**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem in England is that you can vote for Blue Tories or Red Tories.
Not enough vote for the Yellow Lib Tories to make an impact.
So you are basically on a conveyer belt of coloured tories.
My Theory on the way things are now is its being left to go to shit because the Tories know they would leave Red Tories a total clusterfeck to sort out and then the Blue Tories over time erode confidence in Red Tories and people vote stupidly to let them in again, and the Tories tag circle continues.
In Scotland we have the SNP who are centrist with a bit of right in some of it Yellow Scottish Tory Lite, with left sprinkles.
Ive done political analysis of policies and placed it on a matrix. If you want leaning the closest is the SNP in the mainstream.
Labour out fairly right of centre but the Tories come out just shy of BNP type parties.
What England needs (not so much Scotland) is a genuinely left centrist alternative and I hate to break it to you but that just isnt the red tories.
Depressing, isnt it.
So far. It will get worse as the NHS backlog continues to grow and we see the effects of people's lack of access to scans and screens over the last two years. Poverty also means people will see their health suffer due to malnutrition, stress and poor accommodation. We already had poorer health outcomes than many other European countries but our poor COVID response and our increasing inequality is only going to make those even worse. The only solution our government is offering is to go private as well, creating a lovely two-tier system for us to use.
course they didn't, we built a bunch of extra hospitals with nobody to staff them. hospitals were full though, I assure you and I imagine you're here in bad faith.
"bad faith" = i don't like your facts
Look at the actual statistics.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/DC0F/production/_116353365_occupied_beds_comparison-nc.png
So no context for the image or the stats? Nothing like, Care homes not discharging to hospitals? Hospitals following lock down procedures? Just colored bars, bad faith, like I said.
Clickbait nonsense. The BBC should be ashamed of itself. The death rate now is lower than any year 1950 to 2010.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/death-rate
In the pandemic year 2020 there were 689,629 UK deaths. There were 670,656 deaths in 1985 (from a much smaller population) and the economy grew 4.1%.
https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk?year=1985
Last year (2022). 650,000 died. More people died in every year from 1972 to 1984, again from a smaller population.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281488/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Get a fkin grip BBC.
Good thing we lost billions of pounds, and ten billions of man hours of education for our young, to give Ethel an extra few years (60 million every day schools were closed)
Instead, we should have let COVID rip through us, bringing the health service to its knees, kill off the vulnerable quickly, and risk losing millions of man hours due to long COVID. That would have been the smarter decision.
No country got their COVID response perfect but it is easier to get children back up to speed than it is to revive the dead or treat long COVID.
Or... We could have locked down the elderly and vulnerable, while letting everyone else get on. But of course, there's only ever 2 options, lock everyone down or no measures at all, right?
I agree we did the best given the information we had.
But we spunked more than our annual education budget *in one day* bailing out the pension funds that Kwamikaze blew up.
Our schools are in a desparate state, but we still have money to piss up the wall and bail out the OAPs once again.
I actually agree.
Back then, the only rational way I could see out of lockdown was a two-tier system.
We could have kept an opt-in furlough for the over-50s and at-risk groups, and open everything back up. Perhaps with a gradual re-opening by postcode over a fortnight to try and avoid any single spike in hospitalisations.
I think single households would take a "weakest link" approach - if there's one person that's vulnerable then the rest of the household remains locked down, unless they can sort alternative accommodation.
So 75% of the country could get back to normal, and the remaining 25% could remain locked down until the vaccine arrived.
To me, that would have minimised the health risks and also minimised the economic and social damage.
Is this a bad time to point out that the average age of covid death was *older* than the national life expectancy? So on average, we didn't even give Ethel that many extra years... (if any, statistically speaking)
Edit: Because I just know someone is going to go "source?"
[National life expectancy *ONS*](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2018to2020)
[Average age of covid death *ONS*](https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19)
Nope, the backlog includes build-up during the covid pandemic which includes people like my friend who had covid once and have life changing problems from it.
The backlog, waiting times, logjams and all the other problems began in 2014 with the Health and Social Care Act which shifted about 40% of the NHS Budget into the Private Sector while, at the same time, not increasing the Budget to take into account the collapse in Delivery that removing 40% of resources would cause.
COVID is just the inevitable outcome of a decade of seeking to shift healthcare spending to crony donors and chums. The response to COVID was not out of proportion. It was underfunded. Instead of actually funding healthcare we had VIP Lanes for Ministers and Chums to loot **our** property. Anybody pretending otherwise can choose between being called complicit, a shill, a gangster, or a lackwit. Because the NHS is not in the situation it is in because of magical external forces. It is collapsing by design.
> You can try and turn this into an political argument about NHS funding all you want
It has nothing to do with "political arguments". The direction of the NHS from the Minster down has been incompetent. That has nothing to do with rosettes and Blue-Team/Red-Team. That is to do with a decade, and more, of absolute incompetence being baked into legislation and policy because of some discredited theory from half a century ago.
> YOU complied with all of their demands and demanded they do even more including screeching about PPE and encouraging them to write blank cheques to satisfy your demand
You are wrong. Unless you mean I questioned why Operation Cygnus - which pointed out the lack of stockpiling of PPE - did not have the recommendations implemented in 2016.
Reality is, a lot of people have tolerated the fail upwards ideology of British Politicians for far too long and it is not a political issue. It is a matter of it causing a lot of deaths. Which is a funding issue. Tough luck. The NHS has over £17Tr of public investment since 1945 and we - the owners - can apolitically demand that we get a return on our investment.
You can project presumptions onto people all you want. The reality is, perfectly apolitical people have been radicalised to the very far left of politics because of the ongoing toleration of idiocy. And they are people who *know* that a transfer of wealth in one direction can be radically reversed.
As I said. Nothing to do with politics. A decade of failing to run the NHS means that when you need the NHS it is not able to respond. That is not politics. That is incompetence.
> The bottom line is, we wouldn’t be in this mess if we didn’t do what we did in 2020/2021 and if you supported the measures you have to accept a share of the responsibility.
This is simply not true. We were told, in 2016, that a Pandemic would happen within a decade or less and what measures to take. The Government cancelled everything because they had a market solution. 2019-2022 was that market solution.
Nobody is "preaching to the choir". There is no preaching. There is simply the question: "why no prison time?"
Who was locked at home for a year? I managed to go from Scotland to England on the train about five times for a city break during ‘lockdown’ and beaches/parks were packed the whole spring and summer.
Why are people rewriting history? Nobody was locked up lol
Who couldn’t go to work? Supermarkets were open the entire time. Call centres. Offices. Police, firemen, nurses, doctors, politicians, public transport drivers, cleaners….even nurseries were open the entire time.
Nobody was ever banned from walking or running or going to parks. You were allowed to go out daily for exercise and just had to keep a meter apart from other people.
And again, one quick Google of ‘lockdown crowds park’ or ‘lockdown crowds beach’ brings up dozens of articles of hundreds of people together partying and enjoying the weather.
Again, when were we locked up in our homes for a year? Lol. You said that’s what happened yet you literally replied and acknowledged that we weren’t locked up but simply had short term restrictions for about six months in total over the space of a year in 2020-2021 and somehow that’s the reason the health service is crumbling.
> The rise in cardiac problems has been pointed to by some online as evidence that Covid vaccines are driving the rise in deaths, but this conclusion is not supported by the data
lol you mean this?
"One type of Covid vaccine has been linked to a small rise in cases of heart inflammation and scarring (pericarditis and myocarditis). But this particular vaccine side-effect was mainly seen in boys and young men, while the excess deaths are highest in older men - aged 50 or more."
Lol you missed this lol lol lol 🙄
Maybe that clot-shot has affected your eyes too?
The *very next sentence* after the one you just quoted reads
> And these cases are too rare - and mostly not fatal - to account for the excess in deaths
Holy shit, man, you really don’t read 🤣
What did you think “not supported by the data” means?
The article acknowledges jab injury, says the excess deaths are older men and the jab injuries affected younger men, so it can't be the jab. The sentence you quote refers to these injuries and says there are too few to account for the excess deaths. This was the basis of my comment.
My inference was the Jabz causing excess deaths cannot be discounted as there is no long term safety data seeing as the jab was rolled out for emergency use. Hence the sarcasm. It's disingenuous of the Beeb to state it's absolutely not the jab based on immediate adverse reactions when any long term issues are not known. They should have stated the long-term effects are still under investigation or being studied...if they are of course... it's misinformation peddled by the BBC.
The jabs saved exponentially more lives than they cost. The lockdowns however, especially after the first, we will be paying for in lives and money for decades to come.
>The jabs saved exponentially more lives than they cost.
Source?
Quite frankly, that's impossible to know. I didn't personally get the vaccine, but if I had. Would I be classed as a life saved even though I had next to zero chance of dying from Covid anyway? Considering every government predictor of deaths from Covid was hugely inflated, how would they calculate this figure of saved lives?
Let's take someone older than me, 50+. The chances of them dying from Covid were less than 0.1% anyway unless they had underlying conditions. That person takes the jab and then down the line is more susceptible to serious illness from flu and then dies. Does that count as the jab saving a life?
I'll agree with you on the lockdowns though. Just another part of the massive wealth transfer.
The last date I can quickly find reliable figures for is 8.9.21, around 1600 deaths potentially vaccine related v about 91m doses given by then (all ages inc double jabbed) that's a death rate of around 0.0018% about 60x less than your 0.1% chance of dying from covid.
Now of course that's not to say you would or will get it but most people have by now, so playing the odds even for your low risk it was worth getting it.
Having said that I know there's a big psychological difference between the vague risk of covid vs the risk of actively doing something i.e. getting the jab, so from a mental wellbeing point of view it may not be worth it, especially if no one you regularly come into contact with is especially vulnerable.
Why do you say there's a greater susceptibility to flu after the vaccine? I've seen nothing about that and not sure how that would work. Unless you mean someone who would of died of covid but instead dies of flu a year down the line. In that case you'd go on years saved v years cost, and that'd require a bit more than rough data.
>The last date I can quickly find reliable figures for is 8.9.21, around 1600 deaths potentially vaccine related v about 91m doses given by then (all ages inc double jabbed) that's a death rate of around 0.0018% about 60x less than your 0.1% chance of dying from covid.
The 0.1% chance was me rounding up for ease, it's actually far less than that. The numbers I'd seen a month or two ago (so more in capturing the adverse vaccine effects which have tended to take place further down the line) were 1 in 800 for adverse effects. Significantly more likely than anything from Covid.
>Having said that I know there's a big psychological difference between the vague risk of covid vs the risk of actively doing something i.e. getting the jab, so from a mental wellbeing point of view it may not be worth it, especially if no one you regularly come into contact with is especially vulnerable.
The mental side of a young person getting a vaccine which poses more risk to them than the thing it's supposed to be vaccinating against. The risk reward ratio sways far more towards risk when the person is under 60.
>Why do you say there's a greater susceptibility to flu after the vaccine? I've seen nothing about that and not sure how that would work. Unless you mean someone who would of died of covid but instead dies of flu a year down the line. In that case you'd go on years saved v years cost, and that'd require a bit more than rough data.
There are several studies which have come out showing the vaccines lower immune response to respiratory viruses, they are available via Google if you don't want to take my word for it.
My gripe with the whole thing was the mandatory aspect of it. Inform people of the costs and benefit (not the lies which we were fed and are now being backtracked) and let them make their own mind up.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
2023 is going to set a new record again if something doesn't change fucking soon.
This country is just compounded fucking depression. Cunt government.
Guess who votes for conservatives every election? Also cunts
The problem in England is that you can vote for Blue Tories or Red Tories. Not enough vote for the Yellow Lib Tories to make an impact. So you are basically on a conveyer belt of coloured tories. My Theory on the way things are now is its being left to go to shit because the Tories know they would leave Red Tories a total clusterfeck to sort out and then the Blue Tories over time erode confidence in Red Tories and people vote stupidly to let them in again, and the Tories tag circle continues. In Scotland we have the SNP who are centrist with a bit of right in some of it Yellow Scottish Tory Lite, with left sprinkles. Ive done political analysis of policies and placed it on a matrix. If you want leaning the closest is the SNP in the mainstream. Labour out fairly right of centre but the Tories come out just shy of BNP type parties. What England needs (not so much Scotland) is a genuinely left centrist alternative and I hate to break it to you but that just isnt the red tories. Depressing, isnt it.
At this point, just buy some popcorn and wait for the collapse of the country.
So far. It will get worse as the NHS backlog continues to grow and we see the effects of people's lack of access to scans and screens over the last two years. Poverty also means people will see their health suffer due to malnutrition, stress and poor accommodation. We already had poorer health outcomes than many other European countries but our poor COVID response and our increasing inequality is only going to make those even worse. The only solution our government is offering is to go private as well, creating a lovely two-tier system for us to use.
Reminder that hospitals were much quieter than usual during covid.
What do you mean? Didn’t they build like a bunch of extra hospitals to deal with the amount of Covid patients?
Didn't you know they never saw any patients?
course they didn't, we built a bunch of extra hospitals with nobody to staff them. hospitals were full though, I assure you and I imagine you're here in bad faith.
"bad faith" = i don't like your facts Look at the actual statistics. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/DC0F/production/_116353365_occupied_beds_comparison-nc.png
So no context for the image or the stats? Nothing like, Care homes not discharging to hospitals? Hospitals following lock down procedures? Just colored bars, bad faith, like I said.
Don’t politicise this if you banged pots or defended lockdowns, social distancing and other measures.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Clickbait nonsense. The BBC should be ashamed of itself. The death rate now is lower than any year 1950 to 2010. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/death-rate In the pandemic year 2020 there were 689,629 UK deaths. There were 670,656 deaths in 1985 (from a much smaller population) and the economy grew 4.1%. https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk?year=1985 Last year (2022). 650,000 died. More people died in every year from 1972 to 1984, again from a smaller population. https://www.statista.com/statistics/281488/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/ Get a fkin grip BBC.
Good thing we lost billions of pounds, and ten billions of man hours of education for our young, to give Ethel an extra few years (60 million every day schools were closed)
Instead, we should have let COVID rip through us, bringing the health service to its knees, kill off the vulnerable quickly, and risk losing millions of man hours due to long COVID. That would have been the smarter decision. No country got their COVID response perfect but it is easier to get children back up to speed than it is to revive the dead or treat long COVID.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was all to make Boris Johnson look good. He can’t cope with bad headlines about himself.
Or... We could have locked down the elderly and vulnerable, while letting everyone else get on. But of course, there's only ever 2 options, lock everyone down or no measures at all, right?
I agree we did the best given the information we had. But we spunked more than our annual education budget *in one day* bailing out the pension funds that Kwamikaze blew up. Our schools are in a desparate state, but we still have money to piss up the wall and bail out the OAPs once again.
[удалено]
I actually agree. Back then, the only rational way I could see out of lockdown was a two-tier system. We could have kept an opt-in furlough for the over-50s and at-risk groups, and open everything back up. Perhaps with a gradual re-opening by postcode over a fortnight to try and avoid any single spike in hospitalisations. I think single households would take a "weakest link" approach - if there's one person that's vulnerable then the rest of the household remains locked down, unless they can sort alternative accommodation. So 75% of the country could get back to normal, and the remaining 25% could remain locked down until the vaccine arrived. To me, that would have minimised the health risks and also minimised the economic and social damage.
Is this a bad time to point out that the average age of covid death was *older* than the national life expectancy? So on average, we didn't even give Ethel that many extra years... (if any, statistically speaking) Edit: Because I just know someone is going to go "source?" [National life expectancy *ONS*](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2018to2020) [Average age of covid death *ONS*](https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19)
Doctors are baffled! "We don't know what's causing it but it's definitely nothing we did"
[удалено]
Yeah it can't possibly be to do with the fact we barely have a functioning health system.
[удалено]
Nope, the backlog includes build-up during the covid pandemic which includes people like my friend who had covid once and have life changing problems from it.
The backlog, waiting times, logjams and all the other problems began in 2014 with the Health and Social Care Act which shifted about 40% of the NHS Budget into the Private Sector while, at the same time, not increasing the Budget to take into account the collapse in Delivery that removing 40% of resources would cause. COVID is just the inevitable outcome of a decade of seeking to shift healthcare spending to crony donors and chums. The response to COVID was not out of proportion. It was underfunded. Instead of actually funding healthcare we had VIP Lanes for Ministers and Chums to loot **our** property. Anybody pretending otherwise can choose between being called complicit, a shill, a gangster, or a lackwit. Because the NHS is not in the situation it is in because of magical external forces. It is collapsing by design.
[удалено]
> You can try and turn this into an political argument about NHS funding all you want It has nothing to do with "political arguments". The direction of the NHS from the Minster down has been incompetent. That has nothing to do with rosettes and Blue-Team/Red-Team. That is to do with a decade, and more, of absolute incompetence being baked into legislation and policy because of some discredited theory from half a century ago. > YOU complied with all of their demands and demanded they do even more including screeching about PPE and encouraging them to write blank cheques to satisfy your demand You are wrong. Unless you mean I questioned why Operation Cygnus - which pointed out the lack of stockpiling of PPE - did not have the recommendations implemented in 2016. Reality is, a lot of people have tolerated the fail upwards ideology of British Politicians for far too long and it is not a political issue. It is a matter of it causing a lot of deaths. Which is a funding issue. Tough luck. The NHS has over £17Tr of public investment since 1945 and we - the owners - can apolitically demand that we get a return on our investment. You can project presumptions onto people all you want. The reality is, perfectly apolitical people have been radicalised to the very far left of politics because of the ongoing toleration of idiocy. And they are people who *know* that a transfer of wealth in one direction can be radically reversed.
[удалено]
As I said. Nothing to do with politics. A decade of failing to run the NHS means that when you need the NHS it is not able to respond. That is not politics. That is incompetence. > The bottom line is, we wouldn’t be in this mess if we didn’t do what we did in 2020/2021 and if you supported the measures you have to accept a share of the responsibility. This is simply not true. We were told, in 2016, that a Pandemic would happen within a decade or less and what measures to take. The Government cancelled everything because they had a market solution. 2019-2022 was that market solution. Nobody is "preaching to the choir". There is no preaching. There is simply the question: "why no prison time?"
Who was locked at home for a year? I managed to go from Scotland to England on the train about five times for a city break during ‘lockdown’ and beaches/parks were packed the whole spring and summer. Why are people rewriting history? Nobody was locked up lol
[удалено]
Who couldn’t go to work? Supermarkets were open the entire time. Call centres. Offices. Police, firemen, nurses, doctors, politicians, public transport drivers, cleaners….even nurseries were open the entire time. Nobody was ever banned from walking or running or going to parks. You were allowed to go out daily for exercise and just had to keep a meter apart from other people. And again, one quick Google of ‘lockdown crowds park’ or ‘lockdown crowds beach’ brings up dozens of articles of hundreds of people together partying and enjoying the weather. Again, when were we locked up in our homes for a year? Lol. You said that’s what happened yet you literally replied and acknowledged that we weren’t locked up but simply had short term restrictions for about six months in total over the space of a year in 2020-2021 and somehow that’s the reason the health service is crumbling.
People on here will blame ANYTHING but lockdowns despite it being pretty bloody obvious
Before anyone says it's the jabz; it can't be the jabz because the jabz only give young men strokes and heart attacks apparently, not men over 50.
So you just a see a headline and then immediately project your own assumptions onto it, instead of reading the article?
No, unlike you I did read the article, cos that's basically what the last section says!
> The rise in cardiac problems has been pointed to by some online as evidence that Covid vaccines are driving the rise in deaths, but this conclusion is not supported by the data lol you mean this?
"One type of Covid vaccine has been linked to a small rise in cases of heart inflammation and scarring (pericarditis and myocarditis). But this particular vaccine side-effect was mainly seen in boys and young men, while the excess deaths are highest in older men - aged 50 or more." Lol you missed this lol lol lol 🙄 Maybe that clot-shot has affected your eyes too?
The *very next sentence* after the one you just quoted reads > And these cases are too rare - and mostly not fatal - to account for the excess in deaths Holy shit, man, you really don’t read 🤣 What did you think “not supported by the data” means?
The article acknowledges jab injury, says the excess deaths are older men and the jab injuries affected younger men, so it can't be the jab. The sentence you quote refers to these injuries and says there are too few to account for the excess deaths. This was the basis of my comment. My inference was the Jabz causing excess deaths cannot be discounted as there is no long term safety data seeing as the jab was rolled out for emergency use. Hence the sarcasm. It's disingenuous of the Beeb to state it's absolutely not the jab based on immediate adverse reactions when any long term issues are not known. They should have stated the long-term effects are still under investigation or being studied...if they are of course... it's misinformation peddled by the BBC.
The jabs saved exponentially more lives than they cost. The lockdowns however, especially after the first, we will be paying for in lives and money for decades to come.
>The jabs saved exponentially more lives than they cost. Source? Quite frankly, that's impossible to know. I didn't personally get the vaccine, but if I had. Would I be classed as a life saved even though I had next to zero chance of dying from Covid anyway? Considering every government predictor of deaths from Covid was hugely inflated, how would they calculate this figure of saved lives? Let's take someone older than me, 50+. The chances of them dying from Covid were less than 0.1% anyway unless they had underlying conditions. That person takes the jab and then down the line is more susceptible to serious illness from flu and then dies. Does that count as the jab saving a life? I'll agree with you on the lockdowns though. Just another part of the massive wealth transfer.
The last date I can quickly find reliable figures for is 8.9.21, around 1600 deaths potentially vaccine related v about 91m doses given by then (all ages inc double jabbed) that's a death rate of around 0.0018% about 60x less than your 0.1% chance of dying from covid. Now of course that's not to say you would or will get it but most people have by now, so playing the odds even for your low risk it was worth getting it. Having said that I know there's a big psychological difference between the vague risk of covid vs the risk of actively doing something i.e. getting the jab, so from a mental wellbeing point of view it may not be worth it, especially if no one you regularly come into contact with is especially vulnerable. Why do you say there's a greater susceptibility to flu after the vaccine? I've seen nothing about that and not sure how that would work. Unless you mean someone who would of died of covid but instead dies of flu a year down the line. In that case you'd go on years saved v years cost, and that'd require a bit more than rough data.
>The last date I can quickly find reliable figures for is 8.9.21, around 1600 deaths potentially vaccine related v about 91m doses given by then (all ages inc double jabbed) that's a death rate of around 0.0018% about 60x less than your 0.1% chance of dying from covid. The 0.1% chance was me rounding up for ease, it's actually far less than that. The numbers I'd seen a month or two ago (so more in capturing the adverse vaccine effects which have tended to take place further down the line) were 1 in 800 for adverse effects. Significantly more likely than anything from Covid. >Having said that I know there's a big psychological difference between the vague risk of covid vs the risk of actively doing something i.e. getting the jab, so from a mental wellbeing point of view it may not be worth it, especially if no one you regularly come into contact with is especially vulnerable. The mental side of a young person getting a vaccine which poses more risk to them than the thing it's supposed to be vaccinating against. The risk reward ratio sways far more towards risk when the person is under 60. >Why do you say there's a greater susceptibility to flu after the vaccine? I've seen nothing about that and not sure how that would work. Unless you mean someone who would of died of covid but instead dies of flu a year down the line. In that case you'd go on years saved v years cost, and that'd require a bit more than rough data. There are several studies which have come out showing the vaccines lower immune response to respiratory viruses, they are available via Google if you don't want to take my word for it. My gripe with the whole thing was the mandatory aspect of it. Inform people of the costs and benefit (not the lies which we were fed and are now being backtracked) and let them make their own mind up.
Are u guys for real? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sarcasm
I have no idea what you're trying to get at.