They are probably saying wrongly equating 3x more deaths in vaccinated people than unvaccinated with 3x more likely to die if vaccinated.
The UK reports an 87% vaccinated rate.
Which means 9 people have been vaccinated for every one person that hasn’t.
If you can assume new infections are occurring equally among both vaccinated and unvaccinated, then vaccinated deaths would have to be 9x the unvaccinated count for the case to be made that the vaccination is harmful.
Only being 3x represents a 66% improvement among vaccinated over unvaccinated.
Only a 66% improvement for a virus that has less than a 1% fatality rate hardly seem worth the effort to be a Guinea pig for Big Pharma/Deep State.
In total, 70 out of the 27,192 vaccinated individuals in the study died, which is a 0.26% mortality rate.
Meanwhile, 44 out of the 53,822 unvaccinated people in the paper died, resulting in a 0.08% mortality.
You had to work pretty hard to flog the truth into something else. The vaccine is crap and is doing more harm than good. Only people over 75 should even contemplate it.
That's a big assumption. You could also assume that for equal numbers of infected unvaccinated and infected vaccinated, 3x more vaccinated die. Assuming one or the other is pointless. Unless the story specifies one case or another, the statistics are almost useless.
From the article:
“Regarding the most dangerous variant, the Delta, the UK government admits vaccinated people are 3.25 times more likely to die than those who did not take the experimental shot.
Out of 117 total deaths occurring within 28 days of infection, 44 of them were unvaccinated individuals.”
Now, they’re admitting they can’t do math, since 3.25x44=
132+11=143. The ratio should be 117/44 ~ 2.66 times.
But, your original statement is wrong. They are saying more absolute deaths in the vaccinated. 2 and 2/3 times.
Typical jab-pusher. Make up bullcrap without reading the article and then present your own wishful thinking as SCIENCE!™