• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Conspiracies The Covid Narrative

Status
Not open for further replies.
I put this table together in Excel, from an ONS (FOI) dataset.

The anomaly is April 2020. April had 40,000 more deaths than the previous year. Other than that, 2020 is no different to any of the preceding years. Note: Dec 1989, a bad flu year.

Again, where's the pandemic?

On March 17th the Government ordered the discharge of 25,000 patients from hospitals into care homes. In the same month the government ordered two years worth of Midazolam, a drug associated with respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest.. for use in a situation with a disease that causes.. respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest.

Throw in 'Do Not Resuscitate' orders, forced ventilator deaths, and other measures that increase the likelihood of death, and there's your anomaly. State sanctioned murder by Matt Hancock and top NHS staff to generate the statistical spike necessary to convince everyone there's a pandemic when there isn't. I'll bet you my left nut the same formula was applied in other nations to if you look into it.

UK: Older people in care homes abandoned to die amid government failures during CV19 pandemic:
www.amnesty.org

UK Government failures leave older people "abandoned to die" in care homes during COVID 19 pandemic

A new Amnesty report reveals that a series of “shockingly irresponsible” UK Government decisions put tens of thousands of older people’s lives at risk and led to multiple violations of care home residents’ human rights.
www.amnesty.org www.amnesty.org


Deaths-ENGWA-1971-2000.jpg
 
I just had to stop reading when I saw this and ask you to stop spreading this nonsense.

An unvacinated person creates a viral load that is transmissible, vacinated people who also can still get infected also create a viral load.

Currently admission figures for some areas I randomly checked were between 1.5 and 2% of the vaccinated population being hospitalized for covid breakthrough cases while 3.5% of the unvaxed. This isnt including the non hospitalized double vaccinated population that are less symptomatic.

Can you seriously tell me the hospitalized and dying patients who have received vaccines are less contagious? And if you do please explain how.

Next can you please explain how a double vaccinated person, who shows minimal symptoms so never gets officially tested, is less likely to spread their invisible disease while working and shopping vs an unvaccinated person who is obviously sick and pulls out from society?

On a personal note i should add ive had every other vaccine I knew i could get, Ive traveled enough to have need to and I worked with a lot of people who had hepititas. I believe a well made vaccine works and if used correctly we could eradicate long term threats like polio etc.

Using vaccine technology to try and stop a mutating flu virus that doesnt seem very lethal may lead to more severe compromises of the populations health to the point of vaccine dependency.

Making this mistake mandatory is firmly placing your foot on a dark path.

It would be true to say the Unvaccinated contract it at a nearly 4 times the rate. Or create a more visible reaction and more viscous fluid to carry the virus away from the body.

An unvaccinated person cannot increase the chance of a vaccinated uninfected person contracting the virus vs another vaccinated person with invisible infection. The idea that we would continue in public while visibly sick is insulting. However double vaccinated people are doing exactly that and this disease will be spread regardless.
chinup said:
THE UNVACCINTED TRANSMIT IT AT MUCH HIGHER RATES!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
-=SS=- said:
I put this table together in Excel, from an ONS (FOI) dataset.
Click to expand...
Which foi dataset? Cos it wasn't the one you linked, it contradicts the one you linked, and it contradicts other data on the ons website.

Link the exact dataset you got this from. Otherwise it looks rather like something made up to look credible, and a link posted to make it look like a source is being cited, in the hope no one clicked that link.

Why did you post a contradictory foi dataset and not the one you based your table from?
 
-=S=- said:
The anomaly is April 2020. April had 40,000 more deaths than the previous year. Other than that, 2020 is no different to any of the preceding years. Note: Dec 1989, a bad flu year.
Click to expand...

The 40,000 is the deaths in the UK from 2020. There is often a delay with reporting. It typically takes at least a year to get accurate monthly numbers. Instead, reports are often dumped. If you look at a graph of the total deaths in the UK from COVID, you can clearly see what I'm saying:

www.worldometers.info

United Kingdom COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

United Kingdom Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
www.worldometers.info www.worldometers.info

The deaths for 2021 in the UK are approximately 100k. Half of these deaths occurred in January/February '21. According to your logic, that makes those months anomalies. In reality, the UK was going in and out of lockdown to combat waves.

This whole argument about April 2020 is seriously flawed if you bother to examine the data.

From April 1st 2020 to April 30th 2020, there were about 35k deaths.

Across the entire year, there were around 40k deaths.

The UK has about 20% of the population of the US.

So, that is equivalent to 200k deaths in one month in America... and you're asking me where the pandemic is?

How many people need to die in a month in America for this to qualify as a deadly disease? 200k isn't enough. What about 500k in a month? Is that enough?
 
chinup said:
Which foi dataset? Cos it wasn't the one you linked, it contradicts the one you linked, and it contradicts other data on the ons website.

Link the exact dataset you got this from. Otherwise it looks rather like something made up to look credible, and a link posted to make it look like a source is being cited, in the hope no one clicked that link.

Why did you post a contradictory foi dataset and not the one you based your table from?
Click to expand...

Lmao. You actually think I'd waste my time trying to manufacture an excel data set just to prove a point against some internet nobody? That would take more time than it would to just apply a few formulas and conditions!

This is the dataset: ONS: Number of deaths from all causes by day, month and year of occurrence, by sex and age group, England and Wales, 1970 to 2020
This is my excel, which is just the same file but with my processing: My Excel File

I don't know why the data varies. Ask the ONS why they're either amending the data or incompetent at their jobs.
 
-=SS=- said:
Lmao. You actually think I'd waste my time trying to manufacture an excel data set just to prove a point against some internet nobody? That would take more time than it would to just apply a few formulas and conditions!
Click to expand...

You are wasting time arguing complete untruths so yes, I believe you would. Especially because you accuse people of doing it on a global scale, so it's clearly not outside the realms of possibility for you.

-=SS=- said:
I don't know why the data varies. Ask the ONS why they're either amending the data or incompetent at their jobs.
Click to expand...

I am on my phone and that spreadsheet is too unwieldy to check from here, I will take a look later.

I am looking forward to seeing what "formulas and conditions" you have applied to get such a wrong answer. Maybe I'll be wrong and your biases won't have impacted your analysis, but I doubt it.
 
chinup said:
You are wasting time arguing complete untruths so yes, I believe you would. Especially because you accuse people of doing it on a global scale, so it's clearly not outside the realms of possibility for you.

I am on my phone and that spreadsheet is too unwieldy to check from here, I will take a look later.

I am looking forward to seeing what "formulas and conditions" you have applied to get such a wrong answer. Maybe I'll be wrong and your biases won't have impacted your analysis, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

You really are something aren't you. Unbelievable.

And for the record, all I did in the Excel was sum up all the deaths for each month, for all the years, and also calculate the deaths per million using the total population figures (also ONS data). The colorization is Excels conditional formatting, which doesn't alter the data itself but shows change across the range.

I look forward to your apology.
 
A) you cherry picked your own table, i.e. omitted columns that contradict your assertion. you and anyone else who opens it will know what I mean the second they open it

B) you've made a really basic mistake in one of the columns, but it doesn't make a huge difference to the conclusion

C) the numbers in your spreadsheet don't match the ones from your screenshot. You've literally proved you fiddled it to show the conclusion you wanted. All I had to do was eyeball. My guess is in your screenshot you took advantage of calling a month a 4 week block and removed some high death days. It doesn't really matter exactly what you did though what's important is you lied.

I look forward to your apology
 
chinup said:
A) you cherry picked your own table, i.e. omitted columns that contradict your assertion. you and anyone else who opens it will know what I mean the second they open it

B) you've made a really basic mistake in one of the columns, but it doesn't make a huge difference to the conclusion

C) the numbers in your spreadsheet don't match the ones from your screenshot. You've literally proved you fiddled it to show the conclusion you wanted. All I had to do was eyeball. My guess is in your screenshot you took advantage of calling a month a 4 week block and removed some high death days. It doesn't really matter exactly what you did though what's important is you lied.

I look forward to your apology
Click to expand...

A ) No, I didn't. I haven't altered the base data and I haven't omitted anything. There's filters active on the main table, so it only shows 1970 - there's 37000 fucking rows so hiding the visibility helps workflow, the data is still there and still accessed by the formulas.
B ) Which is?
C ) What the fuck are talking about. The screenshot matches the spreadsheet identically. I haven't touched the base data (compare the original if you want, it's there). Do you know how Excel works? The complexity of my processing is using SUM, SUMIFS, and some simple division (for deaths per million).

EDIT: Seeing as you don't know how Excel works. This is the formula in the cell for Jan 1970 (intermediate table summing up all deaths) =SUMIFS(Y4:Y37259, A4:A37259,1970, B4:B37259, 1). You can literally click the formula and it will highlight the ranges used. The 'Y' column is all the deaths for that individual day - each day has two rows, one for each sex. The formula only sums up the Y cells IF the cells in column A have 1970 and B have 1 (January). The final table I presented takes that calculated value and divides it by the total population (divided by 1 million) to give deaths per million for that month.

You are literally making shit up and accusing me of things anyone here can verify if they want. What the fuck is wrong with you.
 
Last edited:
Yourbaker said:
I just had to stop reading when I saw this and ask you to stop spreading this nonsense.

An unvacinated person creates a viral load that is transmissible, vacinated people who also can still get infected also create a viral load.

Currently admission figures for some areas I randomly checked were between 1.5 and 2% of the vaccinated population being hospitalized for covid breakthrough cases while 3.5% of the unvaxed. This isnt including the non hospitalized double vaccinated population that are less symptomatic.

Can you seriously tell me the hospitalized and dying patients who have received vaccines are less contagious? And if you do please explain how.

Next can you please explain how a double vaccinated person, who shows minimal symptoms so never gets officially tested, is less likely to spread their invisible disease while working and shopping vs an unvaccinated person who is obviously sick and pulls out from society?

On a personal note i should add ive had every other vaccine I knew i could get, Ive traveled enough to have need to and I worked with a lot of people who had hepititas. I believe a well made vaccine works and if used correctly we could eradicate long term threats like polio etc.

Using vaccine technology to try and stop a mutating flu virus that doesnt seem very lethal may lead to more severe compromises of the populations health to the point of vaccine dependency.

Making this mistake mandatory is firmly placing your foot on a dark path.

It would be true to say the Unvaccinated contract it at a nearly 4 times the rate. Or create a more visible reaction and more viscous fluid to carry the virus away from the body.

An unvaccinated person cannot increase the chance of a vaccinated uninfected person contracting the virus vs another vaccinated person with invisible infection. The idea that we would continue in public while visibly sick is insulting. However double vaccinated people are doing exactly that and this disease will be spread regardless.
Click to expand...

I'm not as well up on this as @chinup but don't the vaccines (or at least some of them) target the spike proteins thus preventing the viral particles from penetrating host cells? Without host cells, the virus cannot replicate and is expelled from the body via the reinforced immune system. Therefore, it stands to reason that the viral particles expelled from a vaccinated person are less viable than those from an unvaccinated person where it has had chance to replicate unimpeded.
 
Last edited:
@F.U.B.A.R. literally open the spreadsheet, go back 3 pages, and compare the numbers, also look at the columns cropped out of the screenshots. And then imagine having the gall to say they match perfectly and nothing us cherry picked. This has got to be one of the most fascinating exchanges of my life.

I really wish there was a psychologist on here who could speculate on what on earth is going on because its amazing.

Now they are explaining excel to me like some sort of expert when anyone with half a foot on actual data analysis doesn't touch it with a barge pole unless forced. I know how to click on a formula, I learned it 20 years ago.

I'm in equal parts tickled at the ridiculousness of the situation and saddened by the fact that its probably causing them a lot of pain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
on the offchance there has been a misunderstanding, this is what i'm looking at bottom row is 2020, numbers don't match the screenshots SS posted before. left most column is deaths per mil per yeah. this is SS's own 'proof' that there is no pandemic. i have scrolled through this fuckoff spreadsheet checking there isn't some other table where the numbers match (because the column headers don't match the screenshot either) but even if that is there somewhere, their own total deaths per year per mil, is significantly higher in 2020.

 
chinup said:
on the offchance there has been a misunderstanding, this is what i'm looking at bottom row is 2020, numbers don't match the screenshots SS posted before. left most column is deaths per mil per yeah. this is SS's own 'proof' that there is no pandemic. i have scrolled through this fuckoff spreadsheet checking there isn't some other table where the numbers match (because the column headers don't match the screenshot either) but even if that is there somewhere, their own total deaths per year per mil, is significantly higher in 2020.

Click to expand...

Post #623 is the screenshot of the Excel file, linked in post #628. I think you're so desperate to believe I'm wrong you're not even bothering to read the post. I clearly stated in #623 that the following screenshot is from my Excel file, which has nothing to do with the other screenshots. The other screenshots do correlate with the data, they're clearly UK/GB/EngWa data sets. Why there is variance I don't know, the ONS set in MY example doesn't match the ONS website tables in other FOI requests.. so again, either they're messing with their own data or some people/s at the ONS suck at their jobs.

Your point about 2020 total deaths again missed what I have already pointed out, that April/May is the clear anomaly in year 2020.. all the other months look completely normal. If you take the difference between April/May 2019 and April/May 2020, 2746 - 1755, you get 991. Subtract that from the 2020 total (12118 ) and you get 11,127. That's only a difference of 386 from the 2018 total..

Now according to the official narrative that anomaly is the "first wave", which is about as scientific as any "variant". Doctrine completely pulled out of thin air as if it were a reality, just like now with "Omicron". Unfortunately for them we have both a paper trail implicating Matt Hancock and top NHS officials regarding the bulk purchase of Midazolam in March 2020, and testimony from people working in both care homes and hospitals who have witnessed what was really going on (state sanctioned murder).. which was clearly done to generate that statistical spike (the "first wave").

You can't square this circle. It's a manufactured hysteria over something that doesn't exist. The viral isolation, the PCR testing, the "variants", all of it is nothing more than a religious belief system being pushed by some very sick fucks who want to control humanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top