they? every major medical institute, hospital, government (allies and enemies alike), etc. etc. are all colluding to fugde, hide, lie about the data? i just don't buy it. this would be a conspiracy of unfathomable magnitude and unprecedented cooperation.
if you look at the abstract, they compare covid deaths (edit my bad, hospitalizations) to vaccine adverse events, which is not apples to apples. and it's a hypothetical, not even looking at real deaths vs real deaths.
it's amazing that the vaers death reports are like 3 levels of magnitude (iirc) under covid death counts (% to %)... you'd think it'd be a lot closer if the jabs are killing more ppl than the virus (even if we assume overreporting covid deaths and underreporting vaxx deaths, which i also don't buy as a given)
i don't have time rn to check all the other links, but that one jumps out.
Re. how profoundly, inept the entire modelling & therefore, data was. Frighteningly, It appears the WHO choose to use similar, again. There is obviously, huge global, political corruption involved & "useless idiots" used, to exploit crises.
Below, excerpts from article link:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778/full
How It Started: Modeling
Early modeling made concerning predictions that induced fear (
Table 1). Kissler et al. predicted the need for intermittent lockdowns occurring for a total of 75% of the time, even after July 2022, to avoid “overwhelming critical care capacity (page 866 in ref. 2)” (
2–
4). In their discussion they wrote that the response “is likely to have profoundly negative economic, social, and educational consequences… We do not take a position on the advisability of these scenarios given the economic burden… (page 868)” (
2). On March 16, 2020, the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team published modeling of the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) (
5). They wrote that suppression “needs to be in force for the majority [>2/3 of the time] of the 2 years of the simulation (page 11),” without which there would be 510,000 deaths in Great Britain and 2.2 million deaths in the United States by mid-April, surpassing ICU demand by 30 times (
5). In their discussion they wrote that “we do not consider the ethical or economic implications (page 4)… The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound (page 16)…” (
5). The Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team extended this to the global impact of the pandemic on March 26, 2020, and estimated that without lockdowns there would be
Table 1
TABLE 1. Initial modeling predictions that induced fear and crowd-effects.
How It Took Off: Crowd Effects (Groupthink)
There ensued a contagion of fear and policies across the world (
9–
12). Social media spread a growing sense of panic (
13). Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context, with a “sheer one-sided focus (page 4)” on preventing infection (
12). There was an appeal of group hysteria; “everyone got a break from their ambitions and other burdens carried in normal life,” and became united in crowds, which have a numbing effect (
9). There was talk of “acting together against a common threat,” “about seeming to reduce risks of infection and deaths from this one particular disease, to the exclusion of all other health risks or other life concerns,” with virtue signaling to the crowd, of “something they love to hate and be seen to fight against” (
9). A war effort analogy is apt, with the “unquestioning presumption that the cause is right, that the fight will be won, that naysayers and non-combatants [e.g., not wearing a mask] are basically traitors, and that there are technical solutions [e.g., vaccine and drugs] that will quickly overcome any apparent problem or collateral damage.