Carlton Supporters Club

Interesting. We’ll have to watch this space.

The person who wrote the article needs to work on terminology. The scientists steered clear of saying there is a causal link, Cavaleri carefully parsing his words by saying it’s “becoming more and more difficult to affirm that there isn’t a cause-and-effect relationship”. But the scribe “filled in the gaps “ by asserting a “link”, “causal link” and “connection”. The trick is to rely on direct quotes rather than some journo’s interpretation of them.

However it remains unclear what the connection is and whether the benefits of taking the shot still outweigh the risks of getting COVID-19.

The one part that MBB does quote states the following:

Quote

However it remains unclear what the connection is and whether the benefits of taking the shot still outweigh the risks of getting COVID-19.

He stressed the risk-benefit analysis remained positive for the AstraZeneca jab, even for young women who appear to be more affected by the clots.

@‍Thryleon That phrase you quote was the editorial commentary, not the official statement.

The official statement was;It appears young women may be at risk of clots from COVID, and it may be there is a increased risk of clots from COVID vaccine. But the latest figures I've heard quoted indicate the positive differential is about 1000:1, that is 100,000 COVID infections in young women would give 1000 incidents of low platlets and clotting, but the vaccine risk if it exists would be just 1 case!

Thing is, that isn't the same for all people.  Two investors will have different risk profiles.  The assessment is never the same.  Therefore anyone asserting that their risk assessment is the one to follow is acting with a utopian outcome.  Kind of idealistic dont you think?

But the risk has to be realistically assessed in a relative framework, and I don't think this vaccine risk is being correctly communicated regardless of how it is assessed.

The total statistical figures are not some idealistic perspective, in fact they are the only truth in this matter, everything else is speculation.

It's thousands of times riskier getting in the car and driving to the clinic for the vaccine shot that it is actually getting the vaccine shot. People do that drive by choice everyday day, millions globally make that decision at the moment. I wouldn't try to calculate the death rate from that commute because I would get it wrong, but it must be catastrophic relative to the risk of the vaccine.

Vaccine program is a one size fits all approach geared to herd immunity and with the prospect of losing some of the herd factored in by authorities.

How many have been killed by the vaccine, not the social media claims, but official health department death tolls?

So far the official count is ................... zero, nought, nada, nothing .................... out of 680 Million doses injected.

So where does this statement come from?

"...with the prospect of losing some of the herd factored in by authorities"

The real problem being played out here is the $4, it's not making enough people richer or happier!

The focus of Herd Immunity is saving the majority of the herd, the minority however small have to be sacrificed to achieve that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56620646

The problem @ElwoodBlues1‍ is that the number of deaths being reported from blood clots in the vaccinated population, is proportionally lower than the same blood clot deaths in the unvaccinated population.

On a like for like basis, it looks like if you get the vaccine you are less likely to die from this type of blood clot!

If someone gets the astraz jab and three days later get blood clots you dont think thats a reasonable probable explanation.
Fate just timed it that their blood clots coincided with getting the jab.?

Yes exactly, if the global numbers are not faked it could be explained as fate.

Statically if the same number of general population just walked through the hospital without being vaccinated, there should be 80 clot case in that perambulatory population in the next 30 days.

The death rate in Norway is 7.9 people per 1000 per year, or 0.63 per thousand per months.

505,000 thousand Norwegians have been vaccinated over a month, of that 505,000 nearly 950 who got the vaccine would have died over the vaccination period.

I don't have Norway figures on clots, and it can vary, but the EU experts come out and stated it's comparable to the background rate.

In the USA, about 300 people die per day from thromboembolism, and there are nearly 700 cases per day (250,000 per year) of severe thromboembolism. That's a 40% mortality. If you are vaccinating large portions of the population in a month a death from a clot is an inevitable coincidence.

Just getting a plain needle with no injectable increases the risk!

PS; I'm not claiming it's impossible, I'm just trying to clarify the chance of it happening and being true!

Do you let your kids get in cars?

I always see this car argument, but here is the kicker.

Not everyone drives the same.  Not everyone drives as far or for as long.
The stats are always fudged.
Outliers are considered outliers until they aren't outliers anymore.
Its not as simple as anyone makes out.  There's lies, dammed lies, and then statistics is how the saying goes.