Covid-19 response

[Bruce Stephens]

Yes, measures were relaxed because of the confidence in the vaccines. However, the graphs show a huge increase in both covid deaths and all cause deaths after the vaccination rollout, not a reduction.

Because measures were relaxed, allowing many more people to be infected. The government very much didn't like the protective measures; they realised that they had no choice, but relaxed them as soon as they felt they could, allowing more people to die but (in some weak sense) within the constraints of the health service. And when mere relaxation wasn't enough they tried encouraging people with eat out to help out.

Meanwhile, observational studies from across the world show that vaccinated people were better protected from death than unvaccinated.

 

[Amity Island]

Meanwhile, observational studies from across the world show that vaccinated people were better protected from death than unvaccinated.

This doesn't mean vaccination is better than naturally acquired immunity.

Past Covid infection as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Amity Island]

Scientists tried to reinfect people with Covid but found it impossible, even when they ramped up the dose 10,000-fold, according to the latest results from the Covid challenge trials.

The study’s results, published on May 1st in Lancet Microbe, raise questions about the usefulness of COVID-19 challenge trials for testing vaccines.

Scientists tried to give people COVID — and failed

Researchers deliberately infect participants with SARS-CoV-2 in ‘challenge’ trials — but high levels of immunity complicate efforts to test vaccines and treatments.

www.nature.com

 

[Bruce Stephens]

This doesn't mean vaccination is better than naturally acquired immunity.

Vaccination is much less risky than being infected. So before you're ever infected, it is safer to be vaccinated than infected, and after each infection/vaccination if you want to improve your immunity to the virus more, it is much safer to get a vaccination than an infection. (And all the data suggests infections are less risky once you have some immunity, however you obtain that.)

I think we should prefer vaccination for COVID-19 too, and should continue to offer (and encourage it) to people, particularly those who have not yet had the opportunity to be vaccinated with the usually recommended three dose schedule.

 

[Amity Island]

Vaccination is much less risky than being infected. So before you're ever infected, it is safer to be vaccinated than infected, and after each infection/vaccination if you want to improve your immunity to the virus more, it is much safer to get a vaccination than an infection. (And all the data suggests infections are less risky once you have some immunity, however you obtain that.)

I think we should prefer vaccination for COVID-19 too, and should continue to offer (and encourage it) to people, particularly those who have not yet had the opportunity to be vaccinated with the usually recommended three dose schedule.

Yes I agree, after the vaccines were available specifically for those at risk, but not before. Surely we only recommend medicine for those that need it?

And, how do we know if it's the medicine that's doing the work when the most vulnerable had already been taken from us and it's been proven to be impossible to re-infect people?

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid-19-response.105518/post-1351537

My contention is that the whole "pandemic" was driven by infection rates (positive pcr tests).

Remember the daily case numbers being promoted every day!

Vaccines are not designed to prevent infection, thus, how were we ever going to get those daily case numbers down with vaccines? In fact, the more vaccines you have the greater the number of infections.

"Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, USA, monitored over 47,500 employees for Covid infections during the first four months of 2024, when the JN.1 virus lineage was dominant. They found that being vaccinated increased infection risk by 46% with two doses, 95% with three doses and 151% with more than three doses, when compared to having zero or one dose."

Effectiveness of the 2023-2024 Formulation of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine against the JN.1 Variant

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the 2023-2024 formulation of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine protects against COVID-19 caused by the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment when the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV2 became the dominant...

www.medrxiv.org

And please don't tell me it was to save the lives of the most vulnerable.

This is NOT medical advice forum!

The star of Silent Witness and The Normal Heart was ‘the popular kid’ until an autoimmune condition turned her life upside down. She talks about her lonely childhood, her flourishing career and the battle she can’t abandon...

forum.diabetes.org.uk

 

[maryjaneholland]

This was news to me, but not everyone probably, but Royal Mail still have COVID restrictions in place for situations where Royal Mail Delivery Staff are requested to submit the receiver's signature as proof of delivery, so on the doorstep of customer's home address it is completely legitimate for Royal Mail Postie to make an executive decision to not come into close contact with any or all customers due to the potential "risk" of contagion or infectious diseases, even though many government restrictions and laws around Coronavirus Pandemic were repealed and removed in 2022, and fully in 2023 (I can't recall the exact dates), but Royal Mail policies are completely outdated and it shows how the shadow of COVID still hangs over us, with unnecessary rules exploited by Royal Mail staff to make their jobs easier without any review since March 2020... This has caused me lots of problems with using online pharmacies and getting home deliveries of prescription meds via Royal Mail who have dumped parcels outside my front door facing main road, then fraudulently added my name as the "signature" as proof of delivery and this must be changed over four years after the start of the pandemic...

 

[maryjaneholland]

Royal Mail Terms & Conditions Dates of Changes, see 2020 as evidence of this, none of these policies are apparently reviewed or updated at all, surely this is fraud to sign someone else's name as proof the customer has received an item of mail, it's like the lockdown is still in place and is very detrimental to vulnerable customers using home delivery for prescription medications as it's really open to abuse...

https://www.royalmail.com/termschanges

 

[Amity Island]

Royal Mail Terms & Conditions Dates of Changes, see 2020 as evidence of this, none of these policies are apparently reviewed or updated at all, surely this is fraud to sign someone else's name as proof the customer has received an item of mail, it's like the lockdown is still in place and is very detrimental to vulnerable customers using home delivery for prescription medications as it's really open to abuse...

https://www.royalmail.com/termschanges

There's been a campaign lately to try and remove all remaining COVID related material. I wonder if they are aware of the post office policy you refer to?

Scientists and MPs have demanded that all remaining Covid warning signs are removed because they serve only to remind the public of the “futility and madness” of restrictions.

"The signs remind us of the scoundrels and zealots who imposed such rules on us, causing so much collateral damage – debt, wasted years and wrecked educations, old folks who died alone,”.

Pull down Covid-era signs, scientists tell Government

Pandemic professors call for a national campaign to rid Britain of warnings that tell people to socially distance and wear masks

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[maryjaneholland]

Yes I have to agree about "signs" if that includes compulsory hand sanitiser, which actually causes problems for people living with skin conditions like eczema, psoriasis and dermatitis etc, 70% alcohol content kills all germs, bacteria and viruses, but it can also provoke dry skin conditions as it strips all the natural protective oils off human skin...
Then there's psychological trauma and mental distress caused by visible signs associated with COVID pandemic and lockdown, I have tried hard to consciously keep distance away from everything that happened between 2020-2023, and the Royal Mail old policies about distancing and "Tracked Signed For" delivery service meaning any Royal Mail Staff will just type in the name on the parcel after leaving it in an unsecured location, is horrible reminder, and not position supported by any of the online pharmacies or high street Pharmacists like Boots Chemist, who have escalated my complaint as business customer on my behalf, so we'll see if Royal Mail continue to default to these four year old COVID policies...
At the same time, I feel wary of some social media campaign groups who are aligned with far right white supremacist religious groups and exploit vulnerable people by not fully disclosing their aims and objectives, so I lost close friend during lockdown not to COVID, but to "culture wars" group who have publicly boycotted LGBTQIA+ Community events such as "Drag Queen Storytime" held at public libraries in my area where the group members shouted extreme homophobic and transphobic hate speech at the attendees, parents with children, organisers, police, and counter-protesters from the LGBTQIA+ Community, then uploaded all the footage online to show their "successes", and the real twist to the tale here is that my friend was openly gay, but very susceptible to being exploited by group-think and charismatic group leaders, I can't confirm any group or individual names either, I just made it clear to him an attack on one drag queen is an attack on our entire queer community and chosen family...

 

[Amity Island]

New article (via FOI to ONS) shows how vaccinated and non-vaccinated NON covid deaths compared during the rollout to the 65-70 age group. The ONS data was used constantly to bolster the effectiveness of the vaccines.

The graph shows that in early 2021 there was a spike in non-covid deaths in the non-vaccinated, after the rollout. How could this be? Because anyone that died shortly after vaccination (within 20 days e.g "excluding people who had died before vaccine records had been sent back to the central NIMS system") was counted as non-vaccinated, giving the impression that it was the non-vaccinated that were suddenly dying and that the vaccinated were seeing less than the typical average mortality generally (inc non-covid).

Incidentally, there was also a spike in "covid" deaths in care homes after rollout, but; these excess deaths were classed as covid because at the time they had received a positive test result (whatever that means).

Will this information be presented at the covid enquiry?

A similar spike in deaths happened after the first lockdowns and all the other strategies that were brought in on 23rd March 2020. If these strategies were to reduce the effects of a pandemic, why did the opposite happen? It's clear from all the data, that there were no noticeable increase in deaths until after the strategies were brought in.

We were right! The UK ONS now admit that deaths in the vaccinated were categorised as unvaccinated in 2021

The ONS denied it then but admit it now.

wherearethenumbers.substack.com

 

[Amity Island]

Front page of Telegraph today.

Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested.

Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.

They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns” and called on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said: “Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.

"Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”

The study found that across Europe, the U.S. and Australia there had been more than one million excess deaths in 2020, at the height of the pandemic, but also 1.2 million in 2021 and 800,000 and 2022 after measures were implemented.

Researchers said the figure included deaths from COVID-19, but also the “indirect effects of the health strategies to address the virus spread and infection”.

They warned that side effects linked to the Covid vaccine had included ischaemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome and brain haemorrhage, cardiovascular diseases, coagulation, haemorrhages, gastrointestinal events and blood clotting.

German researchers have pointed out that the onset of excess mortality in early 2021 in the country coincided with the rollout of vaccines, which the team said “warranted further investigation”.

However, more recent data regarding side-effects have not been made available to the public, with countries keeping their own individual databases of harms, which rely on self-reporting by the public and doctors, the experts warned.

Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797956413937111128

 

[Amity Island]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797956413937111128

"covid explains largely that excess"

No it doesn't. The excess deaths in 2021 and 2022 were largely non-covid deaths.

Thread 'Brits are dying in their tens of thousands - and we don't really have any idea why' http://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards...-and-we-dont-really-have-any-idea-why.106326/

 

[Bruce Stephens]

The excess deaths in 2021 and 2022 were largely non-covid deaths.

Many were probably caused by covid, really, in the sense that they probably wouldn't have happened (or would have happened years later) but for the harms caused by covid. It's just hard to assign a cause months after an infection. Being infected with viruses is generally bad for us (whether you believe they're natural or made in a lab). A number of observational studies show vaccination reduced all cause mortality (so not just deaths due to covid) which is easier to understand if we accept that covid is partly responsible for deaths which can't be directly assigned to covid.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797972919584539022

 

[Bruce Stephens]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797989117558722996

 

[Robin]

Amity's paraphrasing of the article from the Telegraph stops short of a rather telling balancing paragraph, c + p below.

Researchers said that it was “likely” that the impact of containment measures, restricted healthcare and socioeconomic upheaval during the pandemic had contributed to deaths, although accepted that was difficult to prove.

Gordon Wishart, chief medical officer at Check4Cancer, and visiting professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University, said: “It was predicted early in the lockdown period that limited access to healthcare for non-Covid conditions would lead to delays in the diagnosis and treatment of time-critical conditions such as cancer, cardiac disease, diabetes and dementia and that this would lead to excess deaths from these conditions.”

 

[Amity Island]

Researchers said that it was “likely” that the impact of containment measures, restricted healthcare and socioeconomic upheaval during the pandemic had contributed to deaths, although accepted that was difficult to prove.

Gordon Wishart, chief medical officer at Check4Cancer, and visiting professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University, said: “It was predicted early in the lockdown period that limited access to healthcare for non-Covid conditions would lead to delays in the diagnosis and treatment of time-critical conditions such as cancer, cardiac disease, diabetes and dementia and that this would lead to excess deaths from these conditions.”

Yes. A succinct summary of some of my observations of the non-scientific, non-evidence based confected response including things like lockdowns and all the other strategies. This is why I never agreed with most of it, yet many were whole heartedly supportive of it all.

Listening to the Scottish Covid Inquiry over the past few weeks, it's evident many of the excess deaths were due to, neglect, loneliness and isolation, blanket dnrs applied to entire care homes, dnrs handed out (without peoples knowledge or agreement) to people for having ailments such as deafness, use of palliative care for people that didn't need it. Then on top of this, we had people put onto ventilators (a vicious and deadly treatment for most) who could already breath for themselves. That's just the excess deaths, this doesn't consider all the the other harms.

They had people fighting in the shops over the confected rules such as masks and distancing. Like Brexit, it was very divisive. The people dishing out the rules were not even following them themselves.

As I have said before, there might be times when lockdowns are necessary, but this pandemic wasn't one of them. I feel like should a situation occur in the near future, where a lockdown might be absolutely necessary (to save lives not to close off the nhs to people) people will be less tolerant to any lockdowns, given what has been confirmed again and again of how the strategies had no evidence or science to back them up (all re-iterated again in US this week).

Once the rules started they just kept going and going and going, with little to no public or even professional discussions to any of them.

Fauci confesses social distancing and masking kids didn't stop covid

Bombshell testimony from Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals he made up the six foot social distancing rule and other measures to 'protect' Americans from covid.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Dragonheart]

The report asks a question (could the vaccine have a role in the excesses). It does not attribute them to the vaccine. Huge difference being missed by those keen to blame the vaccine for everything. It’s good the questions are being asked. Leaping to conclusions as a result of those questions is ignorance and unscientific.

It also lists other potential causes. And ignore the indirect damage, repeated, Covid infection has on the body causing deaths officially listed as other events eg heart disease as the start of the trail to death is too far removed to be easily identified.

I see a prominent “evidence based” campaigning dr is shouting the same thing in social media today making the same mistakes but leading his followers along with him.

 

[Dragonheart]

it was very divisive. The people dishing out the rules were not even following them themselves.

Sadly this much is true.

. I feel like should a situation occur in the near future, where a lockdown might be absolutely necessary (to save lives not to close off the nhs to people) people will be less tolerant to any lockdowns,

Again I sadly have to agree

given what has been confirmed again and again of how the strategies had no evidence or science to back them up (all re-iterated again in US this week).

Now here we diverge. How can a previously unknown virus have had evidence or science at the start to work from? All we had and could ever have had was best guesses which we then built on. And despite your protests of the opposite there has been much supporting evidence for the science used. What failed, badly in some instances, was the way it was put forward and applied in policy by the politicians and media. Again, a big difference between the two.