Justin Trudeau broadcasts to the 4 year olds in Canada:
“You’re gonna be able to get your vaccine as soon as you turn five. I know you’re excited, I know you’re eager.”
Smarmy, creepy and disturbingly manipulative in equal measure.pic.twitter.com/0UWZseAs3T
— James Melville (@JamesMelville) April 25, 2022
Yikes.
Meanwhile…
Mixing with the unvaccinated increases risk of COVID-19 infection for fully vaccinated, new Canadian study findshttps://t.co/0X7OwmKT4O
— CP24 (@CP24) April 25, 2022
O, Canada,
Sponsored Link
”I know you’re excited and I know you’re eager.”
No Justin, they have zero idea what a vaccine is and as a result they have no feelings about it one way or the other or at least until they see it is a needle.
Utter moron.
He seems to think the Canadian people have the mind of a five year old
I suppose he will no truck with the adults if they refuse said vaccine
There is to be a biker protest next weekend so what does he do? Ban it.
Since everyone in the comments section seems so pleasant, BS should organize an in person get together. It would be fun.
Well they did suggest this https://www.broadsheet.ie/2022/04/25/in-between-days/
Evil- no other word for it.
I agree,
also if you are vaccinated aren’t you supposed to be protected, I’d have thought it’s the unvaccinated that have to worry around the vaccinated who can still spread it but themselves are protected ?
Logic went out the window a long time ago when it came to covid, vaccines and spread
Two years of pandemic and people still refuse to acknowledge that there are degrees of risk and responses that reduce risk without eliminating it, also that there have been mutliple variants of the disease.
How is this for a risk?
Triple Vaccinated now up to 5 times more likely to be infected with Covid-19 than the Unvaccinated as Vaccine Effectiveness falls to MINUS-391%
Official data published by the UK Health Security Agency confirms Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against infection has fallen to minus-391% among triple jabbed 60-69-year-olds, and between minus-298% and minus-324% among those aged 30 to 59.
All other age groups have also suffered a significant drop in vaccine effectiveness with figures showing all triple vaccinated adults now between 3 and 5 times more likely to be infected with Covid-19 than unvaccinated adults.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/25/triple-vaccinated-5x-more-likely-infected-with-covid-than-unvaccinated/
Wow, they really work overtime to pretend to percentage of people vaccinated and the percentage of people unvaccinated are proportionate to force that conclusion. Whoa a lovely piece of propaganda.
Linking to the Daily Expose now!!!!
Even for someone like you (whose comments are 90% lies, 10% nonsense speculation), that’s quite a stretch
If you are saying that their percentages are wrong then outline why and how.
I’m saying that since the proportion of people vaccinated is way highter than the proportion of people unvaccinated, to properly compare and evaluate relative risk requires proportionate analysis. Not doing that is pure crooked, and you know it.
But that is exactly what they done? Try again.
No, they just compared raw numbers. Nowhere did I see an analysis of vaccinated versus unvaccnatred risk that reflected the different proportions of those in the population.
What exactly do you think a graph which has a header saying ‘ Percentage of Covid-19 Case By vaccination Status in England’ actually means?
It’s the same numbers, just as percentages, not adjusted for proportion of population. You can’t seriously be that thick.
So what does per 100 000 mean?
Guess what the source data says? Go on. guess…
Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is summarised on pages 4 to 14 in this report.
The rates are calculated per 100,000 in people who have received either 3 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or in people who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. These figures are updated each week as the number of unvaccinated individuals and individuals vaccinated with 3 doses in the population changes.
The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data and there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 population groups. For example:
– testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in differences in the chances of being identified as a case
– many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues
– people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19
– people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few week
‘Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated ….’
‘do not take into account …’
‘is likely to be different…’
‘may have differing levels of exposure…’
‘which may have contributed to a lower case rate…’
That’s to be taken as ‘Data’?
Are you presenting something as fact Cian?
Risk the health of 5 years olds for the sake of 85 year olds. Seems fair
hey and who cares that we don’t know the long-term side effects, they only have their whole life left to find out
+1
Hey, the virus has killed millions, also caused disabilities in millions more, millions of people only survive because they get hooked uo to incubators, who cares. let’s pretend that’s not happening and indulge in crankery about the medicines!
Cowards using their grandchildren as human shields.
Pathologising the protection of the vulnerable – unreal.
Yes Nigel, children are vulnerable and depend on adults to make critical choices in their lives. A society that would put potentially them in harms way to protect the very elderly (even though that’s a stretch as the ‘vaccines’ don’t stop transmission) is fundamentally sick. As are you.
Stripping the vulnerable – which includes more than the elderly – of any expectation that society will protect them from a highly contagious disease is monstrous. Doing it with hysteria about children is just cynical.
“of any expectation that society will protect them from a highly contagious disease is monstrous”
The vaccines don’t stop transmission. No matter how you lie or contort the facts, that is still the case. I do realise the futility of explaining that to the mentally unsound, but if you want to put the future health of children in jeopardy – you are the monster, not I.
Vaccines reduce risk, reduce transmission, no matter how much you lie etc etc. But you have ideologically and intellectually committed to wiping out the concept of risk reduction and risk management from your own mind and everyone else’s.
Like jimmy saville in a child’s hospital
This is why David keeps getting banned
for using 2 Ls in ‘Savile’?
Good man soq. you can’t a question as to why its OK for Putin to murder innocent people, but you pile in on the elected president of a sovereign peaceful state asking for a vaccine for his citizens. What is the matter with you. Note also you jumped in on a post by a female.
ah soq, why can’t you reply? Are you waiting to switch aliases to Cavan?
You’re a tireless bore. No one need offer you any explanations.
Says the one. You forgot to call me a clever nick name. oh you call me a name, just not clever one. As usual, play the man, not the ball.
‘Fully vaccinated’ but not protected. Great!
Why base a study on real-world data when you can simply resort to garbage in/ garbage out type modelling to get the result you want?
In the footnotes:
“Competing interests: (Study author) David Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca.. “
Sounds like an expert in his field.
An expert in the field of vaccines that don’t protect or stop transmission.. Is his name Dr Nick Riviera?
Probably knows what risk reduction and management is, at least.
Babble talk to cover the demonstrable fact that the vaccines don’t prevent transmission or protect the patient.
Yes, I imagine that’s how it sounds to you.
That how it sounds to anyone that isn’t a brainwashed drone.
@Nigel
Your naivety knows no bounds. An academic on the payroll of various pharmaceutical corporations which manufacture Covid jabs produces a hypothetical model that will clearly be used to try to bolster the specious narrative that everyone has a moral duty to partake in those corporations’ products, and your only reaction is: “sounds like an expert in his field”.
A person doesn’t have to have specialised knowledge to be aware that the field of medical research has long been corrupted by corporate interests.: It’s worse now than it ever has been in the past.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702
“Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia..Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market…
..In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry….As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.””
Well, okay, that’s a handy way of dismissing any studies that contradict your narrative.
It’s a description of the reality we live in. One we can either pretend doesn’t exist, or one which we face up to and use our critical thinking skills to try as best we can to distinguish between the good and bad.
The scenario in this situation, as I see it, is that an academic who is on the payroll of pharmaceutical corporations co-authored a study that casts a negative light over those who have chosen not to partake in said corporations’ products. Red flag one.
Rather than avail of abundant real-world Covid data, the study resorted to hypothetical modelling which is much more prone to bias and outright manipulation. Red flag two.
Great to see this debate shows no sign of any potential for any rational growth.
Sides have been chosen, and no new information will ever change people’s opinions.
As for five year old being excited and eager about vaccinations, if you can’t agree that such rhetoric has no basis in reality and is being pushed in service of an agenda then you’re head must be wedged further up your own posterior than it was previously to be.
The only rational growth is in the profit margins of the pharmaceutical companies- they are now talking about a FIFTH injection. When are people going to cop the frig on?
“When are people going to cop the frig on?” Its a cult. Don’t hold your breath.
Bodger – you nearly made a boo boo with the Von der Leyen article. Good job you caught it in time.