-
[QUOTE=sy2502;1648989173]Meanwhile Scotland reports a mysterious jump in the number of heart attacks specifically due to blood clots (+25%) this summer. Mmmm... what happened this year in Britain that has something to do with blood clots...[/QUOTE]
What happened in Scotland was severe pressure on the healthcare system leading to people not seeing their doctors and neglecting conditions in early stages, late diagnosis, avoidable conditions getting severe, hospital bed pressure and even an ambulance shortage so bad by September they had to send army ambulance crews to cover civilian population (which was actually stupid because the shortage was caused by existing ambulances queuing for many hours outside hospitals which couldn't receive patients due to hospital pressure, so additional ambulances is not treating the cause, you just get to die in a green ambulance outside hospital not in a white and red one)
Covid vaccination being the cause is perhaps the least likely explanation for the problems and arguably the exact opposite of what was happening
-
[quote]May also be able to tell if the prevalence is higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals, although their numbers are pretty small.[/quote]
Here's what the Times article said:
[quote]
Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland. During the summer there was a 25 per cent rise in the number of people rushed to the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank with partially blocked arteries cutting blood supply to the heart. Typically the centre, which is the largest of its kind in the UK and treats people from five health board areas, receives 240 patients a month suffering with this form of heart attack, but this rose to more than 300 over May, June and July of this year. [b]Doctors have searched for a pattern among patients to determine if less access to health checks in the pandemic or a history of Covid-19 infection may explain it but have found no obvious trend.[/b] Mitchell Lindsay, lead consultant cardiologist at the Golden Jubilee, said: “There is not any evidence that it is as a consequence of any delayed care or missed opportunity. It is likely to be due to a multitude of factors: people being sedentary with lockdown; stress; people ignoring symptoms because they do not want to present at hospital. There are probably five to ten causes, all linked.” Heart attacks are classified by a measurement that shows how much damage has been inflicted on the organ. [b]The number of so-called STEMI attacks, where there is extensive heart damage, recorded at the Golden Jubilee has remained stable for a decade at about 750 a year. Yet N-STEMI attacks, where there is less tissue damage but an equal risk of death, have increased over the summer.[/b] Emergency departments around Scotland have reported a surge in seriously ill patients who require a hospital bed this summer. Shortages of hospital capacity have led to long delays in A&E as well as ambulances queueing at hospital doors. The Golden Jubilee receives patients who have suffered heart attacks from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Dumfries and Galloway, Ayrshire and Arran, Forth Valley and the Highlands. It has increased the number of cardiology beds from 29 to 42, a 44 per cent rise, to help frontline hospitals across the region cope with the growth in demand. Typically heart attack victims who undergo investigations and treatment at the Golden Jubilee are sent back to emergency hospitals nearer their homes as they recover, but the centre is now keeping people on its wards until they are ready to go home, to relieve pressure elsewhere. Lindsay’s department carries out more angioplasty procedures, where a stent is placed inside a blood vessel to open it up and maintain blood flow to the heart, than any other hospital in the UK. It is the first cardiology centre in Scotland to deploy new technology that uses infrared lasers and artificial intelligence to measure how much of an artery is diseased and determine the size of stent required. This approach, provided by the healthcare company Abbott, is said to ensure that stents are more accurately fitted, improving patients’ health in the long term.
[/quote]
[quote]If it were the vaccines, not filling prescriptions, or the just people exercising again, you'd think it would be happening in more places than just western Scotland, so we'll have to wait and see what they find there and more globally. It wouldn't surprise me if they found a correlation with the AZ vaccine having been given within a couple of weeks of some of the MI's, but neither would a lot of other potential contributors.[/quote]
All valid points, I'd like to know too. But one thing I know for a fact is that I can't trust any US data, they have been caught giving wrong numbers too many times for me to take them seriously. The UK has been a bit better in that respect.
-
[QUOTE=OldFartTom;1648996503]Covid vaccination being the cause is perhaps the least likely explanation for the problems and arguably the exact opposite of what was happening[/QUOTE]
Such a strong assumption with no data to back it up. This is compelling and believable.
-
[QUOTE=sy2502;1648999283]Here's what the Times article said:
All valid points, I'd like to know too. But one thing I know for a fact is that I can't trust any US data, they have been caught giving wrong numbers too many times for me to take them seriously. The UK has been a bit better in that respect.[/QUOTE]That's why people need to do their own research on both sides of the data and form an educated perspective and act accordingly based on their findings. Unfortunately too many time they just go along with what their political party of choice tells them
-
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649004653]That's why people need to do their own research on both sides of the data and form an educated perspective and act accordingly based on their findings. Unfortunately too many time they just go along with what their political party of choice tells them[/QUOTE]
As a layperson, I don't have the capacity to evaluate a dataset that hasn't been used in peer reviewed research as credible. Nor do I have the capacity to draw meaningful conclusions from that dataset.
I'm never going to be able to "do my own online research;" I will always instead be relying on the expertise of others. A substantial portion of good critical thinking skills is understanding, evaluating, and selecting correct authorities on whom I can rely for my knowledge about the world.
Encouraging a skill to be selective and skilled in knowing who and what to trust when is always going to be more fruitful than "doing your own research."
-
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1649005843]As a layperson, I don't have the capacity to evaluate a dataset that hasn't been used in peer reviewed research as credible. Nor do I have the capacity to draw meaningful conclusions from that dataset.
I'm never going to be able to "do my own online research;" I will always instead be relying on the expertise of others. A substantial portion of good critical thinking skills is understanding, evaluating, and selecting correct authorities on whom I can rely for my knowledge about the world.
Encouraging a skill to be selective and skilled in knowing who and what to trust when is always going to be more fruitful than "doing your own research."[/QUOTE]so who are these others you speak of any d why do you trust them?
-
[url]https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/15/its-worse-than-we-thought-fully-covid-vaccinated-ade/[/url]
Latest UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid -19 cases show that doubly vaccinated 40-79 year olds have lost 44% of their immune system capability. Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week between 3.8% and 9.1%.
If this continues then 30-59 year olds will have zero Covid/viral defence (and perhaps a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) by Christmas and all double vaccinated people over 30 will have completely lost the part of their immune system that tackles Covid-19 by January next year.
“If this continues then 30-59 year olds will have zero Covid/viral defence (and perhaps a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome)”
MudBloods on Suicide Watch
-
[QUOTE=_zman;1649003393]Such a strong assumption with no data to back it up. This is compelling and believable.[/QUOTE]
Remember what happened here in the usa and the prevalence of telehealth for most of 2020 and part of 2021?
Why dont you think this is possible?
"not seeing their doctors and neglecting conditions in early stages, late diagnosis, avoidable conditions getting severe"
-
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649006953]so who are these others you speak of any d why do you trust them?[/QUOTE]
Laypeople just don’t have the tools to process data and draw meaningful conclusions. Some of the most adamantly incorrect people out there have gone out and found data that they weren't equipped to analyze and used it to support whatever conclusion they wanted it to support, which muddies the water for other laypeople who are trying to figure out whose conclusions are supported by data.
Another thing to take into consideration is the ongoing bias that users have when searching for things online. I’m not talking about their own bias I’m talking about the bias they are seeing generated by the search engine due to their ongoing search habits and algorithms that are used to “give the customer what they want.”
It’s highly likely that a researcher will get far different recommendations returned to a query than a layperson. It’s also highly likely that someone who researches virology texts on the regular will see useful information about them on the top of their Google search results. I probably wouldn’t. It’s not to say that these results are not out there and that they should not be followed up on, it’s just that they may be much harder to find if you’re not in the field.
So no, I’m not suggesting who you should or should not trust. My point is someone’s skills in evaluating information online are much better served by looking at the information supplied by the expert--signals of professional expertise, an ability to understand how he has reasoned to his conclusions--and thereby understand the conclusion he reaches as credible. This is a much shorter circuit than independently locating, evaluating, and reasoning from the data and premises that said expert uses to get to his conclusion. I'm not "doing my own research;" I'm relying on the expertise of others.
-
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1649012143]Laypeople just don’t have the tools to process data and draw meaningful conclusions. Some of the most adamantly incorrect people out there have gone out and found data that they weren't equipped to analyze and used it to support whatever conclusion they wanted it to support, which muddies the water for other laypeople who are trying to figure out whose conclusions are supported by data.
Another thing to take into consideration is the ongoing bias that users have when searching for things online. I’m not talking about their own bias I’m talking about the bias they are seeing generated by the search engine due to their ongoing search habits and algorithms that are used to “give the customer what they want.”
It’s highly likely that a researcher will get far different recommendations returned to a query than a layperson. It’s also highly likely that someone who researches virology texts on the regular will see useful information about them on the top of their Google search results. I probably wouldn’t. It’s not to say that these results are not out there and that they should not be followed up on, it’s just that they may be much harder to find if you’re not in the field.
So no, I’m not suggesting who you should or should not trust. My point is someone’s skills in evaluating information online are much better served by looking at the information supplied by the expert--signals of professional expertise, an ability to understand how he has reasoned to his conclusions--and thereby understand the conclusion he reaches as credible. This is a much shorter circuit than independently locating, evaluating, and reasoning from the data and premises that said expert uses to get to his conclusion. I'm not "doing my own research;" I'm relying on the expertise of others.[/QUOTE]people generally rely on those that have similar views as their own to substantiate their perspectives.
-
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1649012143]Laypeople just don’t have the tools to process data and draw meaningful conclusions. Some of the most adamantly incorrect people out there have gone out and found data that they weren't equipped to analyze and used it to support whatever conclusion they wanted it to support, which muddies the water for other laypeople who are trying to figure out whose conclusions are supported by data.
.....
So no, I’m not suggesting who you should or should not trust. My point is someone’s skills in evaluating information online are much better served by looking at the information supplied by the expert--signals of professional expertise, an ability to understand how he has reasoned to his conclusions--and thereby understand the conclusion he reaches as credible. This is a much shorter circuit than independently locating, evaluating, and reasoning from the data and premises that said expert uses to get to his conclusion. I'm not "doing my own research;" I'm relying on the expertise of others.[/QUOTE]
I somewhat agree with this. Most people don't have the tools to crunch the numbers, but I don't agree with trusting someone's conclusions. I know that you don't either. It's true I get articles with a lot of data when I run a search, but what I'm doing is reading the articles the same way I reviewed articles for colleagues who want to submit something, or how I review TFLs on a clinical trial we run. I'm not re-running all the calculations or programming my own statistical analysis. We have a stats group for that. I'm just looking at whether the stats in the article supports the conclusions and discussions I'm seeing. I'm looking for influences or confounders they missed or gave too much weight. I usually trust the authors are doing their best, but I also know they have their own biases and I'm going to be skeptical.
I don't agree with those of you saying that the US isn't releasing actual numbers or that the data sets are doctored. I'm in the industry and I know how incredibly difficult it would be to do that. The data sets aren't bad, the issue is different sources torture the numbers to try and make is sound like they support whatever the presenter wants them to support.
I think trusting the numbers is usually OK. Trusting the interpretation often isn't.
Bottom line: Choose good sources. Trust the numbers to a degree. Doubt the interpretation until you really think about them.
-
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649004653]That's why people need to do their own research on both sides of the data and form an educated perspective and act accordingly based on their findings. Unfortunately too many time they just go along with what their political party of choice tells them[/QUOTE]
Agree, unfortunately a small subset of the information is used and made into a political football, watching the quick news can often be misleading.
True this has always been a problem to some extent, but since Covid it's got a million times worse than ever before.
You almost have to be ultra cynical and self researching to know what the hell is going on... And that attitude has lead a lot of people down all sorts of crazy rabbit holes, but can you blame them for taking a wrong turn, with such politicised news in almost every country?
-
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1649012143]Laypeople just don’t have the tools to process data and draw meaningful conclusions. Some of the most adamantly incorrect people out there have gone out and found data that they weren't equipped to analyze and used it to support whatever conclusion they wanted it to support, which muddies the water for other laypeople who are trying to figure out whose conclusions are supported by data.
Another thing to take into consideration is the ongoing bias that users have when searching for things online. I’m not talking about their own bias I’m talking about the bias they are seeing generated by the search engine due to their ongoing search habits and algorithms that are used to “give the customer what they want.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649016433]people generally rely on those that have similar views as their own to substantiate their perspectives.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more. Vaccinated? Here, let me show you what the experts with professional sounding titles said about why you SHOULD BE vaccinated. It's true because look at the charts! Unvaccinated? Here, let me show you what the experts with professional sounding titles said about why you SHOULD NOT be vaccinated. It's true because look at the charts!
You can absolutely find information to support your own bias, no matter how ridiculous the information is to some people. Geezus, just reading some of the links in this thread would make one think that half of the people in the world are doomed.
-
[img]https://i.imgur.com/PZePSPp.jpg[/img]
-
Vaccines Mandates for cities, police, etc., but tens of thousands of illegals allowed to cross the border with no testing much less vaccinations or requirements.
This is an elephant in the room that is known but ignored, yet we are all at each other's throats - vaccinated vs unvaccinated :rolleyes:
That's leadership.
-
[QUOTE=Mark1T;1649033573]Vaccines Mandates for cities, police, etc., but [b]tens of thousands of illegals allowed to cross the border with no testing much less vaccinations or requirements.[/b]
This is an elephant in the room that is known but ignored, yet we are all at each other's throats - vaccinated vs unvaccinated :rolleyes:
That's leadership.[/QUOTE]
You are spot on Mark, no one cares to address it. I have seen Tater bring it up numerous times and no one seemed to respond much either..
If it were me i'd be sitting on what was left of Trumps wall with a covid dart gun and shooting anything in range.
-
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1649042543]You are spot on Mark, no one cares to address it. I have seen Tater bring it up numerous times and no one seemed to respond much either..
If it were me i'd be sitting on what was left of Trumps wall with a covid dart gun and shooting anything in range.[/QUOTE]Whenever someone hassles me about my hesitancy to take the vax I point out the illegals not even being tested let alone vaxed and it shuts don the convo quickly.
-
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1649028323][img]https://i.imgur.com/PZePSPp.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]All the Brians better look the F out
-
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1649042543]You are spot on Mark, no one cares to address it. I have seen Tater bring it up numerous times and no one seemed to respond much either..
If it were me i'd be sitting on what was left of Trumps wall with a covid dart gun and shooting anything in range.[/QUOTE]
No one talks about it but my theory is they’re jabbed the moment they get off the plane in other countries before being processed and brought here.
This is being done probably to keep the noise down regarding forcibly vaccinating (or unknowingly).
I’m almost positive they’re getting jabbed and tested for several other dieseases as required by several departments
-
[QUOTE=TryingBB;1649044793]No one talks about it but my theory is they’re jabbed the moment they get off the plane in other countries before being processed and brought here.
This is being done probably to keep the noise down regarding forcibly vaccinating (or unknowingly).
I’m almost positive they’re getting jabbed and tested for several other dieseases as required by several departments[/QUOTE]I have some swampland in Florida to sell you
-
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649044273]Whenever someone hassles me about my hesitancy to take the vax I point out the illegals not even being tested let alone vaxed and it shuts don the convo quickly.[/QUOTE]
Yep,
The United States is set to reopen its borders to fully vaccinated travellers by air, land or passenger ferry starting Nov. 8. (the Canadian land border has been closed since March 2020)
Air travellers will need to show proof of vaccination on arrival in the U.S. but will still need to show a pre-departure negative COVID-19 test taken within three days of boarding their flight.
And how long have these immigrants been crossing the southern border?
-
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649045363]I have some swampland in Florida to sell you[/QUOTE]
lolz my bad actually. I missed the illegal part cuz of “allowing”. I had people from war torn countries in my mind cuz yeah they’re being “allowed” in.
Others are crossing illegally and crossing in not exactly a walk in the park from what I understand. I do think that they are doing a lot - maybe not enough - to control it but it can never be stopped.
It can be deterred but not stopped (like having locks on a house or car but they still break in and Steal chit)
-
[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1649044273]Whenever someone hassles me about my hesitancy to take the vax I point out the illegals not even being tested let alone vaxed and it shuts don the convo quickly.[/QUOTE]
If you are a federal agent, the President can tell you you need to get vaccinated for the job.
If you are a legal migrant to the USA, the US government can impose vaccine mandates for entry.
If you are a migrant seeking asylum or refugee status, the US government has no right to vaccinate you against your will unless they agree you may stay in the USA.
If you are a migrant who has entered illegally, the US government has no right to vaccinate you, but you should be deported.
-
[QUOTE=TryingBB;1649044793]No one talks about it but my theory is they’re jabbed the moment they get off the plane in other countries before being processed and brought here.
This is being done probably to keep the noise down regarding forcibly vaccinating (or unknowingly).
I’m almost positive they’re getting jabbed and tested for several other dieseases as required by several departments[/QUOTE]
Sorry brother wasn't ignoring ya, I honestly didn't see your post...
Looks like you have it all sorted out now.. We were talking about the ones Sleepy Joe said were being whipped. How come we don't hear about the whippings anymore? That fizzled out quick.
-
[img]https://i.imgur.com/cWjyiMu.jpg[/img]
-
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1649047343]
If you are a migrant who has entered illegally, the US government has no right to vaccinate you, but you should be deported.[/QUOTE] Should be but instead are given a place to stay and other perks not even offered to our own citizens
-
Biden must be proud of himself seeing all these prominent RP posters getting vaccinated finally.
Forcing someone to take a pill or shot or eat something or get sonething up the rear is just wrong. Most people here ready got covid and recovered, and vaccinated people are still spreading it.
But the pharmaceutical companies want to sell to the other half of the population, so they tell Biden to make that happen.
IMO the vaccine is harmless, but this is a matter of principle.
-
[QUOTE=Darkius;1649051273]prominent RP posters [/quote]
???
[QUOTE=Darkius;1649051273]Forcing someone to take a pill or shot or eat something or get sonething up the rear is just wrong. .[/QUOTE]
Agree, especially the up the rear part
[QUOTE=Darkius;1649051273]Most people here ready got covid and recovered, [/quote]
Less than 50 million cases in the US which has a population of 335 million.. That's not most
[img]https://i.imgur.com/BUlEywB.png?1[/img]
[QUOTE=Darkius;1649051273]vaccinated people are still spreading it.[/quote]
I think more is spread by the unvaxxed
[QUOTE=Darkius;1649051273] But the pharmaceutical companies want to sell to the other half of the population, so they tell Biden to make that happen.[/quote]
maybe or maybe not
-
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1649052413]Less than 50 million cases in the US which has a population of 335 million.. That's not most[/QUOTE]
50M NAT positives, perhaps. I don't think a large survey has been done for seropositivity. Maybe I'm wrong.
-
[QUOTE=TolerantLactose;1649052953]50M NAT positives, perhaps. I don't think a large survey has been done for seropositivity. Maybe I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
Covid got everyone in my friend's extended family. Spread to all of them in a matter of days. Different households who have dinner some time. Only his father got tested, when he went to the hospital and died from it. The rest of them, about 8 people, did not get tested. They are afraid life insurance companies will discriminate against anyone who tested positive. So he keeps that somewhat private. He still went to work each day and told every cashier who served him at stores that he had covid. Just no official record.
Official estimates are that for every positive test, there is another positive not tested. I think it is more like 5:1.
Antibody tests found that 85% of people, including the vaccinated and unvaccinated, have antibodies.
