Coronavirus | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Coronavirus

Table 4 does show the correllation. Overall mortality (not covid deaths as I first thought) is about twice the rate in the vaccinated group as in the unvaccinated group in 10 -59 age group.

For example :

on

24 September rate of death per 100,000 for vaccinated is 2.2, unvaccinated is 0.9%
17 September vax 2.2% unvaxxed 1.3%
10 Sep Vax 2.7% Unvax 1.4%
3 Sept Vax 2.3% Unvax 1.4 %
27 Aug Vax 2.2% Unvax 1.4 %
20 Aug Vax 2.5% Unvax 1.5%
and so the pattern goes back to March

However I've looked at footnote 8 and it states that a greater amount of people at the older part of that age group are vaccinated and younger people are not as extensively vaccinated and as mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. That makes sense so the figures and the argument need to be qualified appropriately. Note taken.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

It would be useful to see a break down in smaller age groups ie 10 - 19, 20 - 29 etc.

Yep without that it is meaningless. Old people are more likely to vaccinated - that is how vaccines got rolled out - to older people first - but also more likely to die from any cause so the dominant correlation will be age. Especially I'd imagine once you get into your 50s as people start dropping off with heart issues and cancer etc. etc.. You need to do it for constant age to draw the comparison.

If there was a massive death effect caused by vaccination, which is what is being implied then it should show up in the numbers but we need that further split of data.
Table 8 shows this in a summary form (and is done by 5 year groupings), but we can't get the detail in the other tables to my eye. Averaging 10-59 year olds which happens in table 4 is meaningless.

On table 8 it shows the age standardized mortality rate for all deaths is around triple (2187 vs 783 mortality rate per 100,000 person years) for vax vs fully unvax and for just COVID is 850 vs 26. I'd have to see how they standardized it to comment but assuming given they are a national statistics board I'd give a pass mark by default.

The surprise to me on that table is how much better you are after the second dose in the first few weeks than later. Even though the risk is low its 25 vs 6. I thought it took a couple of weeks to kick in so thought it might be higher averaging out the first 3 weeks - so this probably more speaks to the efficacy dropping off over time. They do have a comment on that.

Anyway thanks for sharing the data - it pretty convincingly says go and get vaccinated to protect yourself, those you care about and even Collingwood supporters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Criminal negligence? Gladys may have left the building but her recklessness is still impacting the country.


It’s interesting TOO. You could argue what she did hurtled us towards vaccine uptake more quickly than anything else (and actually saved lives / shortened lockdown) than anything else any other politician did. Extremely Machiavellian though.

Need to do a marvel ‘what if Gladys followed the health advice?’ to be able to compare though.

Her biggest issue is lying about it. It can’t be uncommon for leaders to get technical advice and not 100% follow it. If you do that though you should be transparent and have the risks laid out clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Table 4 does show the correllation. Overall mortality (not covid deaths as I first thought) is about twice the rate in the vaccinated group as in the unvaccinated group in 10 -59 age group.

For example :

on

24 September rate of death per 100,000 for vaccinated is 2.2, unvaccinated is 0.9%
17 September vax 2.2% unvaxxed 1.3%
10 Sep Vax 2.7% Unvax 1.4%
3 Sept Vax 2.3% Unvax 1.4 %
27 Aug Vax 2.2% Unvax 1.4 %
20 Aug Vax 2.5% Unvax 1.5%
and so the pattern goes back to March

However I've looked at footnote 8 and it states that a greater amount of people at the older part of that age group are vaccinated and younger people are not as extensively vaccinated and as mortality rates are higher for older people, this will increase the mortality rates for the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. That makes sense so the figures and the argument need to be qualified appropriately. Note taken.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

It would be useful to see a break down in smaller age groups ie 10 - 19, 20 - 29 etc.

So hang on, you ignored Table 3 (exactly the same table as Table 4, but showing for only Covid deaths) that shows its significantly higher risk for those unvaccinated to die of Covid to show Table 4 that is related to all deaths and has so many more variables included because it "may" suit your agenda but ignore the actual table that talks about Covid deaths???

Lamby - Sorry but you sound more and more desperate to try and find some inclination of data to support your hypothesis. Its the same with the "data" you provided that shows you are more likely to become infected by Covid if you are vaccinated, you took 1 table (that had a significant warning message over using the data as it could be easily misinterpreted) and out of the same data set you again ignore all of the data that goes against your hypothesis.

You are the worst type of investigator. Most people just want the truth, so will look at all data and end up making their minds up (even if it changes their original thought pattern). It appears you don't follow this protocol, and are just trying to find any snippet of data that may support your hypothesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Confirmation bias is a *smile*.

@lamb22 given the data you posted actually proves the opposite of you original contention what does this mean for you?

what would it take to change your view point? (and potentially i'm assuming your view point but please clarify for me if i have it wrong - my assumption is your view is that getting vaccinated carries more risk to most people than getting covid) if the data you provided no longer fits your viewpoint do you now ignore that data and look for something else or do you reconsider things?
 
I have booked for my Pfizer booster shot for the day I am eligible which is Dec 16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
jumping into this debate for no apparent reason however when looking at Covid deaths, one must understand that the deaths attributed to Covid are in fact false. The vast majority may have died WITH Covid in their system, but no from Covid.

On the contrary, the majority of deaths associated with the vax are directly from the vax.
 
  • Haha
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
jumping into this debate for no apparent reason however when looking at Covid deaths, one must understand that the deaths attributed to Covid are in fact false. The vast majority may have died WITH Covid in their system, but no from Covid.

On the contrary, the majority of deaths associated with the vax are directly from the vax.
This nonsense goes back to conspiracy theories from 2020 and posting on Facebook. Even Trump bought into it.
It comes from a complete misunderstanding of what doctors put on death certificates.
The same theory could be used to say cancer doesn’t kill many people because a lot of cancer sufferers die from organ failure.
Here is one reference to this that was easily found by a simple google
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN25U2IO
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
jumping into this debate for no apparent reason however when looking at Covid deaths, one must understand that the deaths attributed to Covid are in fact false. The vast majority may have died WITH Covid in their system, but no from Covid.

On the contrary, the majority of deaths associated with the vax are directly from the vax.
B2009F04-F8AA-4359-9664-464E38FE8458.jpeg
Think hard about this.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
jumping into this debate for no apparent reason however when looking at Covid deaths, one must understand that the deaths attributed to Covid are in fact false. The vast majority may have died WITH Covid in their system, but no from Covid.

On the contrary, the majority of deaths associated with the vax are directly from the vax.
Sorry Newy but this is wrong.
1 Very very few people have died from a vaccination. Hardly any in fact.
2 Covid is the cause of death in many millions of people world wide and is preventable.

Death from covid presents in a variety of ways and this is where you are confused.
Covid causes death from cardiac failure and other organ failure as well as overwhelming pneumonia. A death certificate must specify the ultimate problem that lead to death ie cardiac failure, renal failure, pneumonia....the back ground cause is not stated as the ultimate cause of death. This is where fraudulent people will misuse information deliberately.
If a diabetic developed renal failure and dies, the death is listed as renal disease primarily, not diabetes, but diabetes is the ultimate cause.
If a person with very high blood pressure has a stroke and dies, the cause of death is listed as a stroke, not hypertension, even though hypertension is the ultimate cause.
An AIDS patient dies of pneumonia which is listed as the cause of death but HIV was the ultimate reason.
And so it is with covid.
Many millions of people with family and a desire to live, have died unnecessary deaths due to covid infection.
Don't believe the garbage the deceiving or confused 10% of people with personal agendas on this planet will try to manipulate you with.
Ask yourself this...
Why do people want us to get vaccinated......answer.....for the health of human kind.
Why do people not want us to get vaccinated...answer....for personal agendas, idiotic beliefs, ignorance and because some humans are just self interested and vile.
Where do you think a decent person should stand?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I find it very hyprocritical that the media moved on about 24 hours after revelations that Gladys lied to the population about the health advive she received and refused to act upon, especially in contrast to how Victoria was treated by large sections of Australian media for their supposed failings. Bearing in mind in June last year we all though transmission occurred from touch and our understanding of the virus has grown significantly since then. But NSW arrogantly dismissed our hard fought learnings and attempted a flimsy postcode lockdown 2 weeks after the outbreak, tried a half arsed state wide lockdown after 4 weeks, and then after 6 weeks told us we need to learn to live with the virus now, nothing they can do! Hyprocritical *smile*!

If it were a Labor premier I have no doubt that we'd still be reading headlines about how the NSW Premier was responsible for 1000+ deaths nationally and in NZ by seeding the virus everywhere. Many of us were pointing it out at the time only to be poopooed as hyprocrites due to questions over who hired the security guards etc. The Liberal party always get a dream run in the media.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
This nonsense goes back to conspiracy theories from 2020 and posting on Facebook. Even Trump bought into it.
It comes from a complete misunderstanding of what doctors put on death certificates.
The same theory could be used to say cancer doesn’t kill many people because a lot of cancer sufferers die from organ failure.
Here is one reference to this that was easily found by a simple google
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN25U2IO

I was about to say the exact same thing, but you put it much more eloquently than I probably would.

Thanks to Newys thoughts, we now know that cancer doesn't really kill anyone, great to know. No need to fear the cancer then. I guess I'd better go back and start saying my mum died from pneumonia then being as thats what killed her rather than the cancer that ravaged her body (but didn't "technically" kill her).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I find it very hyprocritical that the media moved on about 24 hours after revelations that Gladys lied to the population about the health advive she received and refused to act upon, especially in contrast to how Victoria was treated by large sections of Australian media for their supposed failings. Bearing in mind in June last year we all though transmission occurred from touch and our understanding of the virus has grown significantly since then. But NSW arrogantly dismissed our hard fought learnings and attempted a flimsy postcode lockdown 2 weeks after the outbreak, tried a half arsed state wide lockdown after 4 weeks, and then after 6 weeks told us we need to learn to live with the virus now, nothing they can do! Hyprocritical *smile*!

If it were a Labor premier I have no doubt that we'd still be reading headlines about how the NSW Premier was responsible for 1000+ deaths nationally and in NZ by seeding the virus everywhere. Many of us were pointing it out at the time only to be poopooed as hyprocrites due to questions over who hired the security guards etc. The Liberal party always get a dream run in the media.

48625377-10048237-image-a-18_1633060046630.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users