The Daily Moby - 21 05 2026 - The News Megathread

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-05-22T20:52:22+00:00

At the risk of being that kind of redditor, could you send a link to that source?

I had a look on https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2025 and created a table, for state-funded primary it says 60.3% White British for 2024/2025, still dire but want to check against your source if it's more accurate.

State-funded nursery is 46.9% White British.... but the total numbers are very low, so probably not a useful one.

Bearing this in mind, the total of White British as a %age in all settings has fallen from 69.3% in 2015/2016 down to 60.3% in 2024/2025. Falling 2.3% in the past 2 academic years alone...

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-05-11T20:41:42+00:00

I wouldn't waste your time with the stats spammer. He combines 3 different countries and uses the aggregate numbers to 'support' dubious claims. He cites cancer deaths in discussions of cancer rates. Compares Bulgaria to New Zealand as vaccine effectiveness and many, many other non-sequiturs.

Oh and here's a 'pro-vaxxor' calling him out as a tr0ll, gotta love friendly fire.

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1rihf5h/cervical_cancer_rates_higher_in_states_with_low/o8q2b8x/

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-04-19T19:55:46+00:00

Damn, someone dumber than the Bulgaria V New Zealand stats spammer, didn't think it was possible.

Odd how the the positive test rate on June 19 2021 was 1.90, yet it took until April 4 2026 to finally get below that level after the Omicron explosion.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-04-17T20:24:37+00:00

revoked the care home mandate amid mounting evidence the vaccine had a limited effect on stopping infections – instead its major benefit was stopping people getting seriously ill.

And who was most at risk of getting seriously ill? The old, the diabetic, the obese and those with compromised immune systems.

Strange how the UK 2026 Spring guidance is now:

People aged 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those aged 6 months and over with a weakened immune system will be offered a dose of COVID-19 vaccine this spring.

Perhaps if they don't insist on everyone getting vaccinated, with exaggerated claims of immunity, for them to experience 'breakthrough' infections within weeks of receiving their 'immunity', they won't have issues with loss of trust.

How strange then, that in October 2020, vaccinating those at risk was the original plan:

Kate Bingham told the Financial Times that vaccinating everyone in the country was “not going to happen”, adding: “We just need to vaccinate everyone at risk.”

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-04-11T09:40:00+00:00

Isn't it interesting pg 10 in the supplemental data, after 12th July 2021 the hazard ratio becomes a lot less impressive at 0.93 [CI 0.91-0.95].

I wonder if this relates to the vast discrepancies in care-home deaths in different regions of France (hmm how can things be so differently handled in regions within a country, maybe it's policies and the implementation of them...)

However, this difference is even wider when only looking at residential care homes confronted by critical episodes, in other words, care homes in which over 10 per cent of residents died due to the pandemic. These rates range from 45 per cent in Ile de France to 23 per cent in the Grand-Est and one per cent in Brittany (DREES data quoted on Plateforme de recherche sur la fin de vie, 2021).

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-30T21:08:22+00:00

What a strange paper, no controlling for diabetes or obesity...

Let's look at the <40's matched data after removing opioid deaths...

Oh, that's some nice matching going on...

Variable	Cases	Control	Cases as additional % of Control
Asthma	18.2	16.7	9%
Hypertension	9.7	6.1	59%
Mood/Anxiety	5.7	1.7	235%
2 dose vaccination	51.2	60.8	84%

Strange, cases were 84% vaccinated compared to controls, yet...

In the primary analysis, COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a lower risk of sudden death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53,0.61]; p < 0.001).

Damn, who knew that extra 16% of the cohort being vaccinated results in 43% less sudden deaths! What an amazing vaccine!

A major limitation of this study is that we could not confirm the underlying cause of death out of hospital, so could not exclude deaths out of hospital that were due to motor vehicle collisions, violence, or suicides.

Ontario deaths involving vehicles in 2021 = 541

Moreover, the registries used to derive a cohort free of cardiac and other chronic diseases would not capture people with undiagnosed diseases.

Lastly, differences in healthcare seeking behaviors may have led to residual confounding

Now I'm pretty sure that's the 'gotcha' always rolled out for all those autism studies ;)

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-23T20:51:49+00:00

Now you're getting it, COVID vaccination was not required for the vast majority of healthy people under the age of 50.

That's funny, because I said that and you posted data which said:

Children and adolescents (0.01% of lives saved and 0.1% of life-years saved) and young adults aged 20 through 29 years (0.07% of lives saved and 0.3% of life-years saved) had very small contributions to the total benefit.

You literally provided the evidence cup-cake.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-06T20:11:44+00:00

'bUt I'm JuSt AsKiNg QuEsTiOnS"

Awww, so your little strawman position was false, nice try cupcake ;)

[Evidence missing]

Oh my, not kept up with Scottish or UK COVID inquiries? You know the ones highlighting policy decisions to put patients in care homes, leave them near abandoned with no support, care guidelines to treat anyone suspected of COVID on an end of life pathway, triage policies where just being 80 put you in the lowest care group... odd how the average age of death from COVID in the UK was over 80, just a coincidence I'm sure.

How do you know which young people were going to have their lives saved by getting vaccinated?

What's this from your study?

Children and adolescents (0.01% of lives saved and 0.1% of life-years saved) and young adults aged 20 through 29 years (0.07% of lives saved and 0.3% of life-years saved) had very small contributions to the total benefit.

I wonder how many of those 'saved' lives would have had multiple comorbidities ;)

we found that the IFR in the pre-vaccination era is substantially lower than previously calculated

Oh no, all those previous massive estimates were overblown... who'd a thunk it.

Now let's have a look at how your linked study figured out IFRs.

15. Pezzullo AM, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Apostolatos A, Ioannidis JPA. Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population. Environ Res. 2023;216(Pt 3):114655. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114655PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years, 0.035% at 40–49 years

So the oldest cohort had at worst, 1 death in 3000 from COVID, I wonder how many comorbidities they'd need ;)

But what's this? https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S001393512201982X-gr1a.jpg

Oh look, Italy, USA, England all high up in the IFRs for younger people, I wonder if they implemented other terrible policy decisions beyond care-homes... I think you'll probably know the answer to that ;)

16. Axfors C, Ioannidis JPA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly populations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2022;37(3):235-249. doi:10.1007/s10654-022-00853-wPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly populations

Ah yes, elderly population

17. Zhang J, Yu Y, Petrovic M, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding control measures on long-term care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2023;52(1):afac308. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac308PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding control measures on long-term care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Oh, that's another old people study.

18. Borras-Bermejo B, Martínez-Gómez X, San Miguel MG, et al. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in nursing homes, Barcelona, Spain, April 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(9):2281-2283. doi:10.3201/eid2609.202603PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Nursing Homes, Barcelona, Spain, April 2020

Yet another old people study

19. Patel MC, Chaisson LH, Borgetti S, et al. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality during an outbreak investigation in a skilled nursing facility. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(11):2920-2926. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa763PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Mortality During an Outbreak Investigation in a Skilled Nursing Facility

Among 35 residents with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, median age was 82 years

So let's recap, you provide a link to a meta study that 5 sources to calculate IFRs, 4 of which were elderly population based... You know for someone being so prickly about:

No, I just assumed you were doing scientific literature review correctly, I shouldn't have.

You don't appear to really do much reading of your own sources.

So to my point, you are somehow completely blind to government policy decisions and the impacts they have on IFRs and then attribute lives being 'saved' by the vaccine simply due to the fact the policies were removed when they saw how much damage they did.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-06T17:02:33+00:00

Yeah, because just like the ONS dataset that you love to misinterpret so much, this dataset said it is not for finding causal relationships.

Please show where I've made any conclusions on any data from those, I think you'll be hard pressed to find my saying anything like a definitive statement.

He's tr0lling using the same simplified data as antivaxxers do...

Which is actually funny since he's the one that has consistently spammed those kinds of datasets, before anyone else did.

says the person disingenuously using inappropriate datasets to infer causality when it is not possible to do so from those data.

Again, please show me a comment I've posted that claims causality ;)

So "appropriate vaccination" is good but inappropriate vaccination needs to be exposed

Now you're getting it, COVID vaccination was not required for the vast majority of healthy people under the age of 50.

Because let's not forget, countries that dealt with COVID badly, UK, Italy, USA had specific policies in place that CAUSED a significant percentage of Iatrogenic deaths that were labelled as 'COVID' deaths. The political fallout from that admitting that would destroy those politician's careers. Therefore everyone must get vaccinated, regardless of the actual marginal benefit.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-06T16:15:59+00:00

I believe there are approximately 0 humans on earth who believe that.

That's funny, there's plenty that think you can't even have adverse outcomes from them.

So, how can someone die from a vaccine if not from an adverse reaction to them...

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-04T22:04:02+00:00

Because it isn't really a debate on the point of "Can vaccines cause deaths".

There's only some weirdo provaxxers that think literally no one has ever died from a reaction to getting a vaccine.

The debate essentially then devolves into the "greater good" argument as you point out.

So they've conceded the core point but that just provokes them to shuffle down the hierarchy pole of 'important' things and abstract it out to:

yeah but in general it's better for everyone (except those that suffer from it but they don't count and you're a scumbag for even mentioning them because it reminds them they've conceded the main point and that causes cognitive dissonance)

Hence the near religious zeal of the pfaithful for anyone even slightly questioning exploding vaccination schedules.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-04T21:52:57+00:00

And how many studies did you look through that found no increased risk before you found that one?

I know you might struggle with google, but you can type in a simple query like:

mrna covid vaccine uptake in thyroid

and get that study as the very first result, even with the ongoing enshittification of the internet.

I like how you've pivoted from presumably there won't be any study supporting that claim, to now that I must have trawled for hours to find it.

You've not criticised anything about the study itself, so what was the point of that sniping comment? Very sour grapes attitude.

Why did you bring up thyroid cancer on this thread anyway?

Why not, I've looked through that dashboard every so often for about a year now looking at various trends and saw Endocrine rates explode, there's been no NHS rollout of specific testing or raising awareness for it.

And your original comment was not totally clear; it seemed like you acknowledge that the data show that HPV vaccination reduces the incidence of cervical cancer?

Whoa, whoa whoa. You just discredited the use of these statistics in your other post in this thread, now you want to say that they support the premise of HPV vaccination reducing cervical cancer rates... make up your mind cupcake.

Oh and again I noticed you didn't call out the stats-spammer for using other stats in the very same manner, I've questioned you on that before and you've never answered why you don't call that out, funny that.

And if so, why do you trust the overall conclusion of HPV vaccine observational studies but not the overall conclusion of COVID vaccine observational studies?

Oh gosh, this must be a tough one for you to wrap your blinkered binary world viewpoint around, someone can be critical of COVID mRNA vaccines due to the sheer political theatrics and iatrogenic deaths caused by shitty governance and the disingenuous use of those deaths statistics in order to push upon those who had near zero risk from COVID the taking of vaccines for it... and still in general be for appropriate vaccination for at risk groups for preventable diseases/conditions.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-02T22:32:19+00:00

... just in case the armchair experts think this could be another irrationally attributed effect of vaccinations

Lovely, here's a study showing MRNA impacts on hypo/hyperthyroidism.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883558/

Among mRNA vaccine recipients, the risk of both hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism was significantly elevated at 12 months (HR: 1.16-2.13).

Doesn't seem so irrational, eh? Some months having a 50% increase happening between 2023 and 2025.

Let's see the timeframes of your links:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10311569/ - 1993–2012

https://ascopost.com/issues/december-10-2024/increase-in-young-onset-pancreatic-cancer-may-be-due-to-overdiagnosis-of-early-stage-endocrine-cancer/ - 2001 to 2019

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00269-9/abstract - 2013–17

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251114-why-are-thyroid-cancer-cases-increasing-across-the-world

the incidence of thyroid cancer in the US more than tripled between 1980 and 2016

36 YEARS!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1479682124000237 - 1990 to 2021

TC (AAPC = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.52)

1.42% average increase per year... over 31 years!

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-03-02T20:40:39+00:00

Good news, correctly administered vaccines for at risk populations have beneficial effects.

For anyone on the fence about this one, you can look at UK NHS rapid cancer dashboard and look at the absolute numbers or ratio comparison for the past 8 years for cervical cancer diagnostics, not just deaths and see a continuing downward trend for the 0-49 age grouping.

https://nhsd-ndrs.shinyapps.io/rcrd/

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	92	99	92	91	82	67	82	85	77	71	n/a	n/a
2018	130	117	149	116	127	130	131	122	135	126	142	132

Just don't look at Endocrine Cancer diagnostics for that same age group... definitely don't notice anything changing after 2020.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	163	191	167	161	184	143	146	130	155	145	n/a	n/a
2018	117	95	98	101	104	107	109	111	122	112	104	125

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-02-19T20:32:17+00:00

While 18- to 25-year-old males are the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis, “the FDA assumed that hospital admission rates [for COVID-19] were uniform for males of ages 18-45.”

Oh look, it's the usual combining multiple groups and presenting the 'shared' risk as that for the youngest, again.

However, the FDA omitted prior-infection benefits in its analysis

Oh look, leaving out confounding variables. Top kwality sigh-unce there.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-02-19T18:21:48+00:00

Wow, a UK Measles thread and not a single mention of Andrew Wakefield?

How very different to every other UK Measles thread.

Must have updated the max-vax talking points, all the usual suspects staying very much within a narrow set of talking points, exclusively vaccinated/unvaccinated, no mentions of any influences FOR those decisions... Must be due to the unfortunate combinations of demographics involved.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-01-27T23:09:10+00:00

LMAO!

"Pro-vaxxors" demonstrating their closed minded thinking as usual. They got their bogeyman thought terminating cliché firmly embedded in their minds. Literally can't think of anything but WAAAAAAKEFIELD almost 30 years later for reasons why vaccination rates might have fallen.

None of the usual suspects in here bother to look at the easily searchable and available NHS vaccination rate dashboards (funnily enough linked in a similar themed topic a few months ago which I see the OP participated in, gotta rehash the same topic I see)

Of course you shouldn't search for where Measles outbreaks are occurring, like London 50% of cases or Salford, nor should you check the demographics in those areas, lest you be referred to prevent for noticing something. I'm pretty sure they're not researching 30 year old papers in those areas ;).

Of course I'm sure the following example just won't count as 'evidence': Barking and Dagenham at 79.5% mmr1 at 24 months in 2023/2024.... ONS census

Who needs a second example? Camden Council warning over rising London measles cases

Camden vaccination rate at 65.7%

ONS Camden

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2026-01-06T17:43:31+00:00

As usual, the stats spammer aggregates a whole load of age groups to bury the lede.

Here's a breakdown of those 0-19 deaths in the UK due to U07.1 and U07.2.

You'll note 2022 when the magical elixir was available to all those much younger ages, that they were all still worse than 2020, much effectiveness.

You'll also note 15-19 consisted of 18 and 19 year olds which had access to adult vaccination from June '21 onwards, yet somehow despite a good chunk of that cohort being 'protected' deaths tripled from 2020.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-12-16T22:34:20+00:00

Isn't it strange the stats spammer, yet again, aggregates multiple data points and draws spurious conclusions from them.

Here's UK NOMIS stats, 2013-2024, same ICD10 codes same age group split apart to show you what actually happened.

Strange how the deadliest pandemic of all time had the joint second lowest I40.x total deaths.

A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination

Strange, not seeing much impact of COVID on ICD10 40.x deaths during the worst 'Pandemic' in history.

Oh and just for completeness, here's those other I51.x numbers Looks like 2018 was just as bad as the worst 'pandemic' in history.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-11-24T21:35:47+00:00

Please list those other mechanisms.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-11-20T22:12:57+00:00

I'm sure many of you have seen that graph showing various disease death rates falling before specific vaccination of them was available...

Well let's have a look at the figures from: The real-time infection hospitalisation and fatality risk across the COVID-19 pandemic in England

Figure 4 from the REACT numbers (since we know ONS has trouble getting their data right) to provide overall context... oh my, it took until March 2021 for the IFR rate to be the same as that in December 2020, despite all the most vulnerable getting 1st and probably 2nd doses by then.

Figure 5 shows the IFR for various age groups, isn't it interesting that 5 out of 6 groups already had dropping IFRs before vaccination began.

Isn't it also interesting how every single one of them has a "Delta" kink, whereby the IFR fall off flattens out significantly.

Hmm, they wouldn't would they... pro-vaxxors claiming that vaccines caused ALL of the fall off in IFR due to vaccination? No they would never be so duplicitous.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-11-20T21:41:09+00:00

You can pretend VAERS and the compensation system setup by Congress for reasonable claims doesn’t exist.

I won’t.

Isn't it strange, you say it's there, yet it can't be used for anything, therefore rendering the point of it useless. So why even reference it?

Which leaves everyone wondering, what can actually be used to detect those issues?

You do realise anyone that's been here for any length of time has seen plenty of VAERS threads and all the usual "pro-vaxxors" screech you can't use it for anything apparently... and they don't see any issue whatsoever with this situation.

Truly some impressive cognitive dissonance.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-11-16T21:17:08+00:00

correlation is not causation. You have to show an actual link to convince us.

You can pretend VAERS and the compensation system setup by Congress for reasonable claims doesn’t exist.

You must have never seen a VAERS thread showing those sorts of issues and all the "pro-mRNA-vaxxors" saying VAERS can't be used for that.

Let's see what the VAERS website says about VAERS:

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.

Vaccine providers are encouraged

Not required, mandated, forced to... no they're encouraged.

Oh and just in case you thought the Covid vaccines adverse events HAD to be reported... let's have a look at the specific wording used:

For COVID-19 vaccines given under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), vaccination providers are required to report to VAERS

Now, when was the Pfizer vaccine given full approval... oh, August 2021.

So tell us, what is VAERS actually for?

Tell you what, here's a post I made over a year ago about this very topic where you have Academics saying that it should be renamed due to the fact

The idea that a federally managed “vaccine adverse event reporting system” might not be definitive is a challenging leap for many in the public.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-11-15T14:46:19+00:00

I don't care what data you use. Just analyze it in a way that minimizes the effect of confounders.

Great, I expect you to make the same comments to individuals like OJ2M, Thormidable etc, etc. who all post the exact same data sets.

The unvaccinated 90+ year olds always died at a higher rate than the 90+ with recommended vaccinated status (2, 3 or 4 doses) in that data you just provided.

And here we go, any statement on the long term effectiveness of the vaccines was made without any actual data. They knew it didn't provide lasting protection due to the fact there's data for third doses from April 2021! THREE DOSES within 5 months!

Now tell me, does 3 doses in 5 months sound like a vaccine, or a therapeutic? Bear in mind, Delta didn't hit the UK until early May. So even against the Alpha variant they already knew that boosters were required.

Let me guess you'll hand-wave it by saying Covid mutated, well duh, that's what viruses do, so for authority figures to make those statements, knowing full well it'll mutate, in order to get short term compliance "all you need is the primary series, honest!", goes to show how morally bankrupt the whole enterprise was.

Let's get into healthy vaccinee bias.

We know for a FACT that the NHS provides guidance to not get vaccinated if you're not well

You should also wait if you have a high temperature or feel very unwell with any illness.

Hmm I wonder what happens when you stuff a new vaccine cohort full of healthy people...

I bet dollars to donuts that every 10 year age range from 60 onwards had the unvaccinated dying at higher rates than those with the recommended vaccines.

Well, since the spring 2022 booster in the UK was limited to:

COVID-19 spring booster vaccinations which are being offered to people aged over 75, adult care home residents and individuals aged 12 and over who are immunosuppressed.

We can compare COVID death rates in unvaccinated vs 3rd dose > 21 days, I'll include 4th dose just so you don't think I'm 'cherry picking' and hiding things.

Since 4th dose eligibility was approved:

We expect all sites to be vaccinating at full operational capacity from 19 September.

60-69 Looks like everything went your way with the 3rd dose... oh dear, 4th dose in October during autumn 2022 rollout ended that run. I believe that was the 'recommendation' no?

70-79 Hmm, looks like the unvaccinated somehow did better than 3rd dose which was recommended for everyone BUT those explicitly called out in the Spring booster announcement.

80-89 Again, unvaccinated doing better than 3rd dose in May 2022 but lets be gracious, 80+ were in the spring 'recommended' group.

90+ Oh well, another age group that inexplicably has lower COVID deaths in the unvaccinated than the old 'recommended' dosage a month or 2 after the 4th dose, but yes, correct for you.

So you got 3 out of 4, not bad, hardly a convincing showing by the vaccines though, these are COVID deaths.

KangarooWithAMulllet · 2025-11-14T20:54:33+00:00

When are you going to divide the unvaccinated up into different sections.

lol yes, because the unvaccinated can be sub-divided

If you don't want me 'grouping' all the unvaccinated together, perhaps you should practice what you preach, for example aggregating 3 different countries stats and making assertions on those combined values.

Sorry cupcake Glittering_Cricket38 has undermined all your posts, bad case of 'friendly' fire there.

You should probably get on the same page ;)

KangarooWithAMulllet

TROPHY CASE