200k Omicron cases OVERNIGHT in UK

Advertise on BHW
Wondering why Whitty is not investing in stocks (or crypto).. with such predictive ability could be multi-billionaire overnight
 
t0mmy said:
I’ll just leave this here..

https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/03/f...nce-august-according-to-latest-official-data/
Yes, get your jabs.. facepalm.
Click to expand...
This whole article is a complete manipulation from start to finish, the sources they link contradict what they present and they constantly make false conclusions based on data they've misrepresented

For instance, let's take the first graph

1639657194116.png

They then say

As you can see from the above the unvaccinated population accounted for the majority of cases every week between August 21st and September 17th, but since then the fully vaccinated have accounted for the majority of cases every week.

They're not breaking this down on a per-capita basis. They're just presenting raw numbers and comparing them. So what they conveniently left out here is that MOST of the population are either fully vaccinated or single jabbed (starting with older and at risk populations first). This is why we break things down on a per capita basis for an accurate comparison. What's even more strange and makes me think this article is intentionally attempting to spread misinformation, is the article says it's getting this data from Table 19 and provides a link to the source

Go to page 43 of the source they cite to see the data

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10583/21-12-01-covid19-publication_report.pdf
"In the last week from 20 November to 26 November 2021, the case rate in unvaccinated populations was 411 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals, compared to 253 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals vaccinated with two or more doses."

^ Oh look, they've broken the statistics down on a per capita basis. I don't believe this is just an honest mistake from a dipshit who doesn't understand anything, this looks like the person who wrote this article has intentionally gone out of their way to misrepresent the data. They've manipulated it in such a way to mislead people. I usually don't attribute malice when incompetence is a better explanation, but here I'm struggling to believe this.

So it literally says the opposite of this article.

1639659050669.png

They've done kind of the same thing with the hospitalisations. They cite table 20 - which is on page 49

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10583/21-12-01-covid19-publication_report.pdf
They've just provided raw numbers instead of age standardised hospitalisation Rate per 100,000 with 95% confidence intervals. Even with vaccinations, you'd still expect older people or people with health issues to experience more issues. That's why a good faith actor would compare like for like, and not just dump raw numbers to mislead. The SOURCE THEY CITE EVEN EXPLAINS THIS

"To account for the different age distribution of individuals in each vaccine status, age-standardised hospitalisation rates are reported in Table 20 and Figure 19. This method is used because, on average, unvaccinated individuals are younger than individuals with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Older individuals are more likely to be hospitalised than younger individuals. In all age groups, the age- standardised hospitalisation rate of admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. In the past four weeks, from 30 October 2021 to 26 November 2021, the age-standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. In the last week in an age-standardised population, 50 unvaccinated individuals were 4.1 times more likely to have a COVID-19 related acute hospital admission compared to individuals that had received two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. "

So the sources linked in that article literally and consistently demonstrate the opposite of the reality that article is trying to present.
 

Attachments

  • 1639659035670.png
    1639659035670.png
    145.7 KB · Views: 0
Themanhere said:
This whole article is a complete manipulation from start to finish, the sources they link contradict what they present and they constantly make false conclusions based on data they've misrepresented

For instance, let's take the first graph

View attachment 195588

They then say

As you can see from the above the unvaccinated population accounted for the majority of cases every week between August 21st and September 17th, but since then the fully vaccinated have accounted for the majority of cases every week.

They're not breaking this down on a per-capita basis. They're just presenting raw numbers and comparing them. So what they conveniently left out here is that MOST of the population are either fully vaccinated or single jabbed (starting with older and at risk populations first). This is why we break things down on a per capita basis for an accurate comparison. What's even more strange and makes me think this article is intentionally attempting to spread misinformation, is the article says it's getting this data from Table 19 and provides a link to the source

Go to page 43 of the source they cite to see the data

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10583/21-12-01-covid19-publication_report.pdf
"In the last week from 20 November to 26 November 2021, the case rate in unvaccinated populations was 411 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals, compared to 253 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals vaccinated with two or more doses."

^ Oh look, they've broken the statistics down on a per capita basis. I don't believe this is just an honest mistake from a dipshit who doesn't understand anything, this looks like the person who wrote this article has intentionally gone out of their way to misrepresent the data. They've manipulated it in such a way to mislead people. I usually don't attribute malice when incompetence is a better explanation, but here I'm struggling to believe this.

So it literally says the opposite of this article.

View attachment 195590

They've done kind of the same thing with the hospitalisations. They cite table 20 - which is on page 49

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10583/21-12-01-covid19-publication_report.pdf
They've just provided raw numbers instead of age standardised hospitalisation Rate per 100,000 with 95% confidence intervals. Even with vaccinations, you'd still expect older people or people with health issues to experience more issues. That's why a good faith actor would compare like for like, and not just dump raw numbers to mislead. The SOURCE THEY CITE EVEN EXPLAINS THIS

"To account for the different age distribution of individuals in each vaccine status, age-standardised hospitalisation rates are reported in Table 20 and Figure 19. This method is used because, on average, unvaccinated individuals are younger than individuals with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Older individuals are more likely to be hospitalised than younger individuals. In all age groups, the age- standardised hospitalisation rate of admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. In the past four weeks, from 30 October 2021 to 26 November 2021, the age-standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. In the last week in an age-standardised population, 50 unvaccinated individuals were 4.1 times more likely to have a COVID-19 related acute hospital admission compared to individuals that had received two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. "

So the sources linked in that article literally and consistently demonstrate the opposite of the reality that article is trying to present.
Click to expand...

Your efforts are commendable, but unfortunately you're trying to explain how statistics should be formed and interpret to an audience who in general massively lacks understanding of how probabilities and statistics works and can't think in probabilistic way about the reality they live in. Almost every antivaxxer I've read anything from have that in common.
They think in binary mode - if a vaccine does not stop the virus in it's tracks 100% of the time in 100% of the cases then it doesn't work. if it doesn't prevent transmission 100% of the time and if it doesn't decrease the viral load to 0 it doesn't work period, if a mask does not stop all of the aerosols then it doesn't work
etc
They seem incapable of grasping that even 30% efficacy can make a huge difference and make or brake having control over state HS or having all hell break loose. Math simulations and exponential growth and decrease seem alien concepts for the vast majority.
 
Last edited:
On a serious note, when will this virus thing finally end? When will everything be back to normal like before? It's terrifying.
 
Rollfic said:
On a serious note, when will this virus thing finally end? When will everything be back to normal like before? It's terrifying.
Click to expand...

There is no before bro. Every single virus who's source has ever been traced that has ended up mutating to infect humans started from animal orgin. If anything this should be lesson about one, of numeorus reasons why it's a bad idea to eat animals. But nobody, vaxxers and anti-vaxxers alike wants to even consider that, since it's inconveniant. And yet doing away with horrific, almost satanic eating practices would probably do away with not just viral outbreaks among communities, but the plague of modern lifestyle diseases too by weeding them out from the roots.
 
Last edited:
Themanhere said:
This whole article is a complete manipulation from start to finish, the sources they link contradict what they present and they constantly make false conclusions based on data they've misrepresented

For instance, let's take the first graph

View attachment 195588

They then say

As you can see from the above the unvaccinated population accounted for the majority of cases every week between August 21st and September 17th, but since then the fully vaccinated have accounted for the majority of cases every week.

They're not breaking this down on a per-capita basis. They're just presenting raw numbers and comparing them. So what they conveniently left out here is that MOST of the population are either fully vaccinated or single jabbed (starting with older and at risk populations first). This is why we break things down on a per capita basis for an accurate comparison. What's even more strange and makes me think this article is intentionally attempting to spread misinformation, is the article says it's getting this data from Table 19 and provides a link to the source

Go to page 43 of the source they cite to see the data

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10583/21-12-01-covid19-publication_report.pdf
"In the last week from 20 November to 26 November 2021, the case rate in unvaccinated populations was 411 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals, compared to 253 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 individuals vaccinated with two or more doses."

^ Oh look, they've broken the statistics down on a per capita basis. I don't believe this is just an honest mistake from a dipshit who doesn't understand anything, this looks like the person who wrote this article has intentionally gone out of their way to misrepresent the data. They've manipulated it in such a way to mislead people. I usually don't attribute malice when incompetence is a better explanation, but here I'm struggling to believe this.

So it literally says the opposite of this article.

View attachment 195590

They've done kind of the same thing with the hospitalisations. They cite table 20 - which is on page 49

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/10583/21-12-01-covid19-publication_report.pdf
They've just provided raw numbers instead of age standardised hospitalisation Rate per 100,000 with 95% confidence intervals. Even with vaccinations, you'd still expect older people or people with health issues to experience more issues. That's why a good faith actor would compare like for like, and not just dump raw numbers to mislead. The SOURCE THEY CITE EVEN EXPLAINS THIS

"To account for the different age distribution of individuals in each vaccine status, age-standardised hospitalisation rates are reported in Table 20 and Figure 19. This method is used because, on average, unvaccinated individuals are younger than individuals with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Older individuals are more likely to be hospitalised than younger individuals. In all age groups, the age- standardised hospitalisation rate of admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. In the past four weeks, from 30 October 2021 to 26 November 2021, the age-standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were higher in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. In the last week in an age-standardised population, 50 unvaccinated individuals were 4.1 times more likely to have a COVID-19 related acute hospital admission compared to individuals that had received two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. "

So the sources linked in that article literally and consistently demonstrate the opposite of the reality that article is trying to present.
Click to expand...

Good job breaking it down. Honestly, I don't even understand how people can fully eat up obvious fake news on an internet marketing forum, it's actually sad.
 
Rollfic said:
On a serious note, when will this virus thing finally end? When will everything be back to normal like before? It's terrifying.
Click to expand...
No worries, as I said earlier. In Bulgaria was confirmed the first case of the old old SEASON FLU !
Old flu is coming to reclaim its glory
 
redjebo said:
Your efforts are commendable, but unfortunately you're trying to explain how statistics should be formed and interpret to an audience who in general massively lacks understanding of how probabilities and statistics works and can't think in probabilistic way about the reality they live in. Almost every antivaxxer I've read anything from have that in common.
They think in binary mode - if a vaccine does not stop the virus in it's tracks 100% of the time in 100% of the cases then it doesn't work. if it doesn't prevent transmission 100% of the time and if it doesn't decrease the viral load to 0 it doesn't work period, if a mask does not stop all of the aerosols then it doesn't work
etc
They seem incapable of grasping that even 30% efficacy can make a huge difference and make or brake having control over state HS or having all hell break loose. Math simulations and exponential growth and decrease seem alien concepts for the vast majority.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, but I think if I break things down clearly showing the exact way the stats are being manipulated, it may help SOME readers see the holes in common arguments.

Such as lumping all unvaxed in one group (which includes children who are typically lower risk), then comparing it to vaxed (which includes mostly elderly and at risk populations). That's one of the most common manipulations I see. Instead of comparing like for like groups and per capita.
 
thescrrr said:
Good job breaking it down. Honestly, I don't even understand how people can fully eat up obvious fake news on an internet marketing forum, it's actually sad.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think it's because it's not always so obvious unless you're prepared to dig a bit deeper. A good chunk of people only read the titles, they don't even bother with the article. Then even fewer still will fact check the claims. Fortunately they cited sources, and it made it really easy to debunk because I've come across similar arguments and stat manipulations already.

But if you weren't familiar with common manipulation tactics, I can understand why people get suckered into articles with lots of graphs and citations. Especially if they're just looking for a quick article that boosts confirmation bias. Because it's not necessarily something people will consider. If you just take raw numbers like unvax vs vax'd, then compare rates, it does look bad for vaccines. Until you realize most of the unvax'd are children and most of the vax'd are elderly / at risk. So that's why a good faith actor would compare like for like groups i.e. "obese / age bracket 40-50 / men", what's the hospitalisation rates per capita for this group between vax'd and unvax'd.
 
Themanhere said:
Thanks. I think it's because it's not always so obvious unless you're prepared to dig a bit deeper. A good chunk of people only read the titles, they don't even bother with the article. Then even fewer still will fact check the claims. Fortunately they cited sources, and it made it really easy to debunk because I've come across similar arguments and stat manipulations already.

But if you weren't familiar with common manipulation tactics, I can understand why people get suckered into articles with lots of graphs and citations. Especially if they're just looking for a quick article that boosts confirmation bias. Because it's not necessarily something people will consider. If you just take raw numbers like unvax vs vax'd, then compare rates, it does look bad for vaccines. Until you realize most of the unvax'd are children and most of the vax'd are elderly / at risk. So that's why a good faith actor would compare like for like groups i.e. "obese / age bracket 40-50 / men", what's the hospitalisation rates per capita for this group between vax'd and unvax'd.
Click to expand...

You don't even need to dig into the stats and sources, just a glimpse at the site tells you the truth.

1. dailyexpose.uk - lmao.
2. Domain not a year old.
3. Clickbait title and images. "Fully Vaccinated Mother Gives Birth To Baby Bleeding From Nose and Mouth, Infant Dies Day Later" - seriously, and they say mainstream media is fearmongering :D
4. Authors have no online presence at all.
5. Only type of article is "vAcCiNe iS bAd".
6. Pushing for donations with 50 ads on the page so they can "survive". lmao 2.

What's amusing is that those people share these braindead sites who sell links on fake sites, I mean come on.
 
Robert W. Malone (Robert Wallace Malone is an American virologist and immunologist. His work has focused on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. )
(He has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of his own invention).
Some claims that Dr. Katalin Karikó and her collaborator Dr. Drew Weissman who are more commonly credited with laying the groundwork for mRNA vaccines... But we all know who do the job and who take the credits :D

How dare YOU Malone...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1251699488651132
 
Last edited:
Rollfic said:
On a serious note, when will this virus thing finally end? When will everything be back to normal like before? It's terrifying.
Click to expand...
So far, scientists believe that Covid-19 will eventually be endemic.

For that to work, the majority of the world needs to go through infection or through the vaccine. Please do note that it is not proven yet that vaccines will help in making the virus endemic. Mainly, because the effectiveness of the current vaccines decline after a certain period of time, and it is not yet sufficiently proven that your body will "remember" future infections if you haven't gone through a natural infection.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top