Unvaccinated may face higher premiums

What if the Statistics show that it's the Vaxxed having claims? And all the data says that most people have a 99% chance of complete recovery from Covid.

A friend just pointed out to me that some insurance excludes experimental medications. This vaxc is still in experimental stages until May 2023.

@fibrow Sounds like abuse of statistics, where there are no statistics to support your statement.

We also know that 99% recovery is incorrect, the US has 1.67% of cases dying, which is 98.33% of people not dying.

We also know that around 30% of people with Covid have "long covid" so they are not ok, they are not completely recovered. So that look more like about 68% of people completely recover from Covid.

That doesn't sound like there's no impact.

We also know that vaccinated, around the world and here, have fewer hospital admissions if vaccinated. Which sort of suggests that the vaccines are reducing harm.

So no increase in vaccines causing serious claims, as per above and we have less harm with the vaccinated.

Do you want to bring some real data and research to your statement, or do you want to just scream from the sidelines on something you clearly don't understand?

@fibrow regarding experimental medications, if you bothered to look, the relevant insurers where this have been asked have publically stated that the Pfizer vaccine is an approved medication and is not subject to any policy exclusion for being experimental.

However, when it comes to a vaccine injury, the first point of call is the public health system, and ACC. So medical insurers have no responsibility for this until it is released from acute medicine. Aka the public system.

If you are an adviser you should be well aware of this.

Once someone is discharged from the public system and they still have remaining conditions that need to be managed, then the private medical system will deal with those issues under referral by that person's GP.

Alongside this, if the person also has disability cover their insurer will also have an interest in addressing their occupational disability too.

Again, I'd like to see your evidence that the insurers we know would respond int he way you have suggested.

This absolutely makes sense. Insurance is about risk.

And the risk of poor outcomes including health claims & death is much higher for people who are unvaccinated.

Huge amounts of data show this across the world.

Premiums go up for other things that make people higher risk of claims.

And my question was..... What if the Statistics show that it's the Vaxxed having claims?

There is a wealth of research globally out there showing that the vaccinated are starting to have far worse outcomes on average than the unvaccinated. Let’s take a look at some countries where this is becoming far more evident; Israel, UK, Singapore, Gibraltar. There are very direct correlations between vaccination rates and mortality/morbidity rates emerging. The most recent stats coming out of the UK showed overall 82% of deaths were in the vaccinated in a population where circa 66% of its people are vaccinated. The hospitalisation rate was comprised 67% of vaccinated patients. By far, the worst hit group was over 80s, but statistically, Covid is a non event. In the last 44 weeks in the UK there has been just under a million cases, of which there has been a total of just under 7000 deaths and just under 9000 hospitalisations. Those at risk are those with more than 2 co-morbidities on average. These risks would be picked up by standard underwriting practices anyway. So, until such times as the evidence (not fear) suggests there are more risks to an insurer by being unvaccinated, there should be no increase in premiums as there is not enough compelling evidence to support it at this time. Oh, and the vaccine is still an experimental technology. In NZ it has Emergency Use Authorisation status only. Only because we’re in a supposed pandemic, and there are no other treatments available (apparently). Let’s also not forget the vaccine related adverse effects, that according to Medsafe and CARM, far outnumber the amount of issues Covid has even cause on our shores.

@fibrow well that would be somewhat logical, 90% of people are vaccinated. That's not correlation equals cause with there being no increase in claims.

Your disingenuous question Is illogical, but you didn't seem to get that and asked again.

@criticalthinker, be careful of anchoring bias and correlation equals cause.

Many of those stats don't take into account additional aspects like vaccinated not taking secondary measures vs unvaccinated taking measures. Israel was a mess, because people didn't take any precautions to prevent infections.

The vaccines only do so much, and after 6 months they're not preventing infections, but are preventing as much harm.

Another is they might be jabbed but haven't had the time for immunity to develop.

We still have a significant number of people isolating with comorbidity issues that are still susceptible after a vaccine. Overseas they died last year before a vaccine was available.

Elsewhere in the world behaviour of the population has a significant impact on the stats with vaccinated.

But we are seeing clear stats that vaccines are helping, and the outcomes are significantly better overall.

All of which we are about to see here, the difference is we’re 90% vaccinated well before Covid exposures.

Time will tell, but the risk for unvaccinated is there, and the risk from the vaccine isn't at the insurer level. And barely there from a MoH level too.

@JPHale. I suggest you bring your stats and data to the table instead of your anecdotal opinions as to why the verified and reported data coming from UK is any less reliable than your viewpoint. I’d suggest the numbers reported here in CARMS and Medsafe present a far greater risk to insurers in the short terms, not discounting the fact that we’re still in the midst of a trial and no medium to long term data is available in relation immune weakening due to vaccinations (check out Swedish studies to verify this). I’m more concerned with the cardiac risks increasing right across the board, including to the younger generation. That’s a more real risk to insurers right now than those choosing to remain unvaccinated until more is know about the risks of the vaccine. Covid is a non entity. We’re seeing low death rates here because it’s not as deadly as we’ve been led to believe. Viruses are either contagious or deadly. Seldom are they both. The early high death rates globally were exacerbated entirely through doctors sending patients home with no early treatment and the intubation for developed disease which we now know actually killed many people. And that’s not correlation, that’s established causation. Watch the northern hemisphere experience a horror of a winter upcoming and I’ll bet good money the vaccinated will be on the wrong end of that ledger.

@CT seems we're looking at the data and coming to different conclusions.

CARMS has good data, probably some of the best in the world, and yet the harm demonstrated with this is still statistically low. MoH was expected to have a 2.1-2.3% severe adverse reaction rate, it's been ticking away at around 0.015%. So no harm there. This result is better than every other vaccine we have seen to date.

The UK data is interesting, as the most accessible data in the UK is the fortnightly technical briefings, however, those reports are not using the full data set.

If you compare the reported numbers from the technical briefings against the UK Govt reported case information, you can clearly see they are focusing on a particular area. But the technical briefing isn't that clear on it.

The Canada data is also pretty good, and there are parallels to the UK and Canadian health systems here too.

We're not actually in a trial for the vaccine, it's done. The FDA has also given full approval for the Pfizer vaccine for both adults and children.

There are longitudinal studies on the vaccine to be completed, but that is quite normal for new medicines. The safety and eficicy studies have all been done, and on numbers that are typically much larger than we have seen with other medications.

The Swedish studies I have read have indicated that there is vaccine waining with antibodies over 6 months, similar to the Israeli study (thou9gh that one had some significant quality questions). This hasn't indicated any weakening of the immune system. Though all of these studies so far have been pre-print and not yet peer-reviewed and published. So they aren't as cast in stone as you might think.

I'm also concerned about the cardiac risks, which appear to be more focused on those with Covid than the vaccinated. The problem is the data suggesting problems with the vaccines are anecdotal.

The MoH has commented that they found a reduction in overall medical conditions with those vaccinated against what they expected. Not statistically different to say "hey we have a new medication" but enough to be noted as an unexpected bonus. Which suggests the complete opposite of what you have suggested.

All of this is on the MoH site or the same sites you are looking at and misinterpreting.

As to your comment, "Covid is a non-entity", you betray your handle and fall into the category of denial, maybe you should change CT to the one most people associate the initials with.

We have had stringent control on Covid for 18+ months, we're no different to any other human on the planet, and Covid is certainly an issue that we are yet to face the full force of. Hopefully, vaccines lessen the blow, but it's still going to be rough here.

Not to mention that our health system will collapse faster than an intern’s dignity at a cigar club meeting. It's already above what it should be doing and it's well past it's used by date.

"Viruses are either contagious or deadly" umm... yeah right. Heard of Ebola? there isn't a hard and fast on how vaccines tick here, they come in all shapes and sizes and it is rather myopic to make a statement like that.

The high early death rates were due to many reasons, initially, a lack of knowledge being a good part of the very early ones, short-staffed and under-resourced medical systems in overwhelm being a good part of the rest. Clearly, you weren't watching at the time. It was a mess of mismanagement and lack of imagination for planning, and to some degree here it still is.

You're not wrong on the oncoming horror in the northern hemisphere winter, but your illogical assumptions are not the reason why this is going to be an issue.

With clear evidence (your Swedish study) that vaccine antibody protection wains, there will be an increase in infections and a return to near normal transmission for Covid, without boosters. What we are seeing (from that Swedish study) is the longer-term protection from the vaccine does prevent more serious complications. So the vaccinated are expected to fare better than the unvaccinated.

This means that infection levels will increase with the unvaccinated being more vulnerable to being infected (because the vaccine transmission protection has reduced) and they will fill the hospitals, again. Whish is what the present reporting out of Europe is suggesting.

What you have completely avoided, and is typical of the sort of statements people like you make, is you have missed the reality that 30% of unvaccinated end up with long Covid (which is said to be less in the vaccinated, I guess we'll find out).

This is the more significant risk to insurers, especially in the medical and disability space where we already have the most pressure on premiums.

Death and trauma are also going to be contenders when Covid hits, the question that will remain is how hard this will hit. And remember the experience of reinsurers offshore will be priced into our local rates too. Just as they were last year for our general insurance rates.

@JPHale do the math, 30% of people who get covid do not have long covid. That is an impossible statistic to know anyway considering alot are asymptomatic. Perhaps you mean 30% of those hospitalised?

I've been a huge fan of Partners Life but this is a big call to take a stand on this at such an early stage.

All for an experimental technology still in trial phase with little testing and obvious unacceptable adverse reactions.

Time will tell whether they are on the right side of history or not. Could be a PR disaster.

@JPH. When you play the person and not the debate you let yourself down. And your cherry picking of my comments as well as your own anecdotal views of verified data does the same.

Care to look at Gibraltar? A country with a 115% vaccination rate and cases are skyrocketing. But wait… surely that must be due to the unvaccinated. What about Singapore? Israel? Compare and contrast to Norway, Denmark and Sweden. The stats don’t lie.

My point is about waiting for the data and stats to be far more compelling than they are to date before passing on the cost of inflated risks to unwitting customers.

Frankly I’m surprised insurers are even covering people who have been injected with a mystery concoction with ZERO long term studies available, delivered by a company with a history of huge lawsuits.

If this wasn’t packaged as a vaccine (to even consider this a vaccine the FDA had to change the definition just to squeeze it through) I suspect this wouldn’t have ever got off the ground. As for Medsafe approving it, again, have another read.

My comments, I’m sure will age far better than yours on this. We don’t have to agree on all points. In fact, it’s good to have healthy and transparent debate. This should be happening at the government level.

Oh, and this is very definitely still a trial. The media announcement that it had been approved as a vaccine was entirely misleading, like so many other stories. And as for peer reviewed papers, check out the Lancet.

Plenty on there starting to appear now about vaccine efficacy, and the way absolute risk reduction was not reported, instead relative risk reduction was, and that too has fallen off a cliff.

Your reference to polio is somewhat irrelevant on the basis of vaccine modality. Different disease and different technology. A better comparison might have been any other coronavirus. So, let’s take the RS Virus.

A good example because there was a recent spate of it here and in Australia. How did vaccines affect this virus? It resulted in something called Antibody Dependent Enhancement, which meant that people vaccinated were worse off than those who were not, resulting in a withdrawal of the vaccine.

But strangely, that hasn’t been done for the Covid shot, and that again doesn’t account for the adverse effects exceeding all adverse effects for all vaccines in history by about a factor of 30.

Not a single coronavirus has ever successfully been managed through vaccines. Remarkably like this reaction that the vaccinated are having to Delta, which ironically didn’t exist until we pushed out vaccines.

I think I’ve said enough on this topic. I’m not looking to change anyone’s mind on this subject online. I am however suggesting insurers may wish to hold fire before throwing good money after bad when not fully understanding which pool of customers represents the higher risk. If I was looking to recommend an insurer, based on Partners position, it wouldn’t be them.

***This comment has been edited by the moderators***

@CriticalThinker given your stance on the (Pfizer) vaccines I assume you're prepared to forgo access to any taxpayer funded hospital or ICU treatment as a result of COVID. Am I correct? It would be hypocritical and selfish of anyone to think otherwise, wouldn't it?

@matron. Given I’m a taxpayer, I don’t think you understand what hypocrisy means. You're comment is as weak as some of the talking points in this article.

if i understand it correctly, in short, what @critical thinker means is that having those jabs is not a guarantee. if this is what he meant, then he is correct.
my friend, aged 58, from singapore has 2 jabs, contracted covid, passed away in less than 2 weeks. he has underlying medical conditions though - high blood pressure and sugar, both of which are not uncommon medical conditions.
who knows if it would have made any difference if he hasn't took the jabs?

@CriticalThinker you avoided the question.

Do you mean the unvaxxed (you) deserve the very last ICU bed in the country more than someone that got vaxxed to help the general population?

Simple question.

@WK it's never been a guarantee, I think this is the point that has been missed by many.

The vaccine was designed to reduce infection for the person who has the vaccine and reduce harm from infections that do emerge.

The impact on transmission has been a "oh, that's nice to have" and was never a baseline expectation on the design of the vaccine.

CT is correct in his comments that we are seeing covid infections in vaccinated people, but that's not news.

Efficacy of the vaccine was reported at 95% in the original approval studies, meaning 1 in 20 will get a breakthrough infection, real-world results are suggesting the reality is about 92% so a bit higher. And this appears to correlate with the level of antibodies dropping over time in those vaccinated. Which is why we need boosters.

As to your friend, sorry to hear that.

Unfortunately, I expect we will have many more to contend with. The evidence from overseas is the vaccine is helping and not having it probably wouldn't have had a different result.

Your friend is a clear warning for us as we have a good portion of the population with related medical conditions and we have been seeing cases who are vaccinated where it hasn't helped. At the same time, we have seen massive improvements in reducing hospitalisations and deaths with the vaccinated.

Didn't Kamala Harris in the US just say in a recent press conference that it's the vaccinated getting sick?

If that's the case and NZ follows a similar trend then it's not the unvaccinated putting pressure on the health system is it?

Adviser1 I think you should read the article again. Partners Life is not taking any position as far as I can see, simply explaining what might occur based on evolving evidence.

Well, that was fun... insurers are dictated to by their suppliers, so, it will not matter what an insurer feels. Or they could punt and soak up some risk... so @CT, imagine you owned an insurance company, what direction would you take.... hold all the risk you can? Hold some and pass off (depending on your treaty)? Pass off all the risk under the terms supplied?

@CT: Critical thinker, huh?

Seriously, who are you to make claims like “the virus is a non-entity” or “viruses are either contagious or deadly, seldom both”?

Tell us, what education or training in this field do you have? The vaccinologists and epidemiologists leading the fight against the virus are experts in their field with decades of experience. They know their subject matter to a level a layperson will never understand.

How about yourself? Being a “critical thinker” is not the same as being trained and experienced. I bet my house that you’re nothing more than an armchair expert/keyboard warrior with an opinion on this topic that means nothing, absolutely NOTHING. You only embarrass yourself with every uninformed and frankly dangerous comment you make.

***This comment has been edited by the moderators***

I seem to have rattled a few cages. My point has been that the evidence is showing that deaths are occurring irrespective of vax status. If anything, we're seeing a shift in the trend that shows the greater risk sits with the vaccinated. That's not even taking into account the vax related adverse effects that are frankly, astronomical, and direct deaths as a result of the vax. From an insurance perspective, we're not seeing an increase in the all cause mortality rates, so how on earth could an increase in premium for one group of people be justified one way or the other? Hardly good actuarial science, and certainly not good conduct for consumers.

I'm not answering any hypothetical questions, or responding to petty attacks from other people in this discussion.

One final thing I will add though, is that there are a signifcant and increasing number of medical experts worldwide who refuse to bow down to the suppression of scientific debate, who are disputing this whole narrative - at great personal risk to themselves Oh, and other medical people who are leaving the inudstry due to vax mandates - given these are trained and qualified roles, you have to ask why. To name a few of the leading voices in medical opposition, Dr David Martin, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Robert Malone (pay note of this name as he was one of the inventors of the mRNA technology and even he said these vaccines are dangerous).

The facts will present themselves and they won't care about your political ideologies or your cognitive dissonance. The numbers will show all. Until the numbers are more conclusive one way or the other, let's just see how experience emerges before passing on costs to consumers.

@CT - in order
What evidence? Whataboutisms ("what about Gibraltar?) is not evidence.
Show evidence of the adverse effects - the serious ones. You seem to be counting every sore arm.
"Direct deaths" in NZ still stand at 1, maybe 2.
You are "not answering any hypothetical questions". Well then stop asking them.

The "significant and growing number" of medical professionals here and overseas represent less than 1% of that workforce who refuse the shot.
No, NZDSOS is not a credible source.
Of anything. If they weren't so dangerous they would be a laughing stock.

Fact check Dr Martin here https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-vaccine-idUSKBN2AM0SS

Fact check Dr Peter McCullogh here
https://www.factcheck.org/person/peter-mccullough/
Fun fact with this guy: Baylor, the largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.
Now they are suing him.


Fact check Dr Robert Malone here
lol. He IS a joke. No, he didn't "invent" mRNA. He was in on it early, and out of it well before it took off. He wanted the credit, missed out and is now turning his bitterness into profit by turning anti. Apparently the anti brigade is where the money is.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

Yes, "the facts" will present themselves. And they won't care about CT's ideologies or dissonance either. Especially when it is so willfully and deliberately and carefully curated into a labyrinth of disinformation, misinformation and a cult-like system of reinforcement of correlation-causation and confirmation bias.

Don't dare lecture me (us) about faulty "actuarial science". Or make the common-among-the-anti-vaxx people's mistake of thinking yourself the only one who is truly and duly informed - the only one "critically thinking" about this.

That is your cult talking.

Galileo was persecuted for saying the earth revolved around the sun when the then oligarchy was adamant the sun revolved around the earth.

@DirtyHarry - where to begin. I have to choose carefully because it’s quite clear you’re very much plugged into the system. This is far bigger than Covid (crimes against humanity is the big issue), but I’ll try to stay on point because even this appears to be a bit too much for some people to grasp.

Fact check sites seem to be smearing a whole lot of medical professionals. The ONLY people being discredited are naysayers who want an actual scientific debate into the (lack of) scientific method. And the timings of the smears are all post Covid. What a coincidence! When one party’s views don’t stand up to scrutiny, the other party plays the man. Classic politics. And very easy when you’ve got billions to throw at it. Symptomatic of much of the comments here bar a few who want to actually debate the topic on its merits, which I have done.

Your dismissal of Gibraltar is odd as it is an established truth. But you have no challenge for the other countries either. There’s only so much truth anyone can challenge before it’s clear you’ve been duped. It’s understandable, but you have to look far more objectively than the media and start asking the obvious questions that even the “accredited” media seem incapable of. I encourage you to step away from Google and try a different search engine and step away from MSM. If you want to know why I encourage that, follow up the chain of owners from NZ MediaWorks (recently changed). You’ll note that at the very top, it’s the same owners as Pfizer. Another coincidence!

If you want quantifiable medical evidence, do some actual research at the following sources; Medsafe and CARMS, VAERS, Vigiaccess to name a few. Note that the reported numbers are undercooked and likely represent 5-10% of the real numbers (according to a Harvard study on VAERS). More harm is being caused by the vaccine than Covid in the general and healthy population. There are more and more peer reviewed research papers emerging (see The Lancet) showing the tremendous damage the vaccine does, and that those risks outweigh any perceived benefit a huge pharmaceutical company with huge pockets and long arms with a history of fraud would tell you. The same company who wants to experiment on children, with the FDA granting further experimentation, and then asking a Court Judge to allow them to share the paperwork they reviewed for the licensing by 2076. Seriously? 329,000+ pages, and the FDA managed to approved it in 108 days. Just take that in for a second. And they want until 2076 before they make that public. What possible justification exists for that if it is “safe and effective “?

A recent peer reviewed study by the American Heart Association Journal confirms the following, “We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.” A peer reviewed research by cardiac experts, which is supported by the huge volumes of reported adverse effects globally. And not one word of it in the MSM or our PM. Why is that? Ask the question.

And you thinking challenging the narrative is where the money is? Really? Ahaha. Take a look at the huge profits in big Pharma right now by injecting human guinea pigs, locking in hugely secretive and lucrative deals with govts and tell me the money is in medical professionals having their personal careers ruined while they try to defend the future of humanity.

But don’t let me rock your boat any further. Clearly independently researched facts don’t resonate with you. Personally, I’ll take my chances with a virus with >99% survival rate over the 5-year survival rate from vaccine induced myocarditis of 50% any day of the week.

And I’ll also continue to defend your right to have the jab and discuss it in the same way I’ll defend my right to not have it and discuss it. After all, the bigger picture is human rights and we’re all actually in this together.

Have a lovely day.

Conspiracy theorist bingo

It's a tight contest between the moon landing vs COVID conspiracies. Personally I like the moon loonies as it had to be the world's biggest secret involving thousands of people with the tacit cooperation of a lot of investigative journalists.

You have to admint CT has brought up some very interesting facts and sources. Simply pushing it aside as conspiracy rubbish is doing yourself a disservice team. Certainly gets you asking questions and looking into this whole Covid thing more.

Good point Riddler, although I think its established COVID is a thing. But, CT has made some good points some I can get, a few I would scratch my chin. So acknowledging COVID is a thing.. and it seems it can make some people quite sick... there could be an argument for at least a question mark on premiums, like, medium to high risk. But then, if CT is correct it may be that premiums remain the same as a thing thats not a vaccine but is called a vaccine could also cause illness. Reinsurers will really need to do their homework.

I would have thought that insurance acturial data (big data) is probably the most comprehensive yet unbiased data available.

No? It's all about measured cause and effect on a massive scale. Vaccinated vs unvaccinated, covid infected or not.

None of this cherry picked bits and pieces from here and there to suit your narrative. So I tend to believe Naomi when she says "The data tells us there is no statistically significant risk to claims incidence or duration rates arising from complications of Covid-19 vaccinations.

"The same global data demonstrates statistically significant medical complication rates arising from infection with Covid-19 (and variants) in those who do not have any immunity to the virus through vaccination or previous infection."

The conspiracy theorists will be saying "it's all about control" or "they're in the pocket of Big Pharma" or "they're scared to lose their jobs" somehow forgetting that literally BILLIONS of people (3.9 million in NZ alone)have been vaccinated in a very short time and if the vaccine was really so dangerous the hospitals would be overloaded with vaccine injuries. Umm... guess what? They are not. And then the first comment after that says "What if the Statistics show that it's the Vaxxed having claims?..."

They don't!

It seems this thread is a similar dumpster fire that any other thread involving Covid or Vaccines becomes...

Where the use of anecdotal evidence is used to beat people into submission and think they have won.

When the reality is the real critical thinkers, and not the namesake here, just give up as it becomes a lost cause of rubbish that is just too time-consuming to argue about and we have better things to do.

Interestingly those same people that will claim a win in this crap went kicking and screaming with the latest rules for financial services, and they sit actively thinking about ways the real world doesn't apply to them.

The dissonance is strong, as is the mistrust of everything. Makes you wonder how they get anything done at all, especially advising clients on the realities of the world and what actually happens.

Which is to say, screaming into a hurricane is a pointless waste of time. ;)

Another couple of questions

What if the vaccinated are having fewer issues with Covid?
What if the vaccinated die less than the unvaccinated?
What if the insurers are seeing unvaccinated as the majority of Covid related claims?
What if the level of issues with the vaccine is nearly 1/3 that of the tetanus vaccine that no one has a problem with?

The reported severe issues with the Covid vaccine are around 1 in 5,800 doses has a severe adverse outcome, yet the reported severe adverse outcomes (ignoring anaphylaxis as it's pretty low) is 1 in 1,846 for the tetanus vaccine...

The whole what-if series of questions are classic insurance sales, sow doubt and then sell the solution. The problem here is the doubt being sown is being done without the basis and support of data.

The statistics so far are suggestive of the vaccine being helpful, not harmful and perspectives that there are issues are not based on a statistical perspective. The issues are largely anecdotal or so low as to be under the expected levels of risk for what is considered safe.

People can have their views, but constructively creating harm when there isn't harm is wilful in creating harm

I’ve loved discussing Covid-19 & Covid-19 Vaccine with deniers.

They all sounded very much like Critical Thinker. So much so that I suspect Critical Thinker is one of my past adversaries.

It started with "these deaths are all from other causes and are just being assigned to Covid. Let’s see what the All-Deaths Rate looks like at the end of 2020."

The stats came out and countries like Sweden saw All-deaths explode in 2020.

Now they’re having to rely on the 1 in 100,000 experts who are saying things they can easily re-interpret to suit their argument. If they find themselves fact-checked as was done here when he threw out some names… they resort to throwing chum in the water in the hope that no one will spend the time following all their loose threads.

Here’s a response to some of Critical Thinker’s chum:

“Care to look at Gibraltar”

Why certainly…. Search ‘Gibraltar Covid’ and see the marked upswing in cases recently. Surprising for such a heavily vaccinated territory.

Now look at their deaths – almost none during the current upswing.

Clearly a win for vaccination. Obviously, vaccination doesn’t imbue complete immunity but it does save the vaccinated from serious complications.

You’re right CT – stats don’t lie.

“Compare and contrast Norway, Denmark and Sweden”

Why certainly…

VACCINATION RATE

Sweden – 67.7% fully vaccinated
Denmark – 76.2% fully vaccinated
Norway – 70.7% fully vaccinated

INFECTIONS PER 100K (Last 7 days)

Sweden – 88 and rising
Denmark – 481 and rising
Norway – 285 and rising

DEATHS PER 100K (SINCE INCEPTION)

Sweden – 147.22
Denmark – 48.84
Norway – 19.62

“As for Medsafe approving it, again, have another read.”

Okay…
News article from NZ health govt website 28 October 2021
“Today Medsafe announces its decision to renew the provisional approval for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, says Medsafe Group Manager Chris James.
The renewal of provisional approval is for a period of two years, until 3 November 2023.”

“Check out the Lancet”

Okay…
Lancet Study – ‘Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study’

“For fully vaccinated individuals, effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections was 73% (95% CI 72–74) and against COVID-19-related hospital admissions was 90% (89–92). Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months. Effectiveness against other (non-delta) variants the first month after full vaccination was also high at 97% (95% CI 95–99), but waned to 67% (45–80) at 4–5 months. Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months.’


“Not a single coronavirus has ever successfully been managed through vaccines”

Covid-19 seems to have been managed pretty well based on the stats

@CT LOL
just, LOL

yeah, I'm the one who has been duped.
OK.
Yeah, the anti-(covid)vaxx conspiracy peddlers have only been persecuted since the time of covid. Funny that. Good point. I will hang my head in triumph.

Myocarditis. Not only is the incidence of the vaccine causing Myocarditis extremely low, it only rates, when it happens, as a mild adverse reaction. And having Covid19 infection means you are 16 times more likely than the general pop. to get myocarditis. IOW the virus causes a lot more, and worse, than the vaccine. If it's a risk thing, vax wins.

Yes Gibralta.
Wasn't going to bother, but: 118% of the eligible pop had the shots. Yes, their "eligible population" was those over 16. Not 12 or 5. And the spread was mostly in the un-vaxxed - the school kids who were not vaxxed. And yes, their rollout was a long time ago, and yes the efficacy wanes (but not the overall effect of reducing serious infection and spread), so yes, all their cases are vaxxed adults (all their adults are vaxxed, so, of course)- nobody is claiming the vaccine stops 100% of cases so it's just foolish to base a counter-argument from that POV.
So now they are doing the kids, and boosters. The reality is, while Gibraltar has cases, the vaccine reduced a lot of serious cases and deaths. Gibraltar is not an example that helps your arguments.

Have you seen the corona parties in Italy? Popular with the anti-vaxxers over there, who think they will easily survive the virus, and then get a certificazione verde (Green Pass) afterward, as an alternative to the jab. A couple dead and a few more in hospital already.
NZ had one who got it on purpose too. Nearly died (lucky there was an ICU bed available - wonder why?), horrible experience. 1 star, not recommended.

Or Romania. The anti-vaxxers did well there, tying religion, superstition, and a general distrust of authority to really get their message across. Vax rate is 37% and the whole country is suffocating under a devastating wave. Same story in PNG except their rate is 1.7%

It is impossible not to link the lack of jabs to the number of deaths, and the high uptake of jabs to the reduced spread, case numbers and deaths. Vaccines are safe and effective. Period. Full stop.

@Riddler
or, you could shift your base assumptions regarding how much some of us have looked into it already, and come to the conclusion about just which stuff is merely conspiracy rubbish. CT has not raised interesting facts and sources, rather has simply cited easily debunked rubbish, whataboutisms, and the usual ominous sounding predictions. All while dismissing opposing arguments while complaining about their arguments being dismissed. At least the smug sanctimony is expressed politely.

Partners Life is right to be examining this, and offering suitable terms and pricing.

And now we have the traffic lights.
Being an anti-vaxxer is going to be lonely, boring, and expensive.

Meanwhile we have a new 'Omicron' variant which according to an official letter from the Covid task force in Botswana dated 25th November says originated from four vaccinated travelers who tested positive.

@JP Hale. I can't help - but have an incredulous ironic chuckle at the foolish hypocrisy - being dogmatically preached, by some rather pompous and sanctimonious commenters. E.g those vainly self-appointed, purported bastions of "critical thinking" & "data driven" commenters, whose bigotry causes them to unjustly accuse their philosophical adversaries of "committing "wilful harm". If such self-proclaimed voices of reason want their arguments to be taken seriously - then it nehoves them to be civil, reasonable, civil, rational and logically persuasive. I.e to desist repeating logical fallacies (e.g ad-hominems and demonising their opponents motives).

Well, well, well - this aged well didn't it.

@Critical Thinker, your comments, no they didn't. And nor did the article on it's suggestions.

Interesting that the vitriol on the vaccines continues in the face of the reality that largely NZ dodged the bullet of Covid like the rest of the world because of the vaccines and we haven't had everyone up and due from the vaccines either.

But hey, take the opportunity to stir the pot, you're good at that ;)

@CriticalThinker
What has changed? Have Insurance companies charged differently for the unvaccinated/vaccinated?
I'm struggling to see what part sarcastically "aged well"?

The solution is simple. Both vaccinated people and unvaccinated people will face higher premiums. Fixed it. (Sarc)

really? CT is back on this?

it aged better than I thought

EG
Dr Peter McCullough (one of the originators of using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) was stripped of his board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology in October.

It's not 2021 any more. Most of the quacks and twits and anti-vaxxers have all quietly gone back to the life they had before and (mostly out of embarrasment) stopped talking about it.

Some are still obsessed.
Still going on about it.
Still think trump won. And Bill Gates is... whatever it was.
Still trolling deep in the old comments on here.

You were wrong then, and still wrong now.
Get over it.