This information is obviously lies since it contains "partially vaccinated" in table 2 which we established here is not possible because nobody is counted as partially vaccinated.
Sounds to me like it is ok to use partially vaccinated humans if the evidence says what you like, but then refuse to observe those partially vaccinated humans if the information says something you do not like. Why not use all data instead of cherry-picked data?
The above statement is not in any capacity saying the vaccine is "safe" or "effective" or any known combination of the words "safe" or "effective" to include any synonymous English words or words of any other language that would be correlated to the use of the words "safe" or "effective"
A human can point out blatantly hypocritical data usage and also think a vaccine is not "safe" or "effective".
Also this data is a lie. They used information from this:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/... But for people that actually read it we can see that the information
DOES NOT state whether or not they died from vaccination. This also ignores, as usual base rate. Also he used whole percentage values not percentage-in-category values. It assumes every human that died, and was vaccinated died FROM the vaccine. Why is it ok to do that for the vaccine but not ok to do that for the disease?
If more humans are vaccinated, more vaccinated humans will end up in a hospital for any reason. If 85% of the population wears green shirts, more green shirt wearing humans will die than people who are not wearing green shirts. Does this mean green shirts are deadly?
However if we refuse to Observe the data this article got it's information from, refuse to Observe the mathematical absolute of Base Rate, and refuse to Observe that the data DOES NOT say if they were vaccinated, then none of those things are reality.
Anyone here Observe 600000 mortality rate increase in 2022?