Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "" video.

@jayctacohut Oh wow, Rumble! What an amazing, credible source... This is just an update of an already debunked misreading of PHE reports. The actual ONS data shows that of 51k thousand deaths, 640 were vaccinated, and 256 of those were vaccinated with two doses for a minimum of 14 days. In other words, your likelihood of dying from covid is far, far higher if you are not vaccinated.
1
@juliebennett7296 You're an anti-vaxxer. Sucks to suck. Also, Pfizer gave its vaccine a trade name once it was FDA approved, not for the reason you claimed. Vaccines aren't magic. They don't need to absolutely, 100% prevent all infection to be considered effective. Condoms aren't 100% effective at preventing STI transmission and pregnancy. It's still advisable to use them. Same for a vaccine.
1
@jayctacohut I did look at the report. As I mentioned, this is just an update of an already debunked misreading of PHE data. Beanie guy—apparently scientifically illiterate—ignores that the vast majority of the vaccinated death column comes from the >50 range, ie people who are already older, may be immunocompromised, may have comorbidities, etc. These were also the first people to be vaccinated, so there is just a greater number of them. He also ignores that there are vastly fewer cases among the vaccinated, so even if the rate of vaccinated death is higher, the absolute number is lower. ONS data published in September shows 1.2% of covid deaths were among the vaccinated.
1
@jayctacohut He also ignores PHE data released in August showing vaccines saved 100k lives in the UK.
1
@juliebennett7296 You've only demonstrated how incredibly uninformed you are.
1
@jayctacohut Wait, I thought you believed PHE was reliable. You cited them (while not understanding what their report showed). Suddenly when PHE very obviously denies your narrative, they're suspect?
1
@GhastlyMange Vaccines don't have long term side effects. Only a phase III trial has to be passed for a drug to be approved for public use. Phase IV, the monitoring phase, is ongoing, and it's how we know about rare adverse reactions, like myocarditis and clotting, which may not've appeared in earlier trials owing to their smaller size (eg myocarditis has an incidence of 1 in 50,000, which can be missed in a clinical trial of 10,000). That's what Phase IV detects for vaccines, not reactions that manifest years later. MRNA has been studied for three decades. We do know how effective the vaccines are. There've been many studies on that topic. I believe I cited some from NEJM above. Facts don't care about your anecdotes.
1
@tomitstube The report is legitimate. Anti-vaxxers just don't understand what the report shows.
1
@jayctacohut No, it doesn't indicate that, just like it didn't indicate it the last time anti-vaxxers misread a PHE report in July. I already explained what you're missing, but you're just oblivious to that. The ONS data I cited is actually newer than PHE's latest, but go off.
1
@GhastlyMange You just don't understand the process, and you're mistaking that ignorance for justified concern. By definition Phase IV can't start until Phase III is successfully completed and the drug is released to the public. You're so confused by terms you saw on a facebook post that you're requiring that Phase IV be "completed" (even though it's an ongoing phase) BEFORE public availability.
1
@jayctacohut It's not "whatever" if you're going to mindlessly regurgitate misinformation. Not everyone can be expected to look at a report like the PHE report and understand all the factors that inform that data or be capable of basic critical thinking. Fine—but don't get your interpretation from conspiracists and randos with no medical background. There are dozens of articles written by or referencing scientists calling out the same kind false claims from the July PHE report.
1
@jayctacohut It's not my "belief." You're not looking at the data critically and trying to understand what the numbers mean or the context they exist in. According to Christian Yates, Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology, University of Bath, to cite just one person, "More vaccinated people are dying of COVID than unvaccinated people, according to a recent report from Public Health England (PHE)...At first glance, this may seem alarming, but it is exactly as would be expected. "An unvaccinated 70-year-old might be 32 times more likely to die of COVID than an unvaccinated 35-year-old. This dramatic variation of the risk profile with age means that even excellent vaccines don’t reduce the risk of death for older people to below the risk for some younger demographics. "PHE data suggests that being double vaccinated reduces the risk of being hospitalized with the now-dominant delta variant by around 96%. Even conservatively assuming the vaccines are no more effective at preventing death than hospitalization (actually they are likely to be more effective at preventing death) this means the risk of death for double vaccinated people has been cut to less than one-twentieth of the value for unvaccinated people with the same underlying risk profile." He's responding to a carbon copy of the false claim you're making, but unfortunately, for the free thinkers who've completely liberated their brains from their skulls, this kind of misinformation refuses to die. If you look at Table 5, you'll notice that the vaccinated number is skewed by the >50 category. I've already explained why this might be the case. But for the <50 category, the opposite is true. Way more unvaccinated people died. That throws a serious wrench in your theory. When are you going to get out of your little bubble and do some actual thinking instead of just talking about it, posturing, and cherry picking data you don't understand?
1
@jayctacohut Look, I can't spoon feed you every sentence any more than I already have. Understanding how the data reflects the real world situation (and what it leaves out) isn't making excuses. It's requisite for any serious interpretation. "Number bigger" isn't a particularly sophisticated way of looking at things. There's a reason doctors look at that data and see one thing and dumdums in beanies see another. Go direct your tantrum at someone else.
1
@jayctacohut That would only be true if the vaccine was the, or even a, cause of death, which of course it isn't. In reality, the vaccine is preventing more death. Your mistake is that you're looking at one number from one report, covering a few months, without trying to understand what that number represents and, as important, what it doesn't tell us. For instance, since those 50 and older were the first to get the vaccine, and a higher percentage of them are vaccinated, it makes perfect sense for more deaths to be present in that group. If 100% of people are vaccinated, 100% of covid deaths will be vaccinated. That by itself tells us nothing about vaccine effectiveness. Generally, the more a population is vaccinated, the greater will be the percentage of vaccinated hospitalizations and deaths.
1
@jayctacohut Also, table 5 only reports Delta deaths. Table 3 makes clear that while Delta accounts for more cases, it only makes up half of the deaths attributed to Alpha. In other words, you're basing your conclusion on half-complete data. ONS data is more robust, and it finds that only 1.2% of covid deaths were fully vaccinated.
1
Idiocracy is eugenicist garbage.
1
She is wrong. Vaccines don't have long term effects like she's describing. You take them a few times, not daily for extended periods, and the components are removed from the body within a few weeks. After 10 months of being publicly available, all adverse effects of the vaccines have appeared within 2 months, exactly as you'd expect.
1