The BBC won’t tell you that 4 in 5 Covid-19 Deaths in past month were among the Triple/Double Vaccinated according to Official Data

dailyexpose.uk ^ | 12/29/21 | EXPOSÉ

[ransomnote]

PING

[MDLION]

Thanks for the details. The media don’t like to give us the details.

[Travis McGee]

[Trillian]

And the 5th wasn’t “fully vaccinated”.

[fuzzylogic]

...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people.

Regardless if we like the vax or not, I’m not sure data based on percentages is useful. I’m interested in understanding the increase/decrease benefit of the shot in terms of Absolute Risk Reduction - as the starting point for unvaxed is (for most) 99.9+%. It seems that even if the vax initially improves this it is only by 0.01% (or so)...which isn’t worth the adverse effects, especially if the net result is a negative efficacy over time - as some are reporting.

Is there a reliable study that focuses on ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction?

[Prince of Space]

Awesome report. Thanks for posting it.

[TexasGator]

Thanks for posting that link that shows how great the vaccinations are!

[Roman_War_Criminal]

It’s pretty clear by now that the jabs don’t work.

So, why the insistence on Gubmint control freaks to jab the entire population and “save” us from Covid?

Why?

[Steve Van Doorn]

Vaccinated == 7 days after you're injected with your last booster. Until then you're unvaccinated

I know in Australia it's 7 in the US it's 14 days.

[fireman15]

Don’t worry the people who constantly overlook all the issues with these awful vaccines have plenty of excuses to explain this. It’s called cognitive dissonance.

[MountainDad]

Careful Matt, the local "needle-addicts" here are gonna try to discredit everything that's goes against their agenda!!

BTW - Thanks for all you do and Happy New Year!

[Steve Van Doorn]

We can only speculate their intent. Though here is a clue.
Deagel is a military analyst(used by the UN)
Population forecast for 2025 Forecast by Country (US population drop 68%.) ALL of western world drop in population. Deagel has taken this down but here it's saved.
https://nobulart.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Deagel-2025-Forecast-by-Country.pdf

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Yeah I’ve seen that before. I do think there is something nefarious going on with the odious jabs.

[dennisw]

I predicted months ago that once they are hopping onto the Cov_xyz vaxxxxx treadmill, that they with have a hard time getting off. They just can’t get enough of them yummy spike proteins. So the sheeple are now in line for twice yearly booster shots.

[ransomnote]

Medical coup. There are too many of us for them to fight so they need us to comply. We have to lock ourselves up because they scare us into doing it. We have to have toxic jabs because they scare+threaten us into doing it. They need us to help them destroy us. The plandemic gives them excuses to make fake mandates and illegal'requirements' as if we have to follow it.

PLandemic seems to give them carte blanch, but really it's the frightened obedient public doing all the giving.

[Night Hides Not]

And what about those highly vaxxed NFL players put on protocols on Monday?

[bramps]

Could the creator of the vaccines be reached for comment?

[Travis McGee]

Back atcha for a great 2022! If that is possible...

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled The BBC won’t tell you that 4 in 5 Covid-19 Deaths in past month were among the Triple/Double Vaccinated according to Official Data, fuzzylogic wrote:

...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people.

Regardless if we like the vax or not, I’m not sure data based on percentages is useful. I’m interested in understanding the increase/decrease benefit of the shot in terms of Absolute Risk Reduction - as the starting point for unvaxed is (for most) 99.9+%. It seems that even if the vax initially improves this it is only by 0.01% (or so)...which isn’t worth the adverse effects, especially if the net result is a negative efficacy over time - as some are reporting.

Is there a reliable study that focuses on ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction?

* The governments chose to use Relative Risk reduction (grading on the curve) during the pharma trials in order to deceive the public into getting the vax. They said 95% (RR) reduction and allowed the public to think that it meant there's now a 95% chance they would not get sick. The CDC, Fauci et. al. knew that was not true but that's what they wanted. In Absolute Risk terms, anyone getting the vax only reduced their risk of getting sick by less than 1%.

But Relative Risk helped the government back then and comparison stats need to use the same choice they made (RR) in order to be an apples-to-apples comparison. 

You said: "...but isn’t 80%+ of England vaccinated? If there’s few unvaxed then I’d expect most of the cases to be with vaxed people."

That's catastrophic acceptance of treasonous lies and violations of the Nuremberg code. The public accepted grievous risk while being decieved into thinking they were trading their health for a 95% reduction in risk of Covid, when they gave away their health for less than 1% of risk reduction. Given you're willing to forgive and forget so easily, I don't think having Absolute Risk numbers will matter much.