The TOTAL number of 'Covid deaths' amongst 10-14 yr-olds is only 12. (Out of roughly 2.4 million kids in the UK)
That means a few things...
First, that the actual risk (of Covid) is vanishingly small, and the vax-pushers know it. Yet they still push.
Second, with only 12 total deaths, any additional death (or the 're-categorization' of a death) has a massive effect on the 'vaxxed vs unvaxxed' calculations. In other words, the vaccine looks a lot more 'effective' if even one additional un-vaxxed kid falls ill (or if one kid's death is attributed to the 'other side'). What kind of incentive is that for any 'unsavory' types that want to 'show how effective the vaxx is'?
As of May 2022, only 7% of 5-11 yr-old kids have been vaxxed (in the UK).
It's sad that any kid has been vaxxed, but it's great news that 93% of parents are refusing to sacrifice their children.
I believe that much of this '93% rejection rate' this can be directly attributed to Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Because of the fast rollout, the MSM did not have time to implant the full 'terror narrative' in the population. Also, only adults got the first jabs -- so that by the time they get around to the kids, the parents have had a chance to see the dangers and the lack of benefits. I can't even imagine how many kids have been saved.
I was talking about the risk of dying from Covid. That is separate from the risk of dying from vaxx complications (which are obviously elevated).
If the vaxx consequences are fatal 'by year 5', it won't be fatal from Covid - it would be something else.
Look at the article/graphs to see what I mean. They break the risk into two categories.
Either way, my original comment was made the observation that the risk of dying from Covid was vanishingly small (irregardless of whether a kid took the vaxx) and therefore, no kid should take the vaxx.
A few important takeaways....
That means a few things...
First, that the actual risk (of Covid) is vanishingly small, and the vax-pushers know it. Yet they still push.
Second, with only 12 total deaths, any additional death (or the 're-categorization' of a death) has a massive effect on the 'vaxxed vs unvaxxed' calculations. In other words, the vaccine looks a lot more 'effective' if even one additional un-vaxxed kid falls ill (or if one kid's death is attributed to the 'other side'). What kind of incentive is that for any 'unsavory' types that want to 'show how effective the vaxx is'?
It's sad that any kid has been vaxxed, but it's great news that 93% of parents are refusing to sacrifice their children.
I believe that much of this '93% rejection rate' this can be directly attributed to Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Because of the fast rollout, the MSM did not have time to implant the full 'terror narrative' in the population. Also, only adults got the first jabs -- so that by the time they get around to the kids, the parents have had a chance to see the dangers and the lack of benefits. I can't even imagine how many kids have been saved.
The actual long term risk is unknown --- unless you have a time machine.
Right now all we have is 30,200% greater.
I agree (if I was talking about 'actual risk' 'from the vaxx').
But when I used the term 'actual risk', I was referring to the actual risk of 'dying from Covid (in that age group)'.
I updated the post with that clarification.
.... over what period of time?
Pretend it's 100% fatal at 7 years.
A 3 year study might not show you this.
I was talking about the risk of dying from Covid. That is separate from the risk of dying from vaxx complications (which are obviously elevated).
If the vaxx consequences are fatal 'by year 5', it won't be fatal from Covid - it would be something else.
Look at the article/graphs to see what I mean. They break the risk into two categories.
Either way, my original comment was made the observation that the risk of dying from Covid was vanishingly small (irregardless of whether a kid took the vaxx) and therefore, no kid should take the vaxx.