RE: Use This Oxford Uni Tool To Show Your Risk of Death From COVID19: Mine Is 0.0024%!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I commend your effort in trying to be objective when assesing the real risks of COV ID-19. Overall this disease is not as deadly as some sectors of the media portay it to be (it's not the Spanish Flu...for example). However, I wish that you applied the same criteria when speaking out against vaccination.
For instance you say the following:
Having watched countless harrowing videos of people paralysed and dying FROM THE VACCINE and NOT from COVID19 - I implore all to consider the real risk of harm they are playing with from both sides here.
What I get from comments like these (citing anectdotal information) is that you think that there is more risk with vaccinating against COVID than not taking the shot.
I am not convinced from your arguments.
IF we go by the official numbers worldwide the overall chance of dying from covid is about 2% (4.3 million deaths versus 200+ million confirmed cases). The actual death rate should be less than that (although it is difficult to confirm the actual rate).
On the other hand there have been 4.4 billion doses of different vaccines administered worldwide. If the vaccines were to have a higher risk than the disease itself we would be looking at possibly tens of millions of related deaths. But that is not happening.
I have to say that my opinion is colored by my own experience. One close relative died from covid and my mother (who is more than 70 years old) has suffered from the side effects of the disease for months. On top of that my wife died from cancer about 10 years ago and she neglected to take here medicine (whithout my knowledge) in favor of taking "natural" medicine and relied on prayer (that did not work). So you can see why I mistrust what I percieve to be anti-science retoric.
Side note: I used the Oxford tool too and my numbers came out to be 1 in 6173 chance of dying from covid and 1 in 785 of hospitalization. Much higher than your results. My risk is probably higher because I suspect that I have an underlying condition but I haven't confirmed it so I did not select the option.
Greetings!
Thankyou.
If I try to cite the only data available on the VAERS reporting system in the US, for example, then pro vaccine advocates will tell me that I can't rely on the number of deaths connected to the vaccines in there because VAERS isn't accurate. So for the most part I am left with only: 1. Manufacturer data. 2. Media/Gov claims 3. Evidence from real people and associated medical people.
Given that the manufacturers of the majority of the vaccines are among the top 10 world recipients of giant corporate fines (many billions), specifically for lying about their inventions to the public and basically harming lots of people in the process, I'm sure you can forgive me for not accepting evidence category number 1 in any way shape or form. These groups stand to make vast sums from any pandemic and if you review the evidence from the patent history from Dr. David Martin in my previous post you will see that it is pretty likely that some of these corporation may have even deliberately created SARS CoV2.
Having worked for a major pharmaceutical corporation in the past, having witnessed major criminality and having tracked this topic for decades - there is no way I will ever accept evidence from pharmaceutical companies on just about anything. The risks are too high, the bribes are epic and the level of unawareness among the majority of people is perilously high.
The mainstream media and governments are probably worse than even the pharma corporations, if that is possible. These are all 'for profit' organisations dressed up as being benevolent and 'caring'. Even the governments are essentially corporatocracies and oligarchic outposts. Please review the work of Ivy League Historian, Carroll Quigley in detail to understand the depth of depravity that is behind the fake democracies we are living under.
So all I am left with is evidence from the real world, from individuals and groups who, as far as I can tell, stand to have little to gain from their exploration of COVID19 experimental vaccines and in some cases have a lot to lose, in terms of their time and risks of attacks and ridicule from the wider public and system.
I am a member of a telegram group for COVID vaccine victims which has 20k members and which constantly receives new posts from people who have been seriously injured or the members of families who's relative has just died following taking the vaccine. The videos are harrowing in the extreme. They are easily more harrowing then 99% of what I have seen from the disease itself.
When it comes to the mortality data, even the government agents readily admit that throughout much of the last 18 months, people have been recorded as dying from COVID19 when they died from just about anything at all - including car accidents - provided they 'tested positive' for COVID19 using PCR testing. The PCR testing has been declared unfit for purpose by a massive list of people, including it's original inventor!
The reality is that the data we have on mortality is far from accurate and may be massively over hyped in order to terrify the world and generate vast profits in the process. The people doing this live in massive mansions and are completely unaffected by any controls put in place. In fact, we are seeing the largest wealth transfer ever recorded during the pandemic and it is going from the middle and lower wealth brackets, into the hands of those who own and operate the major corporations that are 'allowed' to trade during lockdowns and that can easily survive a global shutdown.
I shouldn't need to be explaining any of this at this point in my humble thinking.
The data provided by the Oxford University tool shows ABSOLUTE risk. This means that it shows the risk of death from COVID, period. Not the risk of death from COVID if you test positive. It shows the actual risk in total. This is part of why the figure is so low as to be hard to quantify.
For reference, if I drive to work and back every day of a year, I will have driven 365 * 2 journeys, which is 730. If I do this for 10 years, I will have driven 7300 journey. If I do this for 30 years, I will have driven around 22,000 journeys. This is still only half the number of the chance of me dying of COVID according to the Oxford data. As it happens, I have had a near fatal crash while driving home from work. About 1 in 30 years. So from experience, my chance of nearly dying while driving to/from work is maybe about 1 in 22,000 (very roughly). The chance of me dying of COVID is roughly half this risk. Yet, we don't ban cars, we don't force everyone to drive at a very slow pace, we don't shut the country down or force people to submit to regular testing for consciousness and capacity to drive! Why is that? Because, generally, we accept that life is risky and we built to be strong enough to adapt and survive such things.
It would be nice if there was zero chance of death or harm in life, but that is not the case on this planet at this time.
The harm that is being done by lockdowns has been estimated to be significantly higher than has been done by COVID itself - due to the massive number of people forced into poverty, the increases in suicide, alcoholism and mental illness etc. My point here is that the policies are not taking into account all of the facts, they are cherry picking them to suit a narrative - just as you may think I am doing.
Given the tiny risk of me dying from COVID, the fact that I work hard to have a strong immune system, the fact that the creators of the vaccines are extremely untrustworthy and given that people are dying from the vaccines themselves - I'm sure an open hearted and open minded person would understand why someone who takes survival seriously would reject the vaccines.
On top of all of this, there are numerous highly qualified people saying that there is a very real risk of the vaccines causing major damage to cardiovascular systems within 3 years. We do not have data on this because the recipients of the vaccines ARE the trial. They ARE the test subjects. This is new technology, untested in the long term - something that people are bizarrely happy to block out entirely when discussing the subject.
That's ok. The truth does not need to be convincing.
Please review the content of my original post. To be clear, you are citing relative risk and not absolute risk. I am citing absolute risk. The number of 'cases' is wildly inaccurate in any case. The absolute risk is the risk of dying from COVID, using the dubious data, period. This is the actual risk from COVID. If I say, there is a 50% chance you will die from a gunshot wound, you might laugh.. because you know it is not true. If I then say 'oh, I meant that is the risk if you have already been shot in the neck', then you might say 'oh, well you never said that - you just said it was the risk of dying from a gunshot wound, but I haven't been shot'. Using relative risk without being aware of the difference between relative risk and absolute risk is a major problem when interpreting data.
Going by the published data, which is highly questionable in itself for a long list of reasons, we can say an average 2% relative risk. This takes into account the many people who have died without adequate healthcare and without providers knowing how to correctly treat COVID (incorrect ventilator use has killed many people, for example).
Not yet. There is NO long term safety data. Many actions can set in motion processes which take years to manifest damage and fatal outcomes. As stated, there is good reason to suspect that may occur in this case. In addition, vaccines have long been known to be a black hole when it comes to logging adverse reactions. Many, many people (many thousands) had already publicly stated that their doctors refused to accept vaccines had injured them (before COVID19), even in cases where the manufacturer's own documentation makes clear that he symptoms they were exhibiting were entirely possible to come from the vaccine they had just received. This is a major rabbit hole and you cannot understand it without putting in days, weeks or even months of your time to research it.
That is unfortunate. If this were the case for me I would not lose sight of the fraudulent nature of much of the COVID19 testing (malpractice) and the very real chances that these people's destiny may be a little different to what has been stated. The average age of death of a 'covid case' last time I looked, is the same as the average age of death of people in general - seriously questioning that statistical significance of the mortality involved.
I'm sorry to hear about that. My own mother died of chemotherapy several years ago and died knowing that it was chemotherapy that was killing her and not the cancer. She had been terrified by 'Doctors' telling her that she had to take the chemo or die. She had a variety of non toxic alternatives lined up and was planning on trying them.
Reality is that health does not come from putting power outside of ourselves. We need to build internal power on all levels.
I refer to you to the quote from the doctor in the image in the OP. Who's science exactly are you trusting? Are you aware that the figures for the benefit from chemotherapy also suffer from the same deceptive marketing practice of using relative benefit as I have already highlighted in the context of COVID's risk? A meta analysis study from the Australian college of radiographers put the ABSOLUTE benefit of chemotherapy at 2% (optimistically) and they recommended that chemotherapy use be stopped immediately. Placebo is around 30% as I understand it, so essentially, they showed that chemotherapy kills more than it helps.
If you didn't select the option then it won't have affected the outcome in the tool. It may be that your age is the reason for them giving you an increased risk.
Wishing you well