave voter". You sound like a typical voter. "What can I get in the short term, from the next batch of Tories / Labour / Lib Dems that I put into office?" Leaving the EU was not the same as voting in a General Election. We were voting on a major change of direction. As yet, we have barely scratched the surface of it, and we've also been in the middle of a pandemic and now a war, none of which were caused by us leaving. You have already judged Brexit based on those 2 years, which suggests to me you sound exactly like a short term typical voter. "Meh, I put the Tories in office and they were ***, now I'm going to vote for the LibLabs." That's basically what you're doing with Leave / Remain. The "Leave" party didn't deliver you the "election results" so you've switched to the "Remain" party. You weren't being asked to vote on a governing party though. "Leave" / "Remain" weren't "parties" despite what some people might have thought. This is a huge category error.

And you really think that would have stopped Putin invading Ukraine? 🤣

The same as yours, without the paranoia about bRxEShsIt and cLownWOrlD tRumPia etc.

No real difference. Putin gonna Putin.

Amazing. That's some bravery right there.

You're missing the point. Gene therapy is arguably fine when it's done by consent, i.e. the people receiving it agree to it. This is not about the rights or wrongs of gene therapy. We were told repeatedly that the mRNA vaccines were NOT "gene therapy" and anyone who said it was was "spreading misinformation" yada yada yada. Well, turns out the Pfizer one does alter genes. For those who didn't read the OP's post, here's the actual SCIENCE paper: Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line Current Issues In Molecular Biology, Volume 44, Issue 3 https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73 How many people who took the mRNA vaccines consented to this? If you don't get the distinction, then feel free to apply one of your insults back to yourself. TL;DR: We were told mRNA vaccines don't alter genes. Turns out, they do. In the human liver cell line.

Looks like Ireland and New Zealand have very similar vaccination rates, with New Zealand having more "partially vaccinated". But yes, Israel has a lower rate. So your post would receive a "Partly True" rating from the FactCheckers (tm).

To pre-empt the Bob8's of this world, who will come along and say the charts are all a lie and misinformation, based on some vague criteria, an interesting question to ask would be... What would these charts look like if the vaccine was a placebo? Certainly the "cases" chart make the vaccine look like a placebo, in that about 66% have had a booster (implying they've had their previous jabs too), and that about two-thirds of covid cases are in the jabbed. With the "deaths", people will argue that it's the elderly who are dying more, which is true... but the elderly are also the most jabbed and boosted, so they're more "protected", right? If 50% of deaths are in the triple-vaxxed, who represent 66% of the over 12 population (according to the gov dashboard), that's not really a great advertisement for the vaccines. Expect the UKHSA to follow their Scottish brethren soon, and stop publishing the stats. Their last report could just read, "Job Done. Mission Accomplished." Like George Bush on May 1, 2003.

It's the butterfly effect. Queen unexpectedly dies of covid. 70th jubilee celebrations cancelled. Economy takes a hit. Combined with inflation etc, this causes house prices to fall even harder. Disclaimer: I don't wish this on the Queen at all. I presume she'll get over her case of Omicron, and get to see the 70th jubilee celebrations.

In this country it would probably drive the nightclubs out of business

At the 33rd degree level of Freemasonry, you'll find there is.

All the while, the 70% figure was being pedalled even in October... and in December, Savid Javid said it was 90%... aka a lie, as your chart shows. That said, clearly if you're unvaccinated, you run a greater risk of landing in ICU than the unvaccinated. I accept that. You probably also run a greater risk if you're obese etc etc, but for some reason governments aren't interested in that. And they weren't threatening to bar the overweight from certain venues, or from getting covid treatment. That's why these things matter.

Literally nobody has made that argument. You are demolishing a straw man of your own invention. Everyone has a bias. That's the nature of being human. Some people just delude themselves into thinking they are bias-free. Speaking as an unvaccinated person, I have often acknowledged that the unvaxxed are proportionally more represented in ICU. What I have objected to is the constant lies and propaganda, i.e. that they make up 90% of those in ICU, when the stats have consistently shown this not to be the case. If you recall, it was 70% at one point in the year (April?), which they then stuck with for the remainder of the year, not releasing the figures showing the later part of the year was actually below 50%. In other words, the 70% was being stuck to, to sell the vaccines to the public. A lot of anti-vaxxers and vaccine hesitant people make statements that aren't necessarily justified. However, you seem to believe that there is no lying or propaganda from the other side, which is untrue. I have given you one example above, where for many months the media and politicians peddled the 70% figure of unvaxxed in ICU, when it was actually under 50%. That's "sophisticated lying" by your own definition. It's all the official propaganda that made me vaccine hesitant. The situation in the US is even more interesting, because it not only came with propaganda (i.e. Joe Biden saying it was completely safe, and that you couldn't catch covid if you were jabbed), but also with state coercion, i.e. lose your job if you're not vaccinated. That has not gone down too well with lots of people. I suspect trust in vaccines and authority will plummet in future years, due to their heavy-handed approach. At least here in the UK we seem to have kept our cool a bit more. I appreciate that, for the most part, our government encouraged people but didn't force it on us (unless you're a care worker or NHS staff).

I'm no fan of Trump, but equating Trump with neo-Nazism is bordering on ridiculous. If I recall, the most radical Trump got was... - Build a wall (which never even got built), designed to keep out ILLEGAL immigrants (clue is in the name "illegal"). - Make America Great Again. In contrast to our country (GREAT Britain) which has the arrogance to put the word "Great" in its name 🤣

Apparently they use modelling for vaccine effectiveness studies: The case rates, hospitalisation rates, the death rates are very simple statistics, whereas for the vaccine effectiveness studies we use modelling, we compare people who have tested negative to those who have tested positive and match them on their underlining co-morbidities. It’s a completely different method which is much more robust and that’s what we want people to focus on.” Can't see anything that could go wrong with modelling.

The pesky control group won't eliminate itself. Sheesh. How rude of them. Better to just scrub the stats. Anyway, how many fingers am I holding up this time, Winston?

Don't forget that China had the benefit of the Wuhan lab, and all their insights on coronavirus and human infection. The knowledge the Wuhan lab shared with the world has been invaluable. Oh wait, did they do that?

Canadian bankers showing who holds the real power? Bank Run? Canada's Top Banks Mysteriously Go Offline https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bank-run-canadas-top-banks-mysteriously-go-offline Days after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he would invoke emergency orders to crack down on demonstrators by freezing their bank accounts, five major Canadian banks went offline on Wednesday night, as customers reported their funds were unavailable, according to technology website Bleeping Computer.

Plus a crash helmet, and a pair of tights over the mask. Better safe than sorry.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's important to supply every 5-11 year old with a parachute they need to wear out of the house. I mean, they've been wearing masks for the last few years, so what's a parachute on their back, eh? The risk of death by falling from a great height may be miniscule for this age group, but if it can save just ONE young person's life, then all 5-11 year olds wearing a parachute is WORTH IT.

I vote "black swan" so when it happens, I'll look prescient.

They need parachutes, though. In case they ever fall out of anything. Just in case.

Wow, that's cheap for a tankful of petrol 🤡

This doesn't automatically "stand to reason" at all. As an example, let's keep the maths simple. 1,000,000 people catch covid. 90% of them are vaccinated. That's 900,000 vaccinated, 100,000 unvaccinated. Let's say there a 1% chance of an unvaxxed dying, and a 0.1% chance of an unvaxxed dying. In this example we have 100,000 x 0.01 = 1,000 unvaxxed deaths, and 900,000 x 0.001 = 900 vaxxed deaths. In this simple example the vaccine increases the odds of surviving tenfold, and so even with the vaxxed outnumbering the unvaxxed, they still have fewer deaths. So no, it doesn't automatically stand to reason that a higher proportion of covid deaths would be in the vaccinated, even if they massively outnumber the unvaccinated. What matters is vaccine efficiency, and we're probably a long way off from the 90%+ claimed by Pfizer & co (for the Alpha variant). Besides, it's the boosters that matter now... and only about two-thirds of those eligible have taken it up. I'm not saying this shows the vaccines are a "failure" either. I'm just saying that the "stands to reason" is a UKHSA talking point, but it needs to be looked at with a bit more care.

The NHS and government also give advice on how much fruit and veg to eat, how many units of alcohol to consume, etc etc. They don't deny treatment if you don't follow their advice.