You mean where is says:
"Older age and chronic underlying illnesses make it more likely that coincidental adverse events including those with a fatal outcome will occur, especially given the millions of people vaccinated..............
Part of our continuous analysis includes an evaluation of natural death rates over time, to determine if any specific trends or patterns are occurring that might indicate a vaccine safety concern. Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred naturally, mostly in the elderly, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far.
...................
As the number of vaccine doses administered has increased, so has the number of reports with fatal outcomes following vaccination. However, this does not mean that there is a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported."

I'm not anti-vaccine to any extent but have been very critical of handling of pandemic, thought this an interesting piece. As to it's bias, evidence, accuracy and relativity I am not so sure but happy to see other's takes.

[Link]

Thought I'd add it's a Telegraph link for those of you similarly wary to me who are reluctant to click on any link provided on here.

Edited by Nicholas91 (19 Aug 2022 9.36am)

Thanks, and here is the lead story in todays Telegraph:

Lockdown feared to be killing more than Covid

"Virus fatalities outstripped by other excess deaths as medics call figures ‘terrifying’

Figures released by the ONS on Tuesday showed that excess deaths were 14.4 per cent higher than the five-year average, equating to 1,350 more deaths than usual in the week ending Aug 5. Although 469 deaths were down to Covid, the remaining 881 have not been explained. The ONS does not break down those deaths by cause"

Of course there are many assumptions in here, not least that they have not even mentioned something else that might be causing some of these fatalities. i.e. the thing that people got injected with and has proven to have had severe adverse reactions. Many Doctors and health professionals do not want to consider this for obvious reasons.

Entirely to be expected and ought to be regarded as a success of the approach and not a failure.

There was always going to be a secondary impact from the virus caused by delays to treatment and late diagnosis. It was inevitable whatever we did. That's not the whole story and not the basis for judgement.

The real question is what the overall picture would have been if we had taken another route? If we hadn't vaccinated, or locked down, would our hospitals have been less busy, resulting in better outcomes for waiting lists and diagnosis? I very much doubt it.

On top of that, how many more would have died directly from the virus? The vaccination programme has limited severe disease and saved countless lives.

Writing cheap stories that wind up the gullible is easy and might sell newspapers, but they inform no-one.