Good effort. No one cares. Facts are evil.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Izradās, ka esmu ITNP. Mēs esot ļoti īpaši :)
Tomēr, kopumā, man ir emocionāls iemesls atsāt šo informāciju šeit.
Laikam man riebjas t0 nepelnītā augstprātība no tiem, kas mani (un ne tikai mani) norakstīja par idiotu, kartupeli utt.

Intersānti, arī, ka tie paši cilvēki, kas atbalstīja untermenshen izveidi savā vidē, ignorēs šos datus. Viņi bija ar mieru atvadīties no mums (no darba utt), un viņi un valdība gribēja vispār panākt, lai nebūtu kontroles grupu. Ko ONS tagad dara? Viņi ignorē mūs savos datos - burtiski.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

They are cattle lining up to be butchered and disbelieving that such thing as slaughter house exists, even when shown evidence. I laugh every time some of them die and hope more will kick the bucket.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Personīgi es domāju, ka būtu labāk, ja viņi - pat viens no viņiem - man klusi pateiktu "Ziniet, Brūk, varbūt man nevajadzēja gan atbalstīt untermensch radīšanu, gan vienlaikus izsmiet tevi."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Laura nekad to nedarīs, ūberi ar unteriem nerunā.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

šī ūber klase ir plaši izplatīta manā vecajā draugu/pazinju lokā

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Un ir kautkāds īpašs iemesls, kāpēc tu ignorē jau gatavo "Age-standardised mortality rate / 100,000 person-years" kolonu attiecīgajām stratām tajā pašā ONS datu tabulā?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Viss tika paskaidrots un apspriests komentaros antiprojekcijas postam 06.05.2023.

Karočē, they ignore 10 - 15% of the population.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ASMR ļauj salīdzināt mirstību starp dažādām populācijām ar atšķirīgu vecuma sadalījumu, piemēram, dažādām valstīm vai reģioniem. Pētot vienu valsti, tam īsti nav jēgas. Šeit viennozīmīgi ir redzams, ka UK vakcinēto mirstība ir lielāka.

Pats par sevi tas nav nekas negaidīts. Abas grupas nav vienādas un tas nepierāda cēlonību. Cilvēki ar sliktāku veselību varētu biežāk vakcinēties.

Visdrīzāk tā ir, ka apgalvojums “nevakcinētie mirst biežāk” tiešā skatījumā nav patiess. Tas tikai izteikts, īpaši nepadomājot par visām šīm niansēm un arī varbūt tāpēc, ka bija bažas, ka patiesā informācija varētu nobiedēt cilvēkus vai tamlīdzīgi. Vēl joprojām ir cilvēki, kas uzskata, ka kovida vakcīnas ierobežo kovida izplatību.

Citās ziņās – ASV tiesa ir aizliegusi ASV valdībai tikties ar sociālo tīklu “informācijas uzraugiem”.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I assume that you heard that in an effort to explain the lower rate of non-Covid mortality in the vaccinated (that naturally occurs when you underestimate the total number of the unvaccinated), the notion of the 'healthy vaccinee' was floated - namely, the vaccinated are generally healthier than the unvaccinated.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thanks, appreciated!
Could we consider a) vaccinated as acting cautiously based on information provided by (generally) trusted authorities, and b) non-COV19-vaccinated as acting ultra-cautiously even if it goes against the consensus of authorities?
If so, the latter type have a personality trait of putting their lives at risk less often statistically. This, plus having temporary outcast status during pandemic provided they might have had significantly less contacts with the infected. It could impact the fact that the mortality rates are very similar for both types.
Your thoughts?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thanks - glad it is appreciated :)

So are we less likely to take risks? Maybe/maybe not - I know examples that fit this description and examples of people who are the opposite (i.e, this Cvd business is bullshit - I will do what I like). The less trust in the institutions, the less likely to be hyper risk-averse in my opinion. But I just don’t know how you could prove this - unless you rule out as an article of faith/science that vaccines play a part in causing deaths - in which case you will have to cling to this assertion.

Regarding us outcasts having less contact with the infected, which impacts the rate of mortality in our Untermensch group..., well if that is the case you would have to explain the difference in non-covid mortality.

Let’s take non-Covd mortality for June, 2022 for 40 - 49 year olds.

unvaxd = 86
vxd = 574

B) Vakcinēto cilvēku procentuāla daļa
Ap 81%


C) Iedzīvotāju kopskaits
7,166,966

86/1,361,724 = 6.3/100,000
588/5,805,242 = 9.89/100,000

You can check other age groups and months. Maybe you will find some with higher non-covid mortality in the unvaxed, but I doubt it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Right, for this particular age group this ratio cannot be easily explained and asks for investigation as for finding causes behind any complex problem.
My uneducated guess might be that this vaccinated age group is the one that took most of the stress during the pandemic to keep up with all things normal in non-normal situation.
One might argue that unvaccinated should have been put under even more stress. However, perhaps by being put off-duty they actually had less stress, except psychologically to be losing jobs temporarily. Perhaps many of them didn't have young kids at home (leading to easier decision not to be vaccinated) and therefore didn't have combined home schooling + work at home burden to carry that could lead to wearout and premature death afterwards. I hope that I'm not sounding cynical saying this, at least that's not my intent, just trying to imagine what the differences in both groups could have been.
A study on this age group on registered death causes and the daily habits during pandemic should be conducted for both groups.
There were confirmed side effects from vaccines for many including direct cause of death. I have no data on the percentage, and unfortunately we also cannot be sure that if there is data it can be trusted as direct causality cannot be determined easily when there are no established methods proven by time and prior art.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The stress point is interesting. I had been thinking about it myself. If we can agree that those who complied in full would be the ones who were exposing to themselves to the media, in-store announcements and so on, then - if they didn't have enough psychic resistance - they would be leaving themselves open to a never-ending assault of bad news and fear (both of the virus and of being one of the evil/stupid ones - the dreaded 'out-group). This can't be healthy. I remember remarking on it at the time: there was no positive message along the lines of get some fresh air, build up your natural immunity and so on. Instead, it was 'be afraid', 'put this thing over your mouth', and if you want freedom (oh to be the elect!), stick this in your arm. In the meantime, they were encouraged to demonise the untermenshen - either scorning our stupidity or contemplating on how we were to be best isolated from society - a mutual friend of ours sharing Chomsky's opinion on FB springs to mind.

You might be right about the unvaxxed demographic being less likely to have school-age children - though not in my case, obviously - and many others that come to mind.

I think, also, you are underestimating the stress us scum were under. I know people who were driven to the wall over this. I saw my step-son told he would lose his job, and my daughter told she would not be able to do the thing she loved - first hand I saw how hard it was. We also did not know it would be temporary, We had well-connected 'people' like Blair asy that 'idiots like us would struggle to do a normal life'. We saw what we thought of us as friends go along with all of this, too. So, genuinely, I would like to know what you consider 'being put under more stress' would look like?

It is unlikely we will ever see an impartial analysis of what happened. The establishment were so all-in on it, they couldn't possibly allow unhelpful information to seep out.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes. That time was a self-organizing and institutionally regulated social warfare field full of fear, uncertainty, attacks of induced guilt and blaming, low tolerance to any errors, overreaction to some opinions and underreaction to others, but also (I believe so) all driven by the best intents, care, compassion and the will to protect and save lives of our dear elder people, all happening within very tight timeframe.
The factor that polarized society the most and led to drastic institutional measures was thesis that vaccination shortens the lifecycle of the virus in its carriers body and significantly lessens the chance of its spreading. It is still an open question with no scientific data solidly confirming or refuting it, at least not any one known to me. But it seemed quite logical that if body can fight the virus early, it cannot multiply as fast and spread itself out at the same rate. Still, an open question is if that would give necessary results as we know now how extremely agile, tiny and aggressively spreading this particular virus was. Second assumption that sitting at home is better that taking a walk in nature was obviously wrong and was soon debunked however was rather true in regard of gathering in public spaces and offices which were badly ventilated and having HVAC systems that actually helped spreading the virus across buildings premises.
I think your family and the likes being with kids and still deciding to go unvaccinated went under the biggest stress and hardship.
My nephew (then 21) also decided to go unvaccinated knowing that he will be unable to continue his studies as a result. We had a conversation, and while I didn't feel easy about the situation I said that I fully respect his decision.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

If you are saying that the censorship of information on mainstream media, the demonisation of those who held views in opposition to those of the experts paraded on mainstream media, and the implementation of policies intended to punish those people who didn't take an injection of which absolutely no criticism was allowed to be aired on mainstream media was all carried out with the best intentions, then I have to say that this assertion is quite something.

Those of us who were following the data saw how inconvenient statistics were brutally removed from official websites. We noticed higher death rates of the vaccinated cohort back in July 2021, and we kept track of the overall mortality in 2021 in Latvia, which was outlier-high than the previous 10 years.

When it comes to the reasons for getting vaccinated, it is quite easy to get a rough idea of who did what and why. About a third of the population couldn't wait. Why? Maybe some of them cared about the old ones, as for the others, maybe they were scared stiff of the virus and absolute (or enough) faith in the experts that they got to see and hear.

As for the other third (approximately), we know they were pressured to do so - either to be able to go to concerts, festivals, and the theatre, or - later - to be able to earn a living. We saw various - I would say selfish(ish) reasons in a social advertising campaign (with the exception of ex-LV football captain's desire to visit his great grandparents).

Other than a short period of time in early 2021, it should have been clear that the vaccines did not stop transmission. Almost every single person I know who was vaccinated got covid - many of them more than once.

And yet what we saw was either active support or passive acceptance of laws that created an underclass in our midst. Personally, I would say I saw this coming in my own circle of friends who shared the following worldview in common:

derision of anyone who was deemed to be in any way anti-scientific or anti-technological progess.

We were in their eyes, too stupid to take what science was offering and therefore deserved our fate (to die of Covid or be excluded from society). I mean I could show you this in social media posts in black and white - from old 'friends'.

This group of people were - in the main - educated, and considered themselves to be (loosely at least) part of a cultural elite. They would listen to Naba (hah hah), read IR and LSM, (for example), and they had no background at all in being (I would say) objectively critical of those who were, basically, 'on their side of things'. This means that they were absolutely unprepared for the psychic assault on our society by groups who I (for example) had some experience of - the big corporations, supranational bodies and movements who have their own agenda. To them it was a risible idea - and probably still is, to be honest. God knows, they probably still don't know how money is created.

This group also had no moral framework strong enough within themselves to kick in when 'the othering' became law.

I'm sorry if that comes across as unpleasant and arrogant. If you want the truth as I see it, there is no other way to put it: You either went along with it, or you didn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The best intentions in times of fear and uncertainty often manifest themselves in ugly ways. From those who have power and from those willing to help them. It is a collective behavior paradox.
I'm sorry to hear that you had to take a shitstorm from some of your friends. It always hurts.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I wouldn't say it was a shitstorm from them. It was a shitstorm from the government. They happened to support it. I really hope that some of them - at least in private - are having a word with themselves about it, so this kind of mass psychosis (primarily a bending of the knee) doesn't happen again.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think everybody who overreacted in aggressive, punitive or arrogant way be it friends or government should have this word with themselves. But to avoid any further fuss, a revised research and re-evaluation of death causality and efficiency of each vaccine must be conducted first. And at the slightest doubt the governments and anti-vax fighters must be first to ask for such to be conducted. Even if causality and efficiency cannot be clearly determined, then apology for overreaction and 'we'll do our best to make sure it won't happen again, at least not in the way we did it' should follow.
I'm sceptical, but, who knows, may be there are still some brave people left. Reputation comes with integrity, but fear of unwanted outcome often works against this, often leading to 'ok, there were some errors, but let's forget about it.' I can understand this, as the high profile carreers and pharma company stocks value and employment will be at stake. But that's not an excuse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)