Jump to content

webtrekker

Members
  • Posts

    3,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by webtrekker

  1. A more accurate representation of true unvaxxed numbers in the UK? Right boys 'n' girls ('n' others too!), I needed to do this calculation myself as I haven't been entirely convinced by the wide-ranging figures (around 10 to 24 million supposedly unvaxxed in England alone!) touted by other sites. So, I've painstakingly gathered together, from OFFICIAL sources, the figures I need to calculate the number of UnVaxxed people in the UK. Firstly, what do we mean by UnVaxxed? My belief is that anyone in the Eligible Group, ie. 12 years old or more, that has had NO INJECTIONS or ONLY ONE INJECTION is, in the eyes of the Government, currently UnVaxxed. My method then is to first calculate the size of the Eligible Group by subtracting all of those under the age of 12 from the Total UK Population. Let's do that now - I am using figures from https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/ to determine how many are under 12 years of age. Ok, so 9.5 million of the current UK Population are under 12 and therefore not (yet?) eligible for vaccination. This gives - Eligibility: 68,407,231 (Current UK Total Population) - 9,573,110 (Not eligible, <12 years old) ---------- 58,834,121 Eligible for Vax ---------- Next, I use the official UK Gov figures for 1st and 2nd doses from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations UK 1-dose = 51,463,255 UK 2-doses = 47,009,608 Therefore, people Eligible, but have received NO VAX is - 58,834,121 -51,463,255 ---------- 7,370,866 0-doses, UNVAXXED ---------- Because the 2nd dose group are within the 1st dose group (ie. you cannot have a 2nd dose until you have had the 1st), then we must subtract the 2nd dose group from the 1st dose group to get a true figure for those who have had only one dose - Eligible, and only received one dose: 51,463,255 -47,009,608 ---------- 4,453,647 1-dose, NOT FULLY VAXXED ---------- Finally, (thank feck for that, I hear you say!), we can add the 0-dose and 1-dose figures together to get a true representation of the number of UK citizens that are eligible for vaccination, but who have not been fully vaccinated (ie. only 0 or 1 doses) - Total Eligible but only received one or less Vax 7,370,866 + 4,453,647 ---------- 11,824,513 Total UNVAXXED (0 or 1-dose) ---------- That's nearly 12 MILLION people who are ELIGIBLE but have not been FULLY VAXXED (ie. 2 vaccinations or more adheringto Government rules) acording to my best estimation usng official Government figures. Even if you don't include the ones who have only had one vax (and I can't see why you would do this) it still leaves around 7.4 MILLION UnVaxxed, which is a good deal higher than the 5 Million stated by the MSM. There may well be more than this if they have been lying about the official numbers of vaccinations, but then again, would they do that?
  2. My estimate is around 15 million from the eligible group, but that's over the whole UK and not just England. Still a hell of a lot from an entire population of around 68 million though.
  3. Interesting point of view, but from the figures that have been released I still believe that there are at least 15 million unjabbed. The thing is though, we unjabbed are now the Control Group seeing as they slyly got rid of the original Control Group from the trials by offering them the real shots as a 'goodwill gesture!' Now they are trying to get rid of us because an unvaccinated Control Group would expose the real intentions of the shots once people start dying off en masse.
  4. I can tell you're really struggling and, to be brutally honest, it doesn't look like the Cavalry are going to come charging over the horizon very soon and save our sorry arses. These governments are being very active in their persecution of all those that don't follow their commands to the letter, while all they have to contend with is a war of words, most of which they censor anyway. Until real rebellion occurs it looks as though things will just get worse day by day. But ..................... have faith in the fact that there are MILLIONS more of us than they care to admit and most of those will never swap sides. Believe me, the Day of Reckoning will come and those lily-livered, pot-bellied pigs will rue the day they started this!
  5. Why would anyone want to get a test for a 'virus' that has a 99.7% survival rate and they have no symptoms? I might consider wearing a mask, getting tested and vaccinated once Pfizer have released their documents .................... in 75 years time!
  6. Very sorry to hear that. I am not a religious person myself, but if I were, I would find it a bit rich to have to wear a mask when I thought He would at least protect me in His own house. What kind of God is that?
  7. Probably an attempt to discredit him. After reading his new book about Fauci I think most folk know which side of the fence he's on.
  8. Yep, I'd say triple is probably the best guess at the moment Ziggy, even allowing for dodgy maths from some of the 'conspiracy' sites that place it anywhere between 10 and 23 million. If only we could get this 15 million singing from the same hymn book.
  9. The only danger to society is that big fat Kinder egg himself!
  10. Exactly, and that's why OmiCON mysteriously appears straight after the boosters to give a 'reason' for all the upcoming deaths and serious illnesses.
  11. https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1472150415852589059?s=20https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1472150415852589059?s=20
  12. Anyone think that the impending 2-week lockdown is to quell the protests now taking place and nothing to do with omiCON?
  13. Further to this remark, if you really want to feel depressed, here's the full poem, a masterpiece IMHO .. ‘A Dream within a Dream’: A Poem by Edgar Allan Poe How can we separate reality from illusion? What if, to quote from Edgar Allan Poe, ‘All that we see or seem / Is but a dream within a dream’? ‘A Dream within a Dream’ muses on the fragility and fleetingness of everything, and asks whether anything we do has any lasting or real effect. ‘A Dream within a Dream’ by Edgar Allan Poe (1809-49) is one of Poe’s best-known poems. ‘A Dream within a Dream’ by Edgar Allan Poe Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream? Just shoot me now!
  14. In reality, I prefer Poe myself: All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream.
  15. Ast the Bard said: All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; The Pyramids and all the rest are merely stage props in this thing we call an existence. It matters not how they came to be. When the curtain drops for the next Act to begin new props will be added and some removed. And so on, ad infinitum! (Sorry! I've got my philosophical, cynical old git head on today!)
  16. Well said! Oh, ... sorry, ... I'll have to dash. There's someone at the door with my takeaway from Just Eat! .........................................
  17. I've gone over The Expose figures myself and find nothing wrong with them. Total English population= 56 million Total aged under 12 = 8.2 million 56-8.2 = 47.8 million eligible for vaccination Using UKHSA figure for first doses (47.8 x 67.9%), then unvaxxed = 56 - 32.456 = 23.54 million.
  18. A comment from the TCW website ... From Penseivat DECEMBER 10, 2021 AT 11:12 In a discussion with a friend who insisted that vaccinations should be compulsory, I poured some liquid from a small bottle I was carrying, and asked him to drink it. He: “What’s in it?” Me: Something that will make you feel better.” He: “But what is it?” Me: “I will tell you what it is in 55 years time and, if you have an adverse reaction, I am not legally responsible. However, you can trust me it will make you feel better.” He wouldn’t drink it (it was only water), though still couldn’t see the connection between his refusal to drink something he had no idea what it was, and the refusal of people to be vaccinated with a unknown chemical. Some people are really weird.
  19. OFF TOPIC, but may be of use to some ... I don't know about you lot, but I've collected a lot of useful PDF, EPUB and MOBI format ebooks and documents, full of vital information that I'd like to keep and access when needed, particularly stuff related to the Plandemic. So, I keep all of my files in the excellent Calibre ebook management software (FREE!) that is available for Windows, Mac and Linux systems. This allows me to browse or search for any material with ease. It also has powerful ebook conversion features, handy if you want to convert that PDF to MOBI to read on your Kindle or whatever. Wouldn't be without it these days. Screenshot from one of my PC's ... I can spin through the entire collection with my mousewheel in next to no time. The 3D carousel view is nice and smooth. The whole program is a pleasure to use.
  20. Rapid Response: Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg Dear Mark Zuckerberg, We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta. In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites. The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.[1] But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.” Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2] We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible. -- It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong -- It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials” -- The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog” -- It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article -- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert” We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article. We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform. There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.[3] Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ. We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee, editor in chief Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief The BMJ Competing interests: As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains. References: [1] Thacker PD. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial. BMJ. 2021 Nov 2;375:n2635. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2635. PMID: 34728500. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 [2] Miller D. Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials. Nov 10, 2021. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-british-medical-jo... [3] https://twitter.com/cochranecollab/status/1458439812357185536 Competing interests: As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains. 17 December 2021 Fiona Godlee Editor in Chief Kamran Abbasi The BMJ BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR @fgodlee Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80
  21. As with nuclear energy, it's a case of wondrous technology getting into the wrong hands. There's nothing wrong, per se, with mobiles or computers if used for the right reasons.
×
×
  • Create New...