https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
In article <so2m1m$s7l$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a watch, sounds
about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me
eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when someone
makes themself look like a banana. But from the dissection I'd
guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a
covid denier, etc.
Presumably on the basis that he is as good an epidemiologist, etc
as I am a lumberjack.
i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up
their low ratings
might use just to suck in the unwary and boost their figures.
Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!
If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now
enlighten us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress
us. Beyond that, I'll wait until he's read and understood the book
on CC I recimmended for him... and shows he now actually
understands it.
In article <5993036a36noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <so2m1m$s7l$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a
watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news elsewhere
and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me eager to bother
to listen. More polite to look away when someone makes themself look
like a banana. But from the dissection I'd guessed it might suit Bob
OK.*
That's it go for the personal as usual.
In article <so2m1m$s7l$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a
watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me
eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when someone
makes themself look like a banana. But from the dissection I'd
guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a
covid denier, etc. Presumably on the basis that he is as good an epidemiologist, etc as I am a lumberjack.
i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up
their low ratings might use just to suck in the unwary and boost
their figures.
Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!
If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now enlighten
us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress us. Beyond
that, I'll wait until he's read and understood the book on CC I
recimmended for him... and shows he now actually understands it.
* BTW I don't look at youtoob references anyway unless someone
outlines what they're about. Saves a lot of bother and accidentally
making those which are crap seem 'popular' - and boosting the rep of
the producer of twaddle.
Jim
In article <59930d8e32bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5993036a36noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <so2m1m$s7l$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a
watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made
me eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when
someone makes themself look like a banana. But from the
dissection I'd guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
That's it go for the personal as usual.
Looks like my guess was spot-on, though.
[snip Bob's multifaceted wishful-thinking ramble ]
Get back to us when you're read the book and show signs of
understanding it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
In article <5993036a36noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me
eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when someone
makes themself look like a banana. But from the dissection I'd
guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
That's it go for the personal as usual.
But of course it was obvious that the agenda followers, the lockdown
and anti-freedom fanatics, the vax/mask obsessed, the woke and the
narrow minded would pour scorn.
Purely by coincidence, this is also doing twitter..
h t t p s : / / w w w . d a i l y m a i l . c o . u k / d e b a t e / a r t i c l e - 1 0 2 5 2 7 7 9 / D O M I N I C - L A W S O N - L e f t - l o v e - l o c k d o w n s . h t m l
For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a
covid denier, etc.
Love people that use the "denier" insult it says so much about them.
I didn't see him deny covid but then again, I watched it. ;-)
Presumably on the basis that he is as good an epidemiologist, etc
as I am a lumberjack.
It's political commentary!
i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up
their low ratings
and yet the figure are often higher in the evening than BBC news or
Sky.
might use just to suck in the unwary and boost their figures.
You really are so nice.
Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!
Again petty and silly.
About time to attack me again...
And here it is.
If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now
enlighten us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress
us. Beyond that, I'll wait until he's read and understood the book
on CC I recimmended for him... and shows he now actually
understands it.
You clearly have a religion and a bible and can't understand why
others aren't following your creed. Brainwashed.
Do you not think I've read books on this because I have but of
course, they're not of your faith.
I know there is no point arguing with religious fanatics but..
There is no climate crisis.
Climate is cyclic and man is all but irrelevant, we're very lucky we
live in a good bit of that cycle like when they built the cathedrals.
The Hubris of man, Neil Oliver talks about that too.
Snow here (midlands) for 3 days in November and very cold that CO2
isn't doing much to stop it freezing.
Very cold last winter too. Seen
the temperatures in Antarctica during the winter there? Record warm
it wasn't and will not be mentioned on the BBC.
Oh yes but that's weather isn't it.
So why when we get two warm days
in July does the BBC start with "scientists say" every time?
But I suppose if you believe that the world's temperature is so
critical on the level of CO2 despite the history of the planet shows
that it isn't then rationality is in trouble, again as Neil says.
In article <5993156bf0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Get back to us when you're read the book and show signs of
understanding it.
Oh it's us now is it. I love it.
Here is the full horror of CC in central England.
Be brave, it's very scary.
h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c l i m a t e / F u l l _ h o r r o r . j p g
Thanks but no thanks, I'll keep common sense and stay well away from
woke idiocy and climate propaganda nonsense.
On 14:40 29 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
In article <so2m1m$s7l$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a
watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me
eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when someone
makes themself look like a banana. But from the dissection I'd
guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a
covid denier, etc. Presumably on the basis that he is as good an
epidemiologist, etc as I am a lumberjack.
i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up
their low ratings might use just to suck in the unwary and boost
their figures.
Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!
If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now enlighten
us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress us. Beyond
that, I'll wait until he's read and understood the book on CC I
recimmended for him... and shows he now actually understands it.
* BTW I don't look at youtoob references anyway unless someone
outlines what they're about. Saves a lot of bother and accidentally
making those which are crap seem 'popular' - and boosting the rep of
the producer of twaddle.
Jim
I watched the video. He starts off with worries about what our
government has been doing to keep the public under the thumb with
propaganda etc etc. "State sponsored bandwaggon" blah blah. Of
course, there are no facts but plenty of diatribe.
It's the usual paranoia from the lunatic fringe.
That's what happens when you learn your science from a historian.
One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out into
the open.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:16:59 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out into
the open.
It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree with
them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation I
watched said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about the inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response to it.
It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom of a
general abandonment of reason which has also affected the whole of our society. At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of
the virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I
understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.
Rod.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:16:59 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14:40 29 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
In article <so2m1m$s7l$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
[...]
https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a
watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me
eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when someone
makes themself look like a banana. But from the dissection I'd
guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a
covid denier, etc. Presumably on the basis that he is as good an
epidemiologist, etc as I am a lumberjack.
i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up
their low ratings might use just to suck in the unwary and boost
their figures.
Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!
If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now
enlighten us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress
us. Beyond that, I'll wait until he's read and understood the book
on CC I recimmended for him... and shows he now actually
understands it.
* BTW I don't look at youtoob references anyway unless someone
outlines what they're about. Saves a lot of bother and
accidentally making those which are crap seem 'popular' - and
boosting the rep of the producer of twaddle.
Jim
I watched the video. He starts off with worries about what our
government has been doing to keep the public under the thumb with >>propaganda etc etc. "State sponsored bandwagon" blah blah. Of
course, there are no facts but plenty of diatribe.
It's the usual paranoia from the lunatic fringe.
That's what happens when you learn your science from a historian.
One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out
into the open.
It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree with
them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation I
watched said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about the inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response to
it. It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom of a
general abandonment of reason which has also affected the whole of
our society.
At a time when we are told to be worried by a new
variant of the virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and
from which I understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to
be questioned.
Rod.
I watched the video. He starts off with worries about what our
government has been doing to keep the public under the thumb with >propaganda etc etc. "State sponsored bandwaggon" blah blah. Of
course, there are no facts but plenty of diatribe.
It's the usual paranoia from the lunatic fringe.
That's what happens when you learn your science from a historian.
One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out into
the open.
It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree with
them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation I watched
said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about the
inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response to it.
It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom of a general abandonment of reason which has also affected the whole of our society.
At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the virus
with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I understand
nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.
Your, and I'm beginning to think perhaps Neil's, irrationality is the problem, not everyone else's rationality.
So are you saying that Bob's Historian actually said nothing 'anti-vax',
etc? WRT Government, it can drift into the different topic of what a
bunch of get-rich-and-favour-your-mates goons they are. Their behaviour
wrt covid is just one facet of that.
On 30 Nov, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
So are you saying that Bob's Historian actually said nothing
'anti-vax', etc? WRT Government, it can drift into the different
topic of what a bunch of get-rich-and-favour-your-mates goons they
are. Their behaviour wrt covid is just one facet of that.
Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video. I'd decided to
try it a short time ago, but youtoob are currently 'throttling' the
use of youtube-dl. So I had to furtle about to change to yt-dlp
instead. Just got it to fetch an item about Blumlein, and t'werks.
So I'll give NO a go.
Jim
On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.
It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree
with them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation
I watched said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about
the inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response
to it. It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom
of a general abandonment of reason which has also affected the
whole of our society. At a time when we are told to be worried by a
new variant of the virus with symptoms that are said to be mild,
and from which I understand nobody has died, I think the logic
needs to be questioned.
On the TV news this morning was an explanation that the information
that has so far been provided by South Africa is what the Omicron
variant has done to the young people infected by it, and on the
whole this has been mild.
The information that is missing is what happens to the elderly if
they catch it.
It will take a couple of weeks of tests to find
that out unless it does spread in the wild to the elderly. The
new regulations of when a mask should be worn etc is to buy time
for the investigations.
It shows that the logic doesn't need to be questioned.
The new variant might be equally as mild for the elderly as it
appears to be for the young, or it might be like the original Wuhan
strain which was mild for the young and pretty fatal for the
elderly. Buying a bit of time by minimally inconveniencing
everybody while tests find that out without actually infecting
those who might be vulnerable makes sense.
In article <so510k$ogq$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On the TV news this morning was an explanation that the information
that has so far been provided by South Africa is what the Omicron
variant has done to the young people infected by it, and on the
whole this has been mild.
Yes.
The information that is missing is what happens to the elderly if
they catch it.
What will happen if the elderly catch the next variant or the one
after that or, the one after that .......... When does it stop?
It will take a couple of weeks of tests to find
that out unless it does spread in the wild to the elderly. The
new regulations of when a mask should be worn etc is to buy time
for the investigations.
Except masks do between SFA and zero to stop the spread of the virus.
Look at Germany or even Wales to see that where masks have been
compulsory. Our government and it's scientific advisors Whitty, JVT
etc. said this again and again in April 20. Masks even the ones in
Germany have very, very little if any effect.
There was recently a bunch of 'put together reports' on masks saying
that they worked. The Telegraph did a great debunk of this a couple
of days ago, the tests were a shambles and the results biased.
No graphs for any country in the world shows a good effect for masks.
The truth about masks has been know for a long time, cloth masks in particular are a bad joke.
I realise that science is now driven by politics
but when science
starts changing definitions overnight and long standing plans are
kicked into the long grass at a similar rate, we've lost reason as
stated in the video.
Stop watching the fear porn propaganda on the BBC!
What masks do do, is spread fear.
It shows that the logic doesn't need to be questioned.
I'm sorry but yes, it does.
The new variant might be equally as mild for the elderly as it
appears to be for the young, or it might be like the original Wuhan
strain which was mild for the young and pretty fatal for the
elderly. Buying a bit of time by minimally inconveniencing
everybody while tests find that out without actually infecting
those who might be vulnerable makes sense.
The situation is very different from April 20 things have moved on.
We have 90% plus of the population with anti-bodies and vulnerable
people are triple jabbed if they want it. We also have improved
treatments and I'm told that the chances of dying when you get covid
are around 1 in a thousand similar to flu.
Should we restrictions every year for a new flu variant?
The virus will always be with us, it will never go away. Zero covid
is only for the funny farm people. The virus mutates constantly and
most mutations offer no advantage to the virus but roughly every 2-3
months a viable variant appears. They will continue to appear and
here's the important bit - FOR EVER!
So under the precautionary plan we will have to go through this loop
several times each year - forever. This is a dystopian nightmare of
our own making which will be our undoing if the stupid woke don't get
us there first.
It is known that we have 50,000 people with undiagnosed cancer.
People too scared of covid to get checked out. Probably the same
story with heart issues and plenty of other things.
I realise the lockdown lovers have always not given a damn about the
the majority and their ticking time bomb medical positions as clearly
they have other goals.
There has been no such experiment on the wearing
of face masks in a pandemic, because it would be equally unethical to do
so, nevertheless, just as you should wash your hands after going to the toilet, so you should also wear face-masks when the situation demands
it, like being on public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public space.
[SNIP] Bob Latham's invented claims [SNIP]
See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:
Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles? https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you- need-to-stop-believing/
BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40
More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby
boom https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.
It is known that we have 50,000 people with undiagnosed cancer.
At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the virus
with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I understand
nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.
IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be >'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more >infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in behaviour, >we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control before we can >evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched
NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering >amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much >NHS effort.
Does this YouTube replayer help?
http://www.viewpure.com/PgFMkXxX07U
Cloth masks need to be of a densely woven material to have best effectiveness, and they need to be worn properly, too many people don't
wear them properly.
IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be >'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more >infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in
behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control
before we can evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on
the stretched NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths
and suffering amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of
covid needing so much NHS effort.
That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be about
to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under our beds
just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.
Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one illness may result in a great
many more people dying from other things, such as untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in time, and if that happens,
what was it all for?
But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous opinions
of the man's other presentations and not what he said in the video in question, a video which prior to your posting (my apologies if I've got
this wrong) you had apparently not even watched yourself.
Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:58:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the
virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I
understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be
questioned.
IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may*
be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems
more infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change
in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it getting out of
control before we can evaluate the impact it will have - on covid
deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by
now that deaths and suffering amongst NON covid people are elevated
as a result of covid needing so much NHS effort.
That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be
about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under
our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.
Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths
is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more
emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one illness may
result in a great many more people dying from other things, such as
untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in
time, and if that happens, what was it all for?
But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous
opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he said in
the video in question,
a video which prior to your posting (my
apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently not even
watched yourself.
Rod.
In article <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drnt752gbilfk1uabm5b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it
*may* be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since
it seems more infectious and has multiple changes which could
mean a change in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it
getting out of control before we can evaluate the impact it will
have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be
obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering amongst NON
covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
NHS effort.
That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may*
be about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide
under our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference
anyway.
The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't*
make any difference.
The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.
And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.
This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
protection. This is the actual science.
Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid
deaths is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot
more emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one
illness may result in a great many more people dying from other
things, such as untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't
get diagnosed in time, and if that happens, what was it all for?
Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to
act sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS -
and consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE.
Underfunding the NHS whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top
Tories have also made things worse because that could have been
better used in other ways.
But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by
Neil Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of
prevous opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he
said in the video in question, a video which prior to your
posting (my apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently
not even watched yourself.
I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science
than I'd guessed! It's a science-free rant.
So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
founded.
On 30 Nov, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video.
Hmmm... The good news is that the rant video only lasts 9m 30s - so
only a short time was wasted.
No sign of any clue about science of any kind. Just a daft rant of
OSAF. NO seems to know less about science than I do about Duncan II,
who did'nae last lang according to my Scots Ruler.
TBH my main impression is that NO looked and behaved stressed and
unwell to me. Have the feeling his rant won't look good on his CV.
Oh well, shows that OffCom simply allow airspace for money. No
quality standards needed, just the money.
I'd thought his programmes on Scots (ancient) history were quite
interesting. But I now wonder what other historians think of them.
Jim
In article <5994033af0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drnt752gbilfk1uabm5b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it
*may* be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since
it seems more infectious and has multiple changes which could
mean a change in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it
getting out of control before we can evaluate the impact it will
have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be
obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering amongst NON
covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
NHS effort.
That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may*
be about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide
under our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference
anyway.
The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't*
make any difference.
The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.
Yes true but the people are vaxxed..
And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.
Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better
than anyone else. Sorry.
This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
protection. This is the actual science.
Ah, claims to be science expert. A very biased one.
Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid
deaths is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot
more emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one
illness may result in a great many more people dying from other
things, such as untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't
get diagnosed in time, and if that happens, what was it all for?
Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to
act sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS -
and consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE.
Nothing stops this virus except vaccines and even they have
unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear peddling.
As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it
could produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what
point will it be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of
a new variant?
One other problem with this policy is crying wolf. If we wet the bed
each time and then the variant turns out to be nothing special and
the same with the next one, normal people will stop responding to the nonsense and then if something extra nasty does come along.
Underfunding the NHS whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top
Tories have also made things worse because that could have been
better used in other ways.
Utter nonsense from the a left. The NHS problem is too many managers
and stupid wasteful spending. Whilst the NHS employs people as
Diversity managers on huge salaries we know they lack any priority
and will waste any money however large on stupidity.
But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by
Neil Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of
prevous opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he
said in the video in question, a video which prior to your
posting (my apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently
not even watched yourself.
I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science
than I'd guessed! It's a science-free rant.
So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
founded.
I don't like it, so its' a rant.
I can't deny a true point so it's a cherry.
It's a very good point, so it's a sour cherry - I get it.
Oh how the left love a controlled society and loss of freedom just
like the communists. Listen to the self confessed commie in sage -
always the same - lockdown, control, take away freedoms. Always the
loony left. Any excuse to take people's freedoms away.
So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.
In article <5994033af0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.
Yes true but the people are vaxxed..
And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.
Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better than anyone else. Sorry.
This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
protection. This is the actual science.
Ah, claims to be science expert.
Nothing stops this virus except vaccines
and even they have unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear peddling.
As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it could produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what point will it
be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of a new variant?
So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.
Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
thousands more with his illogical arguments.
On 01/12/2021 15:05, Pamela wrote:
Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
thousands more with his illogical arguments.
Don't you think he's rather sexy Pamela?
Bill
On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
to make.
On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
to make.
I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
enlightening: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
to make.
I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this enlightening: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
Jeff Layman wrote:
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
If anyone believes that the worst that will happen to them is that
they'll "[go] home to be with the Lord" why would they worry?
On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational
arguments to make.
I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
enlightening:
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb- covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
On 09:04 2 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational
arguments to make.
I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
enlightening:
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-
covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
Ah, the secret joys of schadenfreude!
There are now several web sites which list anti-vaxxers who died from
taking their own advice, such as this:
https://ucommblog.com/section/safety/thank-god-they-are-dead
I like this one for its frequently updated citations. They never end.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/
On Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:29:47 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09:04 2 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational
arguments to make.
I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
enlightening:
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-
covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
Ah, the secret joys of schadenfreude!
There are now several web sites which list anti-vaxxers who died from >taking their own advice, such as this:
https://ucommblog.com/section/safety/thank-god-they-are-dead
I like this one for its frequently updated citations. They never end.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/
Are there any websites listing all the people who decided not to be vaccinated but *didn't* die?
A balanced view should include them.
Rod.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
Haven't died yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5992fd1ee9bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07Uv = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears in
a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists:
h t t p s : / / w w w 2 . i o n o . f m / e / 1 1 2 5 8 8 0
In our current political climate, podcasts (and the alternative media in general) are a much better source of free and uncensored information.
On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM restrictions,
and the financial and/or political interests of the host broadcaster (and possibly worse).
On 04/12/2021 14:30, Alexander wrote:
"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5992fd1ee9bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07Uv = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U
Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears
in a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists: h t t p s : / / w
w w 2 . i o n o . f m / e / 1 1 2 5 8 8 0
The poor quality of the content is much more likely to be a problem.
On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited
in what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM
restrictions, and the financial and/or political interests of the
host broadcaster (and possibly worse).
After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
In article <5995a6cfbdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of
tea.
Have you been radicalised or something?
In article <5995a6cfbdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
Have you been radicalised or something?
Him and JJ are a pair of hot-headed imbeciles imho - both blocked here.
In article <sofu1g$4cs$1@dont-email.me>,
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited
in what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM
restrictions, and the financial and/or political interests of the
host broadcaster (and possibly worse).
Have to say that does appear to be the case. Only one opinion allowed
on so many topics. Anyone who doesn't follow the agenda/narrative is insulted, attacked personally, bullied and cancelled.
Nice people the mob.
In article <5995a6cfbdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of
tea.
Have you been radicalised or something?
Bob.
In article <5995a6cfbdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty video
I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of tea.
In article <sofu1g$4cs$1@dont-email.me>, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM
restrictions, and the financial and/or political interests of the host broadcaster (and possibly worse).
Have to say that does appear to be the case. Only one opinion allowed on
so many topics. Anyone who doesn't follow the agenda/narrative is
insulted, attacked personally, bullied and cancelled.
Nice people the mob.
Jim, I have noticed you getting less measured and more ranty of late. Building exasperation, or old age setting in? I have to say that my own levels of tolerance have been eroded of late!
On 04/12/2021 19:01, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <5995a6cfbdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty video
I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he may say.
Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
Oh FFS hyposhite, grow up and stop describing anyone who disagrees with
you in terms from a children's pantomime of evil. I suspect probably a majority here agree with Jim's opinions about NO, he's not a bad
presenter of history programmes, but he's a time-wasting overly verbose
bore when it comes to expressing his eccentric and somewhat paranoid
personal opinions.
In article <5995af39abbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <sofu1g$4cs$1@dont-email.me>, Alexander <none@nowhere.fr>
wrote:
On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny
are allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly
limited in what they are allowed to say, because of
Soviet-style OFCOM restrictions, and the financial and/or
political interests of the host broadcaster (and possibly
worse).
Have to say that does appear to be the case. Only one opinion
allowed on so many topics. Anyone who doesn't follow the
agenda/narrative is insulted, attacked personally, bullied and
cancelled.
Nice people the mob.
The basic error in your argument is that this issue isn't simply
one of "My *opinion* is as good as / better than yours."
The issue is what the scientific evidence and method show. Not the
sour cherries you and others post and assert. And the 'mob' you are
really arguing with are the real scientists and their evidence.
I think I read here or on a
forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone >else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an >important TV programme to make.
I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was quite enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read here or on a forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an important TV programme to make.
On 05/12/2021 09:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was quite
enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read here or
on a
forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting
someone
else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
important TV programme to make.
Everytime I see these clips of him on Twitter, it reminds me of a
hostage video.
The basic error in your argument is your persistent denial of many
fully qualified scientist who disagree with your narrative drilled
into you by the agenda driven media.
I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was quite enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read here or on a forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an important TV programme to make.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 09:58:05 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I think I read here or on a
forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone >> else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
important TV programme to make.
If that's true, I suddenly don't like him either.
Rod.
On 05/12/2021 12:50, Bob Latham wrote:
The basic error in your argument is your persistent denial of many
fully qualified scientist who disagree with your narrative drilled
into you by the agenda driven media.
Here we go again, the same old bullshit that has already been debunked multiple times here! Whenever these claims, usually in the hundreds or thousands, of so-called 'fully qualified scientists' are examined
rationally, there are usually just a handful of them, of which, wrt:
Global Warming denial:
- Most are geologists employed by the fossil fuel industry;
- The expertise of the remaining scientists lies elsewhere;
- The rest aren't even scientists at all.
Covid-19 denial:
- Their predictions, such as 'herd immunity', were wrong every time;
- They ignore any science they don't like and try to lie it away.
On 05/12/2021 12:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 09:58:05 +0000 (GMT), Jim LesurfRod, someone once told me that his mate at work knew a chap who's wife
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I think I read here or on a
forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone >>> else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
important TV programme to make.
If that's true, I suddenly don't like him either.
Rod.
worked with another woman who said she'd seen you dance naked on top of
a London bus.
Bill
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Yes.
On 21:04 30 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:
Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-
need-to-stop-believing/
BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40
More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby
boom https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.
Earlier today someone in uk.d-i-y posted these two useful links:
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>
<https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pandemic-update-evidence>
Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I suspect
conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks because
wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official advice,
which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do. The points
they make on their social media forums make little sense but that
doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's misconceptions. These disaffected misfits genuinely have psychological issues.
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
So in the UK we have 45 - 50000 new cases a day, but Japan, with almost double
the population, has only 200 new cases a day!
On 01/12/2021 01:43, Pamela wrote:
On 21:04 30 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:
Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-
myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/
BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40
More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby
boom https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.
Earlier today someone in uk.d-i-y posted these two useful links:
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-
briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>
<https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-
pandemic-update-evidence>
Thanks, for the links, I've only just remembered to come back and
read them.
This quote from the first is interesting in an ironic sort of way
...
"An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these
effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need
for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or
about 5% of gross domestic product.47"
... yet the very people who are anti-lockdown are also those who are anti-mask! It's probably also worth quoting the conclusion from
this assessment of what the science says about mask use:
"Conclusions
Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to
reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking
is derived from the combination of source control and wearer
protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source
control and wearer protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing
community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the
evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in
particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize
both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit,
comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Mask use has been found to
be safe and is not associated with clinically significant impacts on respiration or gas exchange. Adopting universal masking policies can
help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand
hygiene, and adequate ventilation."
Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I suspect
conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks because
wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official advice,
which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do. The points
they make on their social media forums make little sense but that
doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's misconceptions.
These disaffected misfits genuinely have psychological issues.
Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.
On 05/12/2021 09:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was
quite enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read
here or on a forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an important TV programme to make.
Hearsay really, nothing more. I'm surprised that a man like you Jim, so
much an adherent of evidence-based science, would repeat it.
Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I suspect
conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks because
wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official advice,
which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do. The points
they make on their social media forums make little sense but that
doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's misconceptions.
These disaffected misfits genuinely have psychological issues.
Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.
The whole business about masks is really a non-issue. Of course masks
are useful: it's hardly worth debating.
Covidiots' challenges against mask wearing are in vain. I have to
laugh when I see master-fool senator Rand Paul try to score points
against Dr Fauci about masks.
Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.
In article <j1474sFmv9rU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright ><wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/12/2021 09:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was
quite enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read
here or on a forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and
insisting someone else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew'
because he had an important TV programme to make.
Hearsay really, nothing more. I'm surprised that a man like you Jim, so
much an adherent of evidence-based science, would repeat it.
I mentioned it, including making clear it was "claimed" to make the point >that - as with the contents of NO's rambling - we should wonder about mere >assertions and look for a relevent way to test it.
e.g. look at the science and evidence for what NO was claiming, not just >accept such a rant if we 'want' to believe it. And as far as I can see, the >science indicates he is talking spheroids.--
I also wonder/wondered if the CalMac report was true. But having seen his >rant it did come to mind as being at least possible given his behaviour in >the Glum Bugger Nonsense video. And thought it might make a point here, as >outlined above.
Slainte,
Jim
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:44:03 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I
suspect conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks
because wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official
advice, which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do.
The points they make on their social media forums make little
sense but that doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's
misconceptions. These disaffected misfits genuinely have
psychological issues.
Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.
The whole business about masks is really a non-issue. Of course
masks are useful: it's hardly worth debating.
Covidiots' challenges against mask wearing are in vain. I have to
laugh when I see master-fool senator Rand Paul try to score points
against Dr Fauci about masks.
Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear
contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the
seal around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid
masks should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Definitely.
Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
coincides and claim that is the cause.
However, take a look at this graph..
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
Bob.
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
I mentioned it, including making clear it was "claimed" to make the
point that - as with the contents of NO's rambling - we should wonder
about mere assertions and look for a relevent way to test it.
NO is an archeologist. This type of thing is part of the job. Archeology
is in many respects more of an art than a science.
Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear
contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal
around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks
should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.
I found the the common masks have a 'bendy' strip on the 'top edge'. This
can be bent into a 'V' that fits around my nose. Helps keep the mask up
over the nose and reduces the gap at the top. As a result I don't get
breath noticably coming up over my eyes, or fogging my glasses.
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Definitely.
Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
coincides and claim that is the cause.
However, take a look at this graph..
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
Bob.
While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
masks were not required. Phil M
In article <sonh33$k6l$1@dont-email.me>,
Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Definitely.
However, take a look at this graph..
h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / i n f e c t 2 . p n g
Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
masks were not required. Phil M
Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.
Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and peak
in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
that normal.
The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either.
h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / I C U 2 . j p g
Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?
I suppose only some facts are facts and other facts are cherries ifWhich is exactly what you do all the time.
the don't suite the narrative.
I realise that observations and indeed science need to be bent to
justify the socialist wet dream of more control over people's lives
and even lockdowns.
In article <sonh33$k6l$1@dont-email.me>,
Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Definitely.
Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a
negative proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't
happened you can't just pick something that suites your
opinion/narrative that coincides and claim that is the cause.
However, take a look at this graph..
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a
lot worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
Bob.
While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
masks were not required. Phil M
Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.
Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and
peak in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
that normal.
The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either. http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/ICU2.jpg
Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
On 07/12/2021 10:13, Martin wrote:
Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear contact >> lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal around the nose
isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks should be compliant with
FFP3 or EU 95 standards.
What is EU 95? I've heard of N95, which is basically equivalent to FFP2,
but not EU 95 (or EU95). FFP3 is N99.
I'm surprised that you have a problem with contact lenses. I though that
the issue with glasses misting up was because they were always colder
than the air expelled from the top of a mask, so leading to water vapour
in breath condensing on them. Aren't contact lenses at, more-or-less,
body temperature?
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Oh dear.
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
Bob.
Oh dear.
h t t p s : / / s w p r s . o r g / f a c e - m a s k s - e v i d e n c e /
The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?
On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling to
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
Definitely.
Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
coincides and claim that is the cause.
However, take a look at this graph..
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
Bob.
below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since masks
were not required.
On 12:15 8 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?
Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in Shitter!
The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.
It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.
On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?
Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in Shitter!
In article <XnsADFA7F954A96B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it
cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.
It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.
Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
masks, they will not save you or anyone else.
Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
population, for others they are a comfort blanket.
Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust masks,
they will not save you or anyone else.
Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
population, for others they are a comfort blanket.
In article <XnsADFA7F954A96B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12:15 8 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those
hotbeds of gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you
found it?
Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life
wallowing in Shitter!
The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the
source it cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.
It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.
Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
masks, they will not save you or anyone else.
Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
population, for others they are a comfort blanket.
Bob.
There is systematic miscategorisation of the "vaccination" status of
the deceased. People are not classed as being "vaccinated" until 14
days after their 2nd jab, so if they die after the jab(s) but before
that time has elapsed, they go down as an "unvaccinated" death.
(That's handy for big pharma, isn't it.)
Just to update and clarify this:
You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
ago.
If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as
"vaccinated" until 14 days after the booster jab has been
administered.
So in reality, contrary to misleading statistics. less than 1 in 10
people currently in hospital "with covid" are completely unjabbed.
Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in
hospital, using a test that gives enormous numbers of false
positives, because far too many amplification cycles are being
used - the test is basically bogus.
I would suggest that a significant proportion of these patients
are actually suffering from jab injuries, but thanks to this
trickery with the statistics, they will be portrayed in media as
"paying the price for not taking the jabs", and their suffering
will be used to scare the rest of public into taking more jabs.
Acute jab reactions (of which there have been many) will also not
be recorded in these misleading statistics.
Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream
media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I
"Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
COVID vaccine." Again shocking and damning information, shared by
a consultant cardiologist -
why wasn't this story on the front page of every newspaper?
(answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)
In article <sora4j$cop$1@dont-email.me>,
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.
It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
are classified unvaxed.
The Pfizer Booster trial submitted 17/9/21 indicated 34/268 people
tested positive within 28 days of the booster. At the peak 1 in 25
were infected but after covid booster that rises to 1 in 8. FOR A
PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.
Reports I have read claim that our spring peaks of covid that Europe
didn't have (before we opened up) were due to this phenomena and that
our vaccine push was more rapid than Europe's.
I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people in hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaxdeadstatus.jpg
Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in
hospital, using a test that gives enormous numbers of false
positives, because far too many amplification cycles are being
used - the test is basically bogus.
Yes, I know of two FOI requests that revealed that the test cycles
are absurdly high.
Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream
media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I
"Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
COVID vaccine." Again shocking and damning information, shared by
a consultant cardiologist -
Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports people collapsing are now common.
why wasn't this story on the front page of every newspaper?
(answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)
True, in the main the media are an agenda following bunch of lockdown
loons, keen for more.
Prime minister, why didn't you lockdown sooner, harder, longer?
When are we going to lockdown?
But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit
analysis of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse
and murder, spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools
closed and business wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone
burying her husband like so many others while no.10 party?
Here is an interesting publication:s a t i o n _ o f _ v a c c i n e _ s t a t u s _ a n d _ u n c e r t a i n _ e f f e c t i v e n e s s _ o f _ C o v i d - 1 9 _ v a c c i n a t i o n
h t t p s : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i c a t i o n / 3 5 6 7 5 6 7 1 1 _ L a t e s t _ s t a t i s t i c s _ o n _ E n g l a n d _ m o r t a l i t y _ d a t a _ s u g g e s t _ s y s t e m a t i c _ m i s - c a t e g o r i
and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = J x k b 2 y h d L i A
In a nutshell:
But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit analysis
of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse and murder,
spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools closed and business wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone burying her husband like
so many others while no.10 party?
The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:
Martin Neil Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL School of
Electronic Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD
Not an epidemiologist.
Norman Elliott Fenton Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL School
of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science PhD Mathematics
(Sheffield University)
Not an epidemiologist.
Scott Mclachlan Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science PDRA in Computer and
Information Science: Research Fellow in Law
Not an epidemiologist.
A recent paper published by Prof. Bhakdi and Prof. Burkhardt
may shed some light on this: https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/end-covax.pdf
In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
the body's immune system to attack itself.
Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/
In article <sora4j$cop$1@dont-email.me>,
Alexander <none@nowhere.fr> wrote:
Just to update and clarify this:
You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
ago.
If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as
"vaccinated" until 14 days after the booster jab has been
administered.
Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.
It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
are classified unvaxed.
In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
the body's immune system to attack itself.
Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/
h t t p s : / / d o c t o r s 4 c o v i d e t h i c s . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / e n d - c o v a x . p d f
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the globe there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.
If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
than us, they didn't.
What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do
something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other schools locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They did
something.
Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are effective,
if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
understand how Hitler came to be.
As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
know of another vaccine like that?
Bob.
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
understand how Hitler came to be.
As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
know of another vaccine like that?
In article <59a58b8575bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what >country she is in.
[snip initial dribble about 'masks' promped by policial paranoia.]
I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
understand how Hitler came to be.
Godwin's Law! :-) However your postings do make it obvious that you are >having problems understanding what logical intelligent people think!
Nothing new there, though, alas.
As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
I can't recall what epidemiological knowedge he has. Looks like to be on a >par with yours from the muddles in what you write next...
At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
know of another vaccine like that?
That's quite a list of misunderstanding, idiotic oversimplications, and
sheer fantasy, even by your poor standards! (sic).
Just one e.g.: The "effectiveness" of a vaccination depends on what is
being referring to in terms of "effect". So you can expect a different
value depending on which of the following you mean:
1) Prevention of any detectable infection for a given viral 'load'
delivered. (Which may mean the person can't infect anyone else.)
2) Prevention of noticable *symptoms*. (But may mean the person
can infect someone else, so is a - potentially unawares - infection
risk for others, making it more useful for them to wear a mask to
protect others.)
3) Prevention of 'serious' symptoms.
4) Prevention of needing ICU or similar.
5) Prevention of death caused by the infection.
It also varies from person to person, and with time after the
vaccination(s). Plus, no doubt other factors.
Sweeping assertions about 'effectiveness' that don't specify these
details are themselves potential symptoms of someone who is wilfully
clueless about the science and simply grabs at straws to back their
wishful thinking, presenting them out of context, etc, etc.
i.e. cherry picking.
Yawn. Oh well, at least your comments suit the thread's title, and
look like the level of 'science' that NO might present on the basis
of his extensive understanding of epidemiology.
If you want to moan that I'm going for the man and not the ball, I
can point out in advance that in science terms you had no actual
ball - only a lot of boxx0x, in your posting. :-)
Jim
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what country she is in.
In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics/
"D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
[...]
In general, they are a medical disinformation organization.
Failed Fact Checks
- Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health, because they can increase the CO2 that you breathe. – False
- VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance data show that COVID-19
vaccines are killing people. – False
Overall, we rate Doctors for Covid Ethics a quackery level pseudoscience organization based on promoting false and misleading claims regarding Covid-19 and vaccines."
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the
globe there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.
If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
than us, they didn't.
What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
enforcement.
The other reason is the government "being seen to do
something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are
effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I understand how Hitler came to be.
As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
subjects.
At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it.
Even vaccines of which I've had
3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news.
Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works
and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're told
will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be
less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
country she is in.
Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
in.
How scared are we
still supposed to be, and why?
In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the
cloth masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across
the globe there has never been any quality evidence they do
anything.
If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
than us, they didn't.
What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do
something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other
schools locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They
did something.
Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you
getting the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I understand how Hitler came to be.
As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
subjects.
At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've
had 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky
news. Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer
works and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're
told will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe
you'll be less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?
Bob.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there
was no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
what country she is in.
in.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:09:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <59a58b8575bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham ><bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <XnsAE158420C3D1537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,
I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what >country she is in.
[snip initial dribble about 'masks' promped by policial paranoia.]
I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
understand how Hitler came to be.
Godwin's Law! :-) However your postings do make it obvious that you are >having problems understanding what logical intelligent people think! >Nothing new there, though, alas.
As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary >> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
I can't recall what epidemiological knowedge he has. Looks like to be on a >par with yours from the muddles in what you write next...
At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3, >> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
know of another vaccine like that?
That's quite a list of misunderstanding, idiotic oversimplications, and >sheer fantasy, even by your poor standards! (sic).
Just one e.g.: The "effectiveness" of a vaccination depends on what is >being referring to in terms of "effect". So you can expect a different >value depending on which of the following you mean:
1) Prevention of any detectable infection for a given viral 'load'
delivered. (Which may mean the person can't infect anyone else.)
2) Prevention of noticable *symptoms*. (But may mean the person
can infect someone else, so is a - potentially unawares - infection
risk for others, making it more useful for them to wear a mask to
protect others.)
3) Prevention of 'serious' symptoms.
4) Prevention of needing ICU or similar.
5) Prevention of death caused by the infection.
It also varies from person to person, and with time after the >vaccination(s). Plus, no doubt other factors.
Sweeping assertions about 'effectiveness' that don't specify these
details are themselves potential symptoms of someone who is wilfully >clueless about the science and simply grabs at straws to back their
wishful thinking, presenting them out of context, etc, etc.
i.e. cherry picking.
Yawn. Oh well, at least your comments suit the thread's title, and
look like the level of 'science' that NO might present on the basis
of his extensive understanding of epidemiology.
If you want to moan that I'm going for the man and not the ball, I
can point out in advance that in science terms you had no actual
ball - only a lot of boxx0x, in your posting. :-)
Jim
In article <a6t8tght5u65amg7hivliollg2b6dccs4v@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:09:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Substantial snip of good sense, obviously anathema to Bob LieToThem]
I can see I need to add people to JJ in my don't bother reading list.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
what country she is in.
Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live in.
On 04/01/2022 16:29, Chris Green wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
what country she is in.
Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live in.
In which case Bob should have said 'our government'.
Apparently there's just one person in Scotland in ICU with the latest
lurgy,
and it's not even clear if the lurgy was the specific reason they
were admitted, or if they were admitted for something else and were subsequently tested. Either way, it's just *one* person in however many millions live in the whole of Scotland. How scared are we still supposed
to be, and why?
On 16:29 4 Jan 2022, Chris Green said:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live in.
Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there
was no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know
what country she is in.
I suspect "your government" means the "government you elected".
As it happens, I didn't vote for Boris or any other Conservative.
I suspect "your government" means the "government you elected".
As it happens, I didn't vote for Boris or any other Conservative.
The left in all their glory, hunting in packs, usual suspects.
The left used to care about the poor and workers rights etc. No longer,
all they give a damn about now is their stupid ideologies that ordinary
folk just laugh at.
I can see I need to add people to JJ in my don't bother reading list.
In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
would be all over the media and it isn't.
In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study
showing masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public
transport during peak periods.
Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting
infected and they don't stop you giving it to someone else.
Therefore meeting crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't
safe, it's nonsense. Look at the logic not the agenda.
Vaccine Passports show that you have received jabs.
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
be all over the media and it isn't.
Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
Look at the logic not the agenda.
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to be >questioned.
Bob.
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
be all over the media and it isn't.
Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
Look at the logic not the agenda.
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
be all over the media and it isn't.
Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
Look at the logic not the agenda.
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to be questioned.
Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work
either. Some of them won't get the mesage. Some of them won't
understand the message. Some of them won't be able to afford to
follow it, some won't follow it correctly, and some will simply
forget or not bother. Maybe some will have moral, cultural or
religious objections too; religion has a track record of objecting
to all manner of things on the basis of no logical reasoning
whatever. Also, the very fact that the command is in the form of a
draconian edict of dubious legality given to a population
accustomed to democratic freedoms that their parents or
grandparents fought and died for will cause many to protest on that
basis alone, alarmed at the threat of those freedoms being lost by
stealth. Therefore whatever you command will not be done by 100% of
the population and it will be folly to base any calculations on an
assumption that it has.
The trouble with scientific "experts" is that they're often
specialists as well, so if you ask them for advice on something
they may only consider it on the basis of their own narrow range of expertise. They may fail to take into account any collateral
results of the advice they give, as if other medical conditions,
loss of livelihood, inflation, crime, mental health, police
thuggery, and all the other societal changes we're seeing now were
somehow not part of the same universe, and therefore Not Their
Fault. But considered as a whole, it now looks as though the cure
is worse than the disease, so it's time to try something else
instead of continuing with the same blinkered flogging of the same
dead horse.
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an elephant
(an exhaled water aerosol).
In article <59a606735acharles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
would be all over the media and it isn't.
In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study
showing masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public
transport during peak periods.
I don't believe that for 1 second.
Oh there are stories like that but look at Germany where N95 masks
have been mandatory for months and look at Wales. If masks did
something then these countries wouldn't be having the waves like us
but they do.
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting
infected and they don't stop you giving it to someone else.
Therefore meeting crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't
safe, it's nonsense. Look at the logic not the agenda.
Vaccine Passports show that you have received jabs.
Which as regards spreading the virus means nothing.
In reality there is very little you can do to stop the spread, the
virus will do its thing and man can't do much about it.
Probably the most effective thing would be better patient isolation
in hospitals and care homes because that is where most infections
occur. I'm not saying I know how to do that.
In article <pn1btg1lv6od7gdl9rfm93889m33v567gc@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
But considered as a whole, it now looks as though the cure
is worse than the disease, so it's time to try something else
instead of continuing with the same blinkered flogging of the same
dead horse.
Now there's a guy who looks at the data and thinks for himself.
In article <59a606735acharles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
would be all over the media and it isn't.
In yesterday's Times, there is reference to a South Korean study
showing masks reducedtransmission by more than 90% on public
transport during peak periods.
I don't believe that for 1 second.
I didn't think you would.
In article <bXtBQ6JmpZ1hFwl6@brattleho.plus.com>,
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an elephant
(an exhaled water aerosol).
:-)
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
In message <59a609f261bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
In article <bXtBQ6JmpZ1hFwl6@brattleho.plus.com>,
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <59a60825bdbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks.
Like using chain link fencing to stop flies.
But it might when the virus (a fly) is being carried by an
elephant (an exhaled water aerosol).
:-)
But does the smiley mean that you now actually understand how masks
can help to reduce the spread of the virus?
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
no difference.
Bob.
In article <sRVsRwEGMc1hFwSj@brattleho.plus.com>,
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
But does the smiley mean that you now actually understand how masks
can help to reduce the spread of the virus?
No, certainly not.
Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
that in the real world, they do nothing.
On 19:06 5 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
no difference.
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
be all over the media and it isn't.
Do graphs show respirator masks or surgical saliva masks?
FFP3 respirators are so widely available that I use only those now.
Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
that in the real world, they do nothing.
They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its >contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Bill
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 20:50:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
that in the real world, they do nothing.
They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its
contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.
There's a difference between theory and the real world. In theory if
you create a law, everybody will follow it and things will change for
the better, but this doesn't always happen.
For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
drugs anyway and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
collateral effects, so the law has actually made things worse.
For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
drugs anyway
and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
collateral effects
so the law has actually made things worse.
In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
no difference.
Bob.
On 05/01/2022 23:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
For example, theory says that if you make addictive drugs illegal it
will save lives because people won't be taking the drugs, but in
reality though a few lives may be saved some people will take the
drugs anyway
That is true. But the law making it an offence does deter some, and
thus the current situation ensures that it is not as many people who
would take such drugs if that course of action was legal.
and many more lives will be lost or destroyed through
collateral effects
... if more people took such drugs. The thing about addictive drugs is
that getting off them once addicted is difficult. Addictive drugs cost
money and burglaries, shoplifting, mugging and similar means to raise
enough for the next "fix" will increase in direct proportion to the
number of people addicted.
so the law has actually made things worse.
That is an assumption not backed by real life.
Jim
On 05/01/2022 20:10, Pamela wrote:
On 19:06 5 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks
makes no difference.
Upthread you wrote ...
On 05/01/2022 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it
would be all over the media and it isn't.
... but that argument is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways;
equally there is no quality data from anywhere that shows masks
don't work otherwise it would be all over the media and it isn't.
Do graphs show respirator masks or surgical saliva masks?
FFP3 respirators are so widely available that I use only those now.
Yes, and do the graphs take account of the sort of environments the
masks are mandated in or not, the presence or not of other measures
such as lockdowns, working from home, population demographics, etc,
etc, etc.
The joke is that one can't tell anything as detailed as whether
masks work or not just by comparing two countries happening to have
different mask regimes, because a great deal more than just the mask
regimes will differ between them, and the results of the comparison
will be the result of *ALL* the differing factors.
The even bigger joke is that he insists on comparing the UK and
Germany, and when you do that, the country with a tougher mask
regime has the lowest infection and associated rates, which runs
completely counter to his attempted claims!
Bob is a bigoted ignoramus who understands SFA even about how to
apply what used to be called 'common sense', let alone actual
science!
Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.
The trouble with scientific "experts" is that they're often specialists
as well, so if you ask them for advice on something they may only
consider it on the basis of their own narrow range of expertise.
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. ...
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science.
Bob is a bigoted ignoramus who understands SFA even about how to apply
what used to be called 'common sense', let alone actual science!
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 20:50:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Graphs of infections in countries with masks mandates shows clearly
that in the real world, they do nothing.
They show nothing of the sort. They show that each country's situation
is a complex interaction of many factors, and no *SINGLE* measure -
whether it be masks, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc - is sufficient on
its own. What is needed is a combination of measures, each making its >contribution, and one of those is wearing masks in public places.
There's a difference between theory and the real world. In theory if you create a law, everybody will follow it and things will change for the
better, but this doesn't always happen.
The other point so often overlooked by the anti-mask brigade is that
the mask is effective in trapping the virus in water droplets in
*exhaled* air. The information that the public should remember is that
"your mask protects me and my mask protects you". Those who regard a
mask as being their own protection have got it wrong.
On 05/01/2022 19:06, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks. Like
using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks makes
no difference.
Bob.
Sorry Bob but the virus is carried on water droplets.
In article <j3n1d4Fiv9eU1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 19:06, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,Sorry Bob but the virus is carried on water droplets.
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks.
Like using chain link fencing to stop flies.
The virus is carried on water droplets.
Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks
makes no difference.
Bob.
I don't doubt that that happens but I do doubt it's exclusive. So
presumably then if we all wore masks there is no need to work from
home and all the graphs showing countries with mandated N95 masks
doing just the same as everyone else is fake news.
Bob.
Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.
You missed out "sometimes". :-)
Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle houses, etc, >despite laws/rules saying they should not. This isn't a particularly good >'reason' for deciding to abandon all rules or laws, though.
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing, and >vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people adopt these >measures.
There have always been risks associated with
everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
with normal life.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing,
and vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people
adopt these measures.
The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard. That, and covering our
faces by government decree has made the last couple of years the
most depressing time I can remember. I'm retired, so as long as my
savings can last longer than me I should be "alright Jack", but it's
sad to see businesses folding everywhere and some individuals having
to survive on a pittance with no prospect of work. Nobody can plan
anything expensive in advance in case it has to be cancelled by the government changing the rules yet again with no advance warning, and
in fact a piece of junkmail I received the other day was an offer of
"covid insurance" against this very occurrence, which I suppose was
only a matter of time. There have always been risks associated with everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
with normal life.
Rod.
On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There have always been risks associated with
everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
with normal life.
The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of us
have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases
simply because of the selfishness of others.
Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle houses,
etc, despite laws/rules saying they should not. This isn't a
particularly good 'reason' for deciding to abandon all rules or laws, >though.
There is a strong argument for reconsidering laws that are ignored by
such a large number of people as to risk damaging respect for the law in general. Laws can only work in a democracy if the majority agree with
them.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing, and >vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people adopt these >measures.
The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 15:55:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There have always been risks associated with
everything we do, and I think it's time we accepted this and got on
with normal life.
The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of us
have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases
simply because of the selfishness of others.
Rught now I don't see selfishness preventing us from geting back to
normal.
I see draconian governmental rules that don't seem to be
achieving anything. At the start it was just pure incompetence in how
it was handled, and now it just looks like too little, too late. They
all seem to be drunk with power and clinging to the last vestige of it
that they think they can justify. Nobody who seizes power ever wants
to relinquish it, regardless of reason.
I'm not party to any more specialised scientific research results or statistics than anyone else can read about in the papers, but speaking
from my own personal experience, I've known far more people who have
died from cancers, heart attacks and even a couple of road traffic
accidents than I've known who have died from covid, the latter figure currently standing at zero, zilch, absolutely none at all, and yet I'm supposed to be scared of it. There are people dying all the time all
over the place from all manner of things (normally about ten thousand
a week in the UK apparently) but any rational assessment of the risk
of dying from covid versus the risk of dying from anything else leads
to the inevitable conclusion that it's insignificant. I know I'll die
of something some day, as we all have to accept, but although I don't
know what it will be, I can be nearly certain what it won't be.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:27:40 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <59a5a2d7e2noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
[Rant snipped]
Masks don't work, look at the graphs not the agenda. There is no
quality data from anywhere that shows masks work otherwise it would
be all over the media and it isn't.
Vaccine passports can't work, they don't stop you getting infected
and they don't stop you giving it to someone else. Therefore meeting
crowds of people with vaccine passports isn't safe, it's nonsense.
Look at the logic not the agenda.
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
be questioned.
Bob.
Commanding an entire population to do something doesn't work either.
Some of them won't get the mesage. Some of them won't understand the
message. Some of them won't be able to afford to follow it, some
won't follow it correctly, and some will simply forget or not
bother. Maybe some will have moral, cultural or religious objections
too; religion has a track record of objecting to all manner of
things on the basis of no logical reasoning whatever. Also, the very
fact that the command is in the form of a draconian edict of dubious
legality given to a population accustomed to democratic freedoms
that their parents or grandparents fought and died for will cause
many to protest on that basis alone, alarmed at the threat of those
freedoms being lost by stealth. Therefore whatever you command will
not be done by 100% of the population and it will be folly to base
any calculations on an assumption that it has.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 15:55:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 06/01/2022 14:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There have always been risks associated with everything we do, and I
think it's time we accepted this and got on with normal life.
The trouble with that attitude is that between 149,000 and 173,000 of
us have not been able to get on with normal life, in many, many cases >simply because of the selfishness of others.
Rught now I don't see selfishness preventing us from geting back to
normal. I see draconian governmental rules that don't seem to be
achieving anything.
There are people dying all the time all over the place from all manner
of things (normally about ten thousand a week in the UK apparently)
I would go further and support any proposal to penalise those who
exploit moral hazard by not getting vaccinated while veryone else
dose. We are not used to paying for healthcare in this country but it
may not be a bad idea to bill the unvaccinated who acquire Covid and
need hospital treatment.
In article <s3vdtgdjnslj7gck3m6tlm68ncec57m2a9@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing, and
vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people adopt these >> >measures.
The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard.
That may well be true for you. But to me it seems a fairly daft assertion >given the context of a serious infectious disease, etc.
Jim
As the dominant strain is now being described by those who have
suffered it as "like a bad cold", if they even notice it at all, which
some don't, it's no longer credible to regard it as "serious".
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking place
in many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
level of support for the covid rules. These were rushed through
parliament without the usual process by a government that had seized
extra powers the democratic electorate had never given them, and now
seem reluctant to give up. If there was initially an emergency of a
type that could have been dealt with by emergency laws, we are in a
very different situation now. There seems a sizeable consensus that
the rules are currently destroying more than they are saving.
In article <cmudtg5dnfrk7q5a25dthaah9m1qe1u8qp@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle houses,
etc, despite laws/rules saying they should not. This isn't a
particularly good 'reason' for deciding to abandon all rules or laws,
though.
There is a strong argument for reconsidering laws that are ignored by
such a large number of people as to risk damaging respect for the law in
general. Laws can only work in a democracy if the majority agree with
them.
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and offenders >prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding drivers - would >outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:22:50 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I would go further and support any proposal to penalise those who
exploit moral hazard by not getting vaccinated while everyone else
dose. We are not used to paying for healthcare in this country but
it may not be a bad idea to bill the unvaccinated who acquire Covid
and need hospital treatment.
I've seen this suggested quite a lot lately, and I find it very
worrying. Once you've established the principle of making moral
judgements about people's entitlement to healthcare on the basis of
their behaviour, where would you stop? Would you withhold medical
treatment from smokers for example? Would you expect ambulance
drivers to judge whether accident victims had been drinking, or had
been wearing their seatbelts, and leave them by the side of the road
in favour of those who had behaved properly? As I understand it,
initial triage is currently done to establish likelihood of
survival, not moral worthiness on account of behaviour, and then the
doctors will save as many lives as they can regardless of why they
need saving. On what principles do you think a health service ought
to operate?
Rod.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:21:41 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <cmudtg5dnfrk7q5a25dthaah9m1qe1u8qp@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, it is true that some people drive dangerously, or burgle
houses, etc, despite laws/rules saying they should not. This
isn't a particularly good 'reason' for deciding to abandon all
rules or laws, though.
There is a strong argument for reconsidering laws that are ignored
by such a large number of people as to risk damaging respect for
the law in general. Laws can only work in a democracy if the
majority agree with them.
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking
place in many cities throughout the world (though not widely
reported in the mainstream media for some reason) there isn't
anything like the same level of support for the covid rules. These
were rushed through parliament without the usual process by a
government that had seized extra powers the democratic electorate
had never given them, and now seem reluctant to give up. If there
was initially an emergency of a type that could have been dealt with
by emergency laws, we are in a very different situation now. There
seems a sizeable consensus that the rules are currently destroying
more than they are saving.
Rod.
Plank of the Week this weeks has a good item on masks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwZA_zJ9T-I
Once place where some sanity remains.
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking place in
many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
level of support for the covid rules.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:23:33 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <s3vdtgdjnslj7gck3m6tlm68ncec57m2a9@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing,
and vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people
adopt these measures.
The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard.
That may well be true for you. But to me it seems a fairly daft
assertion given the context of a serious infectious disease, etc.
Jim
As the dominant strain is now being described by those who have suffered
it as "like a bad cold", if they even notice it at all, which some
don't, it's no longer credible to regard it as "serious".
Plank of the Week this weeks has a good item on masks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwZA_zJ9T-I
Once place where some sanity remains.
The left will enjoy POW as much as I now enjoy HIGNFY which I used to
love before it very left/woke.
I have been in A&E on a Friday night and seen streams of drunks arrive
from pubs and parties. I was in a lot of pain from a kidney stone which
later required hospitalisation but was in too much discomfort to stay in
A&E because there was a huge backlog from of people with injuries at a drunken student party.
More like insanity ...
M i k e G r a h a m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Graham_(journalist)
"In 2021, Graham criticised a guest on his show, a climate change
activist and carpenter, for their use of wood as a building material.
Graham claimed it was hypocritical for an environmentalist to chop down
trees and build things out of wood. When the activist responded that
trees are a sustainable source of building materials because they can be regrown, Graham claimed it was equally possible to "grow concrete".[23]"
"In 2021, Graham criticised a guest on his show, a climate change
activist and carpenter, for their use of wood as a building material.
Graham claimed it was hypocritical for an environmentalist to chop down
trees and build things out of wood. When the activist responded that
trees are a sustainable source of building materials because they can be regrown, Graham claimed it was equally possible to "grow concrete".[23]"
fIn article <XnsAE188341E4BE37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been in A&E on a Friday night and seen streams of drunks
arrive from pubs and parties. I was in a lot of pain from a kidney
stone which later required hospitalisation but was in too much
discomfort to stay in A&E because there was a huge backlog from of
people with injuries at a drunken student party.
FWIW I've been in similar situations when my wife had been taken to
A&E after injuring herself during a seizure. Fortunately, back then
the ambulances came fairly quickly. Over the years we became well
ken't faces, but despite bleeding she had to wait some time for
being dealt with.
Given the long delays we can expect now, it is something I worry
about recurring in present circumstances. With head wounds it can be
hard to assess what damage may have been done.
Jim
On 05/01/2022 14:00, Alexander wrote:2
Disinformation and fake news that has been reported to:
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b er . o r g
As far as analysis of VAERS figures goes, Alexander keeps making the
same mistake of ascribing causality to what is merely coincidence.
He doesn't seem to understand that such figures contain *EVERY*
'event' to a person that has been vaccinated, but the vast majority
of such 'events' are merely coincidence and entirely unrelated to
receiving a vaccine. So, for example, a person may have a vaccine,
and three days later die in a car accident, and that may be recorded
in these figures, but no-one is trying to claim that the vaccination
caused the car accident. Similarly, three days after receiving a
vaccine someone might die of heart failure, but people die of heart
failure in their thousands every year, and some of these people will
have received a vaccine recently, but it doesn't mean the vaccine
caused the heart failures.
Here's a previous debunking of fake figures quoted by Alexander:
"Here are the VAERS numbers: Over 17,000 Americans are reported dead
from this vaccine -- mostly from strokes, heart attacks and blood
clots. [...] This information is all publicly available and provided
by the CDC. This cannot be called "misleading" by anyone in the
media. The very definition of "misleading" would be to either
disparage or ignore VAERS and not report on it daily to your
readers."
But you can go to the link below and try and replicate the claims,
using an online search form, and, contrary to the dubious figures
quoted, on one example search I tried, there were no deaths at all
reported for 'HEART INJURY' following a covid-19 vaccine: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=AEC0344A
CEC1C2B9D175F30D60E
That's all I could check going forwards, but we can also go
backwards:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_ vacc-total-admin-rate-total
The US population is just under 330m, and currently the proportion
of those vaccinated is ...
1 Dose 67%, this is the correct proportional figure to use
2 Doses 58%, these will be a subset of above Booster 11%, these
will be a subset of above
... while 100,000 people die of blood clots every year, and 67% of
that is 67,000 ...
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/infographic-impact.html
... and 659,000 people die of heart attacks every year and 67% of
that is 442,000 ...
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
... and 137,000 people die of strokes every year, and 67% of that is
92,000.
Adding up these figures, we have that in a normal 67% subset of the
US population ...
67,000 +
442,000 +
92,000
-------
= 601,000
... would die of blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes in a normal
year, which is 1,647 people a day, or over 46,000 in any given four
week period, such as in the four week period after receiving a
vaccine. The misleading figure of 17,000 claimed in the article is
thus entirely explained away as being merely coincidence.
In article <e84gtglp0sqo8vkk8pgvrg2rb2b8tjca1b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking place in
many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the
mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
level of support for the covid rules.
Erm, even accepting your "hundreds of thousands" value, none of that >establishes that more than a vociferous minority firmly oppose the rules.
You can also find 'newspapers' saying pretty much whatever you fancy. So
the above is just cherry-picking,
And the 'rules' in question will vary from country to country and with
time. So you can't bundle them all into support for your beliefs.
Jim
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
In article <665gtgt5mj9nk2egnknd1m9eakqgs3fngv@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:23:33 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <s3vdtgdjnslj7gck3m6tlm68ncec57m2a9@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing,
and vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people
adopt these measures.
The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard.
That may well be true for you. But to me it seems a fairly daft
assertion given the context of a serious infectious disease, etc.
Jim
As the dominant strain is now being described by those who have suffered
it as "like a bad cold", if they even notice it at all, which some
don't, it's no longer credible to regard it as "serious".
1) Your "by those" is rather skewed wording for the reality. Yes, the >fraction of those infected that have ended up in ICU or dying *so far* in
the UK is encouragingly lower than in the past. But that doesn't mean some >people will do so as the infected number have risen, and some eventually
get to those stages.
2) You seem to have no awareness at all of factors like the number of NHS
and care staff off the front line as the remainer are left to cope. Nor of >the impact on people needing tests, or treatments for other serious >conditions. Some of whom may end up dying.
So it is serious for those who lift there eyes above their own personal >situation.
Jim
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you could
persuade the medical professions that they should be doing this, in
practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they came
to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in a
car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who started
the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not doctors.
Rod.
Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into
the search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares
in many cities from around the world filled with people as far as
the camera can see. The numbers don't look trivial. These are
nothing at all like the small ragtag bunches of obsessives who have
recently been glueing themselves to motorways on account of some
issue of their own invention. It's difficult to be sure of exact
numbers, but hundreds of thousands at each incident looks lik a
reasonable estimate, and these are just the ones who felt strongly
enough and had the opportunity to take to the streets.
I don't know how much of this has found its way into the "official" mainstream news, or what their emphasis has been,
but luckily we now have many alternative sources of information
about what's really going on that cannot be suppressed. It seems
clear that governments all round the world have grossly misjudged
the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 14:35:24 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <665gtgt5mj9nk2egnknd1m9eakqgs3fngv@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:23:33 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <s3vdtgdjnslj7gck3m6tlm68ncec57m2a9@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:58:25 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
The plain truth is that masks, social distancing, regular testing,
and vaccines can and do all help provided a fair number of people
adopt these measures.
The plain truth is that "social distancing" is one of the most
chilling Orwellian oxymorons I've ever heard.
That may well be true for you. But to me it seems a fairly daft
assertion given the context of a serious infectious disease, etc.
Jim
As the dominant strain is now being described by those who have
suffered it as "like a bad cold", if they even notice it at all, which
some don't, it's no longer credible to regard it as "serious".
1) Your "by those" is rather skewed wording for the reality. Yes, the >fraction of those infected that have ended up in ICU or dying *so far*
in the UK is encouragingly lower than in the past. But that doesn't mean >some people will do so as the infected number have risen, and some >eventually get to those stages.
2) You seem to have no awareness at all of factors like the number of
NHS and care staff off the front line as the remainer are left to cope.
Nor of the impact on people needing tests, or treatments for other
serious conditions. Some of whom may end up dying.
So it is serious for those who lift there eyes above their own personal >situation.
Jim
I don't *only* have awareness of my own situation. Like most people, I
read, I watch the news, I talk to people, and I can see what many others
have presented directly to us via the internet without being edited by
anyone else. I think I can make a reasonable judgement of whether someone presenting an idea is an obsessive crackpot or a qualified expert with relevant experience, because on the internet there are plenty of both.
I don't dispute that the virus was a real threat that needed to be dealt with, but some of the official numbers given to us are deeply suspect.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics that can give you any numbers
you want depending on what you choose to count. For example, perhaps you
also can remember the pictures of those temporary emergency hospitals
cobbled together in vast buildings the size of aircraft hangars because,
we were told, thousands of patients were expected - but they were never
used. Why?
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 14:31:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <e84gtglp0sqo8vkk8pgvrg2rb2b8tjca1b@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking place
in many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in
the mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the
same level of support for the covid rules.
Erm, even accepting your "hundreds of thousands" value, none of that >establishes that more than a vociferous minority firmly oppose the
rules. You can also find 'newspapers' saying pretty much whatever you >fancy. So the above is just cherry-picking,
And the 'rules' in question will vary from country to country and with >time. So you can't bundle them all into support for your beliefs.
Jim
Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into the
search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares in many cities from around the world filled with people as far as the camera can
see. The numbers don't look trivial.
These are nothing at all like the
small ragtag bunches of obsessives who have recently been glueing
themselves to motorways on account of some issue of their own invention.
It's difficult to be sure of exact numbers, but hundreds of thousands at
each incident looks lik a reasonable estimate, and these are just the
ones who felt strongly enough and had the opportunity to take to the
streets.
In article <48kitghclk27ecifoueqhr1glqauvuk8n4@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into
the search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares
in many cities from around the world filled with people as far as
the camera can see. The numbers don't look trivial. These are
nothing at all like the small ragtag bunches of obsessives who have
recently been glueing themselves to motorways on account of some
issue of their own invention. It's difficult to be sure of exact
numbers, but hundreds of thousands at each incident looks lik a
reasonable estimate, and these are just the ones who felt strongly
enough and had the opportunity to take to the streets.
Yes, indeed perfectly true.
If you confine yourself to main stream media especially the BBC for
your news supply not only are you seeing a slanted and filtered view
of the world you're missing entire events which are deemed unsuitable
for their agenda.
That's not to say that you need to jump on everything you see on the
net, you still need trusted sources and those sources need to be
revised with experience.
I don't know how much of this has found its way into the "official"
mainstream news, or what their emphasis has been,
Oh I think we know.
but luckily we now have many alternative sources of information
about what's really going on that cannot be suppressed. It seems
clear that governments all round the world have grossly misjudged
the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.
Yes, indeed and it's interesting to watch increasing numbers of
journalists and medical professionals slowly distancing themselves
from lockdown mania. Some have gone so far as to admit they panicked
and got it wrong and we should have protested the vulnerable just
like the Barrington Declaration said.
It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
didn't need jabbing.
Never the less, the idiots in government are still going ahead with
sacking thousands of workers in an act of tyranny and stupidity when
the health service needs to fix cancer, heart disease etc. etc. etc.
But no, loony ideologies still hold sway.
Just to clear any misunderstanding, I never watch Sky News, it's more
biased and insane than the BBC and that's saying something, I only
see clips copied to the internet.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 14:31:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <e84gtglp0sqo8vkk8pgvrg2rb2b8tjca1b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking place in >>> many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the
mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
level of support for the covid rules.
Erm, even accepting your "hundreds of thousands" value, none of that
establishes that more than a vociferous minority firmly oppose the rules.
You can also find 'newspapers' saying pretty much whatever you fancy. So
the above is just cherry-picking,
And the 'rules' in question will vary from country to country and with
time. So you can't bundle them all into support for your beliefs.
Jim
Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into the
search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares in
many cities from around the world filled with people as far as the
camera can see.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
Advocating pure evil.
Bob.
In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for
idiots'. So that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance
problems could pop a few quid in that the staff could then share out
later. Sadly, those who should pay up would probably also be the
group who'd regard it as their 'right' to behave in such ways and
get 'free' care for the predictable consequences.
Jim
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from
their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill from
ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they
came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in
a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who
started the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not
doctors.
Rod.
On 08/01/2022 09:18, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 14:31:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <e84gtglp0sqo8vkk8pgvrg2rb2b8tjca1b@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
Jim
Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking
place in
many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the
mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
level of support for the covid rules.
Erm, even accepting your "hundreds of thousands" value, none of that
establishes that more than a vociferous minority firmly oppose the
rules.
You can also find 'newspapers' saying pretty much whatever you fancy. So >>> the above is just cherry-picking,
And the 'rules' in question will vary from country to country and with
time. So you can't bundle them all into support for your beliefs.
Jim
Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into the
search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares in
many cities from around the world filled with people as far as the
camera can see.
I just did, and I didn't see what you are claiming. I saw only 11 hits covering only 6 different demonstrations as follows:
London, 2wks, 2
Belgium, 1m, 3
Netherlands, 5d, 3
France, 5m, 1
France, 2m, 1
London, 8m, 1
Note that around half of the videos are duplicates of others, that
they're all in Europe, and that the numbers of idiots involved is
minimal compared with the population of Europe.
As I tried to point out, statistics can say anything you want
depending on what you decide to count. The numbers are only meaningful
if they've been derived by asking the right questions. Otherwise
they're just numbers.
How many billions of different people do they show, accordinging to
reliable checkers who were present - e.g. the police. What fraction of the >Earth's popuation does that come to when they remove multiple counting of >people who appear in more than photo/video?
Yes, when you look at something like the 'riot' at the fooball game that
made the recent England game a disgrace you can see a 'lot' of people. But
it is trivial compared to the population of planet Earth.
In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of their
patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you could
persuade the medical professions that they should be doing this, in
practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to make these
judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant evidence would be
available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they came
to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in a
car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who started
the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my
daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not doctors.
Rod.
On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from >>>their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill from
ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they
came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in
a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who
started the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not
doctors.
Rod.
When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not
behaving with moral risk.
Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
payment for damage to road furniture and can be done retrospecively.
There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay for
any Covid medical treatment.
Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.
In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela ><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for idiots'. So >that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance problems could pop
a few quid in that the staff could then share out later. Sadly, those who >should pay up would probably also be the group who'd regard it as their >'right' to behave in such ways and get 'free' care for the predictable >consequences.
Jim
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
make these judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant
evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
depressed, etc etc?
No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my >>daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.
This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not
be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.
In article <sr9h85$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
More like insanity ...
M i k e G r a h a m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Graham_(journalist)
"In 2021, Graham criticised a guest on his show, a climate change
activist and carpenter, for their use of wood as a building material.
Graham claimed it was hypocritical for an environmentalist to chop down
trees and build things out of wood. When the activist responded that
trees are a sustainable source of building materials because they can be
regrown, Graham claimed it was equally possible to "grow concrete".[23]"
Odd. Out of curiousity I clicked the above link and got a page telling me
the one specified doesn't exist. I've never heard of him, so wondered who employed him as a journo.
On 13:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
make these judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant
evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
depressed, etc etc?
No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my >>>daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.
This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not
be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.
You are re-defining the original and current purpose of the NHS.
Although Brits love to laud it, in a survey of healthcare last summer
of 11 wealthy countries, the UK was ranked in 4th place overall and
9th on outcomes. The NHS is struggling to cope and not doing very
well.
In factisolation of infected people (and whole towns) in pandemics has
been sensibly practised for several thousand years before the NHS was >created.
In all societies criminal deviants are locked up and, in the case of
Covid, deviants who unnecessarily expose themselves and others to the
risk of disease should not ask the NHS for treatment, unless they pay
for it.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course >> >of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score >> >and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of their
patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you could
persuade the medical professions that they should be doing this, in
practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to make these
judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant evidence would be
available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they came
to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in a
car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who started
the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my >daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.
This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.
On 11:06 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
Advocating pure evil.
Bob.
If people refuse to play their part in public health preventative
measures by not having the jab and they then catch (and spread) the
very disease society is concerned about, they should consider
themselves lucky to get any treatment at all.
If there is pressure in places, it's far better to treat a person
who has had the vaccine and will take precautions subsequently
when they recover than to save the life of someone who has
willingly taken a risk of catching (and spreading) Covid and would
do so again when they recover.
This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
drinking.
a civilised society should recognise as far as
practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
slope.
People who want to make their own decisions about whether or not to
consent to medical treatment are not "criminal deviants".
There might be some logic if we were considering a treatment that
would make them less likely to catch something and/or pass it on, but
this is not the case. This is not what vaccines are for; they're to
protect the patient, nobody else,
In article <j95jtgl45es0bv5232bc5s4epcp7tdg6jl@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
a civilised society should recognise as far as
practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
slope.
100% Rod. I staggered and appalled that we have people who not hold
those values. The dangers are obvious.
I thought the left were supposed to be caring people or is that now
history a long with reason, logic and biological sex.
In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
drinking.
To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
enlightened.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela >><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for
idiots'. So that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance >>problems could pop a few quid in that the staff could then share out
later. Sadly, those who should pay up would probably also be the
group who'd regard it as their 'right' to behave in such ways and
get 'free' care for the predictable consequences.
Jim
Under the NHS, we all have that right. Who would you take it away
from, and why? How would you decide whose need for medical help was
the result of "selfishness"?
For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand
with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged
that? Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement,
because that's what doctors do.
Rod.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:20:41 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a
risky course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not
ill from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if
you could persuade the medical professions that they should be
doing this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect
them to make these judgements? This is assuming that all the
relevant evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get
on with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about
how they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your
judgment of their priority based on whether you think it was
their fault? Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever,
were they driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give
them the poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they
became depressed, etc etc?
No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to
my daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame
later.
This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may
not be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is
clear enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as
practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
slope.
You are re-defining the original and current purpose of the NHS.
Although Brits love to laud it, in a survey of healthcare last
summer of 11 wealthy countries, the UK was ranked in 4th place
overall and 9th on outcomes. The NHS is struggling to cope and not
doing very well.
In factisolation of infected people (and whole towns) in pandemics
has been sensibly practised for several thousand years before the
NHS was created.
In all societies criminal deviants are locked up and, in the case of
Covid, deviants who unnecessarily expose themselves and others to
the risk of disease should not ask the NHS for treatment, unless
they pay for it.
People who want to make their own decisions about whether or not to
consent to medical treatment are not "criminal deviants".
There might be some logic if we were considering a treatment that
would make them less likely to catch something and/or pass it on,
but this is not the case. This is not what vaccines are for; they're
to protect the patient, nobody else, and if the patient doesn't want
it, no-one should administer it without their consent. We're all
different in most things, including medical needs, if any. A medical treatment that's right for one person may not be right for someone
else. It's been common knowledge almost from the start of this virus
that it doesn't attack everyone equally, so not everyone will need
any treament at all, and though doctors can advise and recommend, we ultimately have the right to decide for ourselves.
Rod.
In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11:06 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a
risky course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not
ill from ignoring medical advice.
Advocating pure evil.
Bob.
If people refuse to play their part in public health preventative
measures by not having the jab and they then catch (and spread) the
very disease society is concerned about, they should consider
themselves lucky to get any treatment at all.
If there is pressure in places, it's far better to treat a person
who has had the vaccine and will take precautions subsequently when
they recover than to save the life of someone who has willingly
taken a risk of catching (and spreading) Covid and would do so
again when they recover.
This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
drinking.
To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
enlightened.
Bob.
Criminal deviants and Covid vaccine deviants are both anti-sociial
elements who have a deletrious effect on public health and
well-being.
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
be questioned.
In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
be questioned.
Here's some propaganda masquerading as science.
see for yourself..
https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios
Garbage nothing more. This is the nonsense that decides if we lock
down or if we go for net zero. Activist bullshit like this.
Don't take any notice of computer models !!!
In article <XnsAE19AA8A069C437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Criminal deviants and Covid vaccine deviants are both anti-sociial
elements who have a deletrious effect on public health and
well-being.
You're dangerous.
In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
"Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
be questioned.
Here's some propaganda masquerading as science.
see for yourself..
https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios
Garbage nothing more. This is the nonsense that decides if we lock
down or if we go for net zero. Activist bullshit like this.
Don't take any notice of computer models !!!
They are just the desperate end of propaganda.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:15:12 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not ill from >>>>ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
depressed, etc etc?
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a
system for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries,
not doctors.
Rod.
When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not >>behaving with moral risk.
Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
payment for damage to road furniture and can be done
retrospectively.
Exactly. It's not triage but retrospective admin and not judged by
doctors. It is absolutely not and should never be the judgement of
the front-line lifesavers whether a life is worth saving. They will
try regardless and only give up when they know there is no hope.
There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay
for any Covid medical treatment.
Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.
You might as well say that the the ninety (or whatever) percent who
are lucky enough to be healthy should not pay for the remaining
percent who are born with impairments, allergies or other medical
conditions, or who are injured while taking part in dangerous sports
or other activities. But where would that lead? To a doctor, a life
to be saved is just a life to be saved if it looks feasible to save
it.
Compare their numbers instead with the number of people protesting in
the streets*in favour* of Boris and his lockdowns, restrictions,
On 08/01/2022 15:02, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
drinking.
To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
enlightened.
Again, hypocrisy, if you consider that one person's life is as important
as another's, stop spreading dangerous anti-vax and anti-mask fake news
here.
This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
a civilised society should recognise as far as
practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
slope.
It's not society that's abandoning that principle, but the individual
nutters concerned.
In article<hdnitg1fb7tg1qpd2draukf2mka815ojnd@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I don't dispute that the virus was a real threat that needed to be dealt
with, but some of the official numbers given to us are deeply suspect.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics that can give you any numbers
you want depending on what you choose to count. For example, perhaps you
also can remember the pictures of those temporary emergency hospitals
cobbled together in vast buildings the size of aircraft hangars because,
we were told, thousands of patients were expected - but they were never
used. Why?
That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.
Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
for the unnecessary costs incurred.
On 14:07 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:15:12 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky >>>>>course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not ill from >>>>>ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
depressed, etc etc?
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a
system for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries,
not doctors.
Rod.
When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not >>>behaving with moral risk.
Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
payment for damage to road furniture and can be done
retrospectively.
Exactly. It's not triage but retrospective admin and not judged by
doctors. It is absolutely not and should never be the judgement of
the front-line lifesavers whether a life is worth saving. They will
try regardless and only give up when they know there is no hope.
There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay
for any Covid medical treatment.
Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.
You might as well say that the the ninety (or whatever) percent who
are lucky enough to be healthy should not pay for the remaining
percent who are born with impairments, allergies or other medical
conditions, or who are injured while taking part in dangerous sports
or other activities. But where would that lead? To a doctor, a life
to be saved is just a life to be saved if it looks feasible to save
it.
One group you mention is deliberately taking a risk, the other is not.
If two people's lives need to be saved but only one can be, then save
the life of the person who will not unnecessarily expose themselves to
the same risk again.
For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand
with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged
that? Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement,
because that's what doctors do.
Rod.
It happens all the time in the NHS. Not everyone who requires treament
is given equal priority. A patient waiting to be admitted to a ward
for treatment is given a score, A&E attendees are scored then triaged,
etc.
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.
On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the >Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the >death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
secret identity.
Jim
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the >Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the >death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything >from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
secret identity.
Jim
The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
all human lives are of equal value.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
unvaccinated alike can spread it.
In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus is
said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll never
achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we live
with things like the flu and the common cold. All the isolation,
quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial distancing) could
ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a vaccine in the hope
that fewer people would die while we were developing it. Well, now we
have, so those who think they can benefit from it can have it, and
probably should (though I'm not a doctor, so if in doubt ask your own doctor's advice) but as with any medical treatment, it's ultimately
their own decision.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything >>from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
secret identity.
Jim
The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
all human lives are of equal value.
Rod.
In article <59a788163dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.
That problem seems to have popped up a few times during the covid period. Government promises something, but then the required support isn't in
place.
Jim
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:49:19 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
a civilised society should recognise as far as
practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
slope.
It's not society that's abandoning that principle, but the individual
nutters concerned.
Who do you think the nutters are, and why? I certainly haven't
abandoned the principle described above. It's the people who think
that entitlement to health care *should* be assigned in a
discriminatory manner based on something other than simple humanity
who appear to have abandoned it. Maybe "nutters" isn't the best
description for such people, but they certainly deserve a descriptive
term of some sort.
In article<59a79073d6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article<59a788163dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.
That problem seems to have popped up a few times during the covid period.
Government promises something, but then the required support isn't in
place.
Jim
The trouble with magicing up suitably trained staff to work in hospitals is that there's a few years training involved. Remember that the Government (I forget of which colour) cut back on medical school places a few years ago.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:51:49 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 08/01/2022 15:02, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
drinking.
To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
enlightened.
Again, hypocrisy, if you consider that one person's life is as important
as another's, stop spreading dangerous anti-vax and anti-mask fake news
here.
I don't read it as "anti-vax" but "anti-compulsion", which is quite a different thing. Saying that a medical treatment should not be
administered without consent is not the same as saying it should not
be administered at all.
My wife and I got our 3rd or booster jab yesterday afternoon. We had Comirnaty which I think is made by Pfizer. So far, unlike the
Astra-zenica no obvious side effects.
My wife googled the vaccine and it said it was remarkably good at
preventing you getting the virus. It claimed that of 5000 people who
were given the jab in the trial only 5 ever developed CV19. Trying to
make you think this meant 99.9% protection. Of course, in reality
this is meaningless because only 5 people may have been exposed to
the virus in the test period. I certainly don't believe they exposed
all 5000 people to the virus. So entirely propaganda.
It is also being shown in
statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like shingles.
[...]
Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
decrease.
[...]
FOR A
PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.
[...]
I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people in hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
[...]
Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports people collapsing are now common.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
for the unnecessary costs incurred.
Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
unvaccinated alike can spread it.
In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus is
said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll
never achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we
live with things like the flu and the common cold. All the
isolation, quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial
distancing) could ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a
vaccine in the hope that fewer people would die while we were
developing it. Well, now we have, so those who think they can
benefit from it can have it, and probably should (though I'm not a
doctor, so if in doubt ask your own doctor's advice) but as with any
medical treatment, it's ultimately their own decision.
Rod.
On 08/01/2022 23:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to
contain the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more
people.
It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
unvaccinated alike can spread it.
'can' does not mean 'are just as likely to'. AIUI, the vaccinations
reduce the probability of people becoming infectious, and therefore
of transmitting the disease. They also reduce the severity of the
infection, and therefore the average time that someone is likely to
be infectious, and therefore of their transmitting the disease.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 18:00:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14:07 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:15:12 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky >>>>>>course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, >>>>>>antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted >>>>>>from their triage score and be seen after people are not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if
you could persuade the medical professions that they should be
doing this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect
them to make these judgements? This is assuning that all the
relevant evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get
on with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about
how they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your
judgment of their priority based on whether you think it was
their fault? Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever,
were they driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give
them the poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they
became depressed, etc etc?
If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a
system for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries,
not doctors.
Rod.
When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as
not behaving with moral risk.
Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost
which must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in >>>>London) and could do so here. It's similar to a local council
asking for payment for damage to road furniture and can be done >>>>retrospectively.
Exactly. It's not triage but retrospective admin and not judged by
doctors. It is absolutely not and should never be the judgement of
the front-line lifesavers whether a life is worth saving. They
will try regardless and only give up when they know there is no
hope.
There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the
primary need at present is to make those who have refused the
vaccine pay for any Covid medical treatment.
Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid >>>>acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.
You might as well say that the the ninety (or whatever) percent
who are lucky enough to be healthy should not pay for the
remaining percent who are born with impairments, allergies or
other medical conditions, or who are injured while taking part in
dangerous sports or other activities. But where would that lead?
To a doctor, a life to be saved is just a life to be saved if it
looks feasible to save it.
One group you mention is deliberately taking a risk, the other is
not.
If two people's lives need to be saved but only one can be, then
save the life of the person who will not unnecessarily expose
themselves to the same risk again.
Is there a doctor in the house? My mother was a doctor and I know
what she or any of her medical friends would have thought of that
suggestion, but it would be interesting to hear from a few more
people directly involved with medical triage if possible. Are there
any here?
Rod.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
for the unnecessary costs incurred.
Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.
Rod.
[...]
In a perfect world, compulsion would never be needed, but in a
perfect world we wouldn't be waging a war against a pandemic. The
more a minority of selfish refuseniks endanger the lives of others,
the more compulsion of the few becomes necessary to ensure the
safety of the many.
As far as Bob himself goes, although I haven't found the more
damning quote I thought I remembered, here are some claims by him,
as usual unsupported by any meaningful *EVIDENCE*, which were
getting very close to being anti-vax, and while it's true that he
says that he has had all the vaccines so far and hasn't refused one
yet, it looks increasingly to me as though ultimately he's headed in
that direction ...
On 11/11/2021 09:32, Bob Latham wrote:
My wife and I got our 3rd or booster jab yesterday afternoon. We
had Comirnaty which I think is made by Pfizer. So far, unlike the Astra-zenica no obvious side effects.
My wife googled the vaccine and it said it was remarkably good at preventing you getting the virus. It claimed that of 5000 people
who were given the jab in the trial only 5 ever developed CV19.
Trying to make you think this meant 99.9% protection. Of course,
in reality this is meaningless because only 5 people may have been
exposed to the virus in the test period. I certainly don't believe
they exposed all 5000 people to the virus. So entirely propaganda.
On 09/12/2021 16:05, Bob Latham wrote:
It is also being shown in
statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
surprising number of people test covid positive and get things
like shingles.
[...]
Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
decrease.
[...]
FOR A
PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.
[...]
I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people
in hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
[...]
Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports
people collapsing are now common.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:43:42 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand
with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have
judged that? Luckily the doctors did what they could without
judgement, because that's what doctors do.
Rod.
It happens all the time in the NHS. Not everyone who requires
treament is given equal priority. A patient waiting to be admitted
to a ward for treatment is given a score, A&E attendees are scored
then triaged, etc.
Indeed, but if priority has to be given, it's based on purely
practical medical considerations - first on urgency and then on the likelihood of success, never, absolutely never, on any moral
judgement of the patient's behaviour or what it is thought they
might do with their life after it's been saved. Doctors and nurses
are not gods; they just save every life they can without judging
their value.
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they
are, so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the
same. If we're all equal when we're murdered, it would make no sense
for us not to be equal when somebody is trying to save us.
Rod.
It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
disturbing.
There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than
each time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers,
conspiracy theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents,
misfits, law breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated,
narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult members,
self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?
In article <XnsAE1A7DA43C3F237B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than
each time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers,
conspiracy theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents,
misfits, law breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated,
narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult members,
self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?
It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
disturbing.
This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on money but
on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any abandonment of
that principle leads to a very slippery slope.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:37:13 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
How many billions of different people do they show, accordinging to >reliable checkers who were present - e.g. the police. What fraction of
the Earth's popuation does that come to when they remove multiple
counting of people who appear in more than photo/video?
Yes, when you look at something like the 'riot' at the fooball game
that made the recent England game a disgrace you can see a 'lot' of
people. But it is trivial compared to the population of planet Earth.
Compare their numbers instead with the number of people protesting in
the streets *in favour* of Boris and his lockdowns, restrictions, covid passes and vaccinations without consent, and you get a completely
different picture.
As I tried to point out, statistics can say anything you want depending
on what you decide to count. The numbers are only meaningful if they've
been derived by asking the right questions. Otherwise they're just
numbers.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela ><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers
who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage
score and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical
advice.
It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for idiots'.
So that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance problems
could pop a few quid in that the staff could then share out later.
Sadly, those who should pay up would probably also be the group who'd >regard it as their 'right' to behave in such ways and get 'free' care
for the predictable consequences.
Jim
Under the NHS, we all have that right. Who would you take it away from,
and why? How would you decide whose need for medical help was the result
of "selfishness"?
For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged that?
Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement, because
that's what doctors do.
People who want to make their own decisions about whether or not to
consent to medical treatment are not "criminal deviants".
There might be some logic if we were considering a treatment that would
make them less likely to catch something and/or pass it on, but this is
not the case. This is not what vaccines are for; they're to protect the patient, nobody else,
Why are you referencing out of date modelling?
What is complicated about that which makes it so hard to grasp?
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,
so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
unvaccinated alike can spread it.
In article <59a8157a81bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
disturbing.
I'm fearful to ask, do you have a "final solution" to deal with
members of your hate list?
In article <7o6jtgpahpsgt293f5nftv7thf2dfn3smq@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
from ignoring medical advice.
It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for
idiots'. So that people with
self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance problems could pop a few
quid in that the staff could then share out later. Sadly, those
who should pay up would probably also be the group who'd regard it
as their 'right' to behave in such ways and get 'free' care for
the predictable consequences.
Jim
Under the NHS, we all have that right. Who would you take it away
from, and why? How would you decide whose need for medical help was
the result of "selfishness"?
Quite reasonable questions. Hence my phrase "it might be nice if"
where I accept that things aren't so simple as we may sometimes
wish.
For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand
with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged
that? Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement,
because that's what doctors do.
Yes. However it might be possible to take a view that someone who
had been repeatedly warned that smoking kills, but then persisted
and refused help with quitting, might reasonably find themselves at
the "back of the queue" when it came to hospital admissions, etc.
But your point is a good one. This really isn't the kind of decision
that medical staff should be taking when people come for help, even
when victims of their own pre-warned idiocy.
How about requiring such people to do community service in a nasty
job afterwards? :-)
Jim
The trouble with magicing up suitably trained staff to work in hospitals
is that there's a few years training involved. Remember that the
Government (I forget of which colour) cut back on medical school places
a few years ago.
Bob sounds both conflicted and resentful.... he says the vaccine is
dangerous and ineffective but still gets all three jabs.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
unvaccinated alike can spread it.
In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus is
said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll never
achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we live
with things like the flu and the common cold. All the isolation,
quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial distancing) could
ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a vaccine in the hope
that fewer people would die while we were developing it. Well, now we
have, so those who think they can benefit from it can have it, and
probably should (though I'm not a doctor, so if in doubt ask your own doctor's advice) but as with any medical treatment, it's ultimately
their own decision.
It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
didn't need jabbing.
In article<59a8157a81bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article<XnsAE1A7DA43C3F237B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than
each time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers,
conspiracy theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents,
misfits, law breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated,
narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult members,
self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?
It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
disturbing.
I'm fearful to ask, do you have a "final solution" to deal with
members of your hate list?
Bob.
Compare their numbers instead with the number of people protesting in
the streets *in favour* of Boris and his lockdowns, restrictions, covid
passes and vaccinations without consent, and you get a completely
different picture.
Maybe you haven't noticed that people tend not to organise protests in
order to say that they are happy with what is being done.
On 08/01/2022 11:05, Bob Latham wrote:
It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
didn't need jabbing.
He was on BBC radio 4 the other day.
His arguments have some merit - he knows:
* He's had COVID
* He's been tested, and has good antibody levels
* He's young and healthy
* He works in a hospital where he is exposed to COVID on a daily basis
So he's decided that he isn't at risk.
They didn't explain why he won't have it, just why he feels he doesn't
need it.
The problem though is that the anti-vaxxers will use his argument to
persuade many people who are not young and healthy to avoid having it.
"You shouldn't have the vaccine, this doctor won't".
I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that the serious cases that he's
treating are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.
Andy
On 23:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged >>>for the unnecessary costs incurred.
Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.
Rod.
There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a changing >picture because, for example, many of those who opposed every requirement
to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than each time >list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers, conspiracy theorists, >vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents, misfits, law breakers, poorly >informed, poorly educated, narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult >members, self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?
In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus isOn this part I can agree. I think COVID will keep coming back, and it
said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll never
achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we live
with things like the flu and the common cold. All the isolation,
quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial distancing) could
ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a vaccine in the hope
that fewer people would die while we were developing it. Well, now we
have, so those who think they can benefit from it can have it, and
probably should (though I'm not a doctor, so if in doubt ask your own
doctor's advice) but as with any medical treatment, it's ultimately
their own decision.
will in the end get rolled into the annual 'flu jab.
The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but >responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
then acquire a serious Covid infection) should be required to pay for
the unnecessary care they incur and should also permit other more
responsible people to get treatment before them.
In article <dqdltgtq5vg4572g20pj3l9a4jroaqpvi0@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
secret identity.
Jim
The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel
prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
all human lives are of equal value.
However, there are now proposals to make murder of a Police Officer or >Emergency Worker a more serious crime.
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,
Erm, that seems to be to be untrue. Courts hand down a variety of sentences >for 'murders'. Or at least that't my impression from seeing many cases >reported over the years.
so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.
If you say so. However I've thought the 'penalty' depended on the details
of the case. At least that's what the judges seem to think. Are you a
judge?
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:14:29 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but
responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
then acquire a serious Covid infection) should be required to pay for
the unnecessary care they incur and should also permit other more
responsible people to get treatment before them.
You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing, mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy
road while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary
care they incur and should also permit other more responsible people
to get treatment before them.
If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
On 08/01/2022 11:05, Bob Latham wrote:
It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
didn't need jabbing.
He was on BBC radio 4 the other day.
His arguments have some merit - he knows:
* He's had COVID
* He's been tested, and has good antibody levels
* He's young and healthy
* He works in a hospital where he is exposed to COVID on a daily basis
So he's decided that he isn't at risk.
They didn't explain why he won't have it, just why he feels he
doesn't need it.
The problem though is that the anti-vaxxers will use his argument
to persuade many people who are not young and healthy to avoid
having it. "You shouldn't have the vaccine, this doctor won't".
I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that the serious cases that
he's treating are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:18:10 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,
Erm, that seems to be to be untrue. Courts hand down a variety of sentences >> for 'murders'. Or at least that't my impression from seeing many cases
reported over the years.
so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.
If you say so. However I've thought the 'penalty' depended on the details
of the case. At least that's what the judges seem to think. Are you a
judge?
No, but as you suggest, the penalty depends on other details of the
case, not any presumed value of the life that has been taken. If a
life has been taken according to the legal definition of murder, then
it's murder. Whether it is or isn't murder is a binary choice with no
other numerical values possible.
Rod.
You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing, mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy road while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary care
they incur and should also permit other more responsible people to get treatment before them.
If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
It's not a doctor's job to judge the morality of anyone who ends up
needing medical attention, only to provide it.
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
innocent people by passing on their infection.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:14:29 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but >>responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
then acquire a serious Covid infection) should be required to pay for
the unnecessary care they incur and should also permit other more >>responsible people to get treatment before them.
You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing, mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy
road while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary
care they incur and should also permit other more responsible people
to get treatment before them.
If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
It's not a doctor's job to judge the morality of anyone who ends up
needing medical attention, only to provide it.
Rod.
In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
innocent people by passing on their infection.
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely.
It also doesn't prevent you passing it to others so this argument is
a good one. Stick to the NHS load argument, it has slightly more
weight.
Bob.
In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
innocent people by passing on their infection.
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:21:03 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the
vaccine and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority
when they need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should
later be charged for the unnecessary costs incurred.
Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence
now. This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad
hominem insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for
better.
Rod.
There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than each
time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers, conspiracy >>theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents, misfits, law
breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated, narcissistic, selfish, >>insecure, fearful, cult members, self-appointed researchers, etc.
Have I forgotten any?
The danger of lumping together everything you don't like into a
single word insult is that you end up accusing people of things that
simply don't apply. How am I supposed to know which kind of deviant
or misfit you think I am if I only disagree with you on one point?
Rod.
In article <59a8973345bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
innocent people by passing on their infection.
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely.
Where ever did you dig up that second idea? All the published
statistics show a significant reduction in cases after vaccination
started
Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is
likely to be far less severe, as in my case.
being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
passing it to others
Fair enough. Perhaps it's more valid to compare them with the numbers
who typically take to the streets to protest about other things. I
think this is what I originally did, in comparing them with the
handful of people who were recently blocking motorways. Compared with
these, just by looking at the video material, the numbers appear vast,
and the protests appear to have been taking place in many major cities throughout the world.
Unfortunately, as well as the "antivaxxers" who think that *nobody*
should have the vaccine, there's another selfrighteous group of
zealots preaching the gospel that *everyone* should have it, and even suggesting sanctions of some sort against those who don't.
They're both wrong of course, because any medical treatment that is considered the best option for someone is a matter for that individual
and their own doctor, and ultimately their own decision. We're all
different, and our medical needs and risks are different.
The worrying thing is that the latter option, the "gospel of everyone"
is in danger of being forced upon us by one means or another, and
those who vehemently resist this are often lumped in with the other
group by people who don't appear to understand the difference.
In article <59a8973345bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
innocent people by passing on their infection.
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely.
Where ever did you dig up that second idea? All the published
statistics show a significant reduction in cases after vaccination
started
Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is
likely to be far less severe, as in my case.
I'll state
again, yes it does appear that the vaccinated are less likely to
become seriously ill BUT they are more likely to get infected.
Talking of
narrative...
I mentioned last week there were signs of journalists and some
politicians distancing themselves, well there has been some more.
Guardian: End Mass Jabs
The Times: End Free Tests.
Daily Mail: Scotland Against Lockdown.
Telegraph: Dodgy Covid Data
Evening Standard: Covid is Endemic.
and wait for it .....
BBC: Cut Self Isolation Period.
One swallow doesn't make a summer.
In article <59a8a11103charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
Where ever did you dig up that second idea? All the published
statistics show a significant reduction in cases after vaccination
started
I got the idea from UK doctors who pointed out on graphs that higher infection rates follow vaccination waves and not only in this
country.
Apparently this is very noticeable in the 28 days following
vaccination and it is even thought to involved in our higher summer
peak than the rest of europe and our lower surge this autumn as
europe was behind us on vaccination. After the 28 days, infections
drop back to normal or so they say.
Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is
likely to be far less severe, as in my case.
I have no problem with that at all, hope it does the same for us
should we get it.
In article <59a8a11103charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <59a8973345bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
innocent people by passing on their infection.
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely.
Where ever did you dig up that second idea? All the published
statistics show a significant reduction in cases after vaccination
started
I got the idea from UK doctors who pointed out on graphs that higher infection rates follow vaccination waves and not only in this
country. Apparently this is very noticeable in the 28 days following vaccination and it is even thought to involved in our higher summer
peak than the rest of europe and our lower surge this autumn as
europe was behind us on vaccination. After the 28 days, infections
drop back to normal or so they say.
You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing, mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy
road while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary
care they incur and should also permit other more responsible people
to get treatment before them.
On 08/12/2021 13:12, Alexander wrote:
Here is an interesting publication:
h t t p s : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i
c a t i o n / 3 5 6 7 5 6 7 1 1 _ L a t e s t _ s t a t i s t i c s
_ o n _ E n g l a n d _ m o r t a l i t y _ d a t a _ s u g g e s t
_ s y s t e m a t i c _ m i s - c a t e g o r i s a t i o n _ o f _
v a c c i n e _ s t a t u s _ a n d _ u n c e r t a i n _ e f f e c
t i v e n e s s _ o f _ C o v i d - 1 9 _ v a c c i n a t i o n
The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:
Martin Neil
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD
Not an epidemiologist.
Norman Elliott Fenton
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science
PhD Mathematics (Sheffield University)
Not an epidemiologist.
Scott Mclachlan
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science
PDRA in Computer and Information Science: Research Fellow in Law
Not an epidemiologist.
Joshua Guetzkow
Hebrew University of Jerusalem | HUJI Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Institute of Criminology
Doctor of Philosophy
Not an epidemiologist.
Joel Smalley's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is a blank
page, because he's best known as a lockdown denialist on Shitter ...
h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / r e a l j o e l s m a l l e
y
... whose profile when last looked up used loaded terminology like
...
"More important things to do than argue the toss with bedwetters"
... so clearly a very biased source, and this is born out by the
fact that he appears to be the same faker who as early as April 2020
was trying to claim that Democratic-run states were having worse
outcomes than Republican-run states, but reading the article shows
so many hidden but bigoted assumptions that his so-called 'study'
was clearly worthless and irresponsible politicking about the
catastrophe that was already beginning to unfold in the US, and has
only got many times worse since then.
Dr Clare Craig's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is also a
blank page, because she's best known as a lockdown denialist who
seems to spend more time on Shitter than someone with a full-time
job should be able, and who is already famous in this ng as having
had at one time five provable errors in the first page of her
Shitter feed.
So, of the authors we can identify, we have a bunch of non-experts
in epidemiology, all known to have a right-wing bias, and therefore
should be suspicious from the outset, but how much credence should
be given them can only be determined by looking at the paper itself.
Here is its abstract:
"The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately
measured by an all-cause mortality rate comparison of vaccinated
against unvaccinated, since it not only avoids most confounders
relating to case definition but also fulfils the WHO/CDC definition
of vaccine effectiveness for mortality. We examine the latest UK
ONS vaccine mortality surveillance report which provides the
necessary information to monitor this crucial comparison over time.
At first glance the ONS data suggest that, in each of the older age
groups, all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated than the
unvaccinated. Despite this apparent evidence to support vaccine effectiveness - at least for the older age groups - on closer
inspection of this data, this conclusion is cast into doubt because
of a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data.
Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that
it is both unreliable and misleading. While socio-demographical and behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated have
been proposed as possible explanations, there is no evidence to
support any of these. By Occams razor we believe the most likely explanations are systemic miscategorisation of deaths between the
different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated; delayed or
non-reporting of vaccinations; systemic underestimation of the
proportion of unvaccinated; and/or incorrect population selection
for Covid deaths."
This starts off well enough, by which I mean free from
value-judgement, except perhaps the word 'arguably' in the first
sentence, but then they draw upon the WHO to justify that, so we'll
buy it. The real trouble begins with "Whatever the explanations for
the observed data [...]" adn goes right to the end, all of which is
the authors' own value judgements completely unsupported by any
evidence whatsoever.
and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = J x k b 2 y h d L i A
02:05 Interviewer: "You're saying that the vaccines, the
evidence is indicating a spike in all-cause mortality after
vaccination?"
Fenton: "Yeah, it occurs shortly after the initial big rollout of
the vaccination in each of the different age groups. It's crucial
to separate out the different age groups [...]"
But the graph being discussed on screen doesn't seem to be doing
that, certainly at least not accurately. Its caption reads
"Adjusted non-Covid mortality rate in unvaccinated and unvaccinated
versus % vaccinated for age group 60-69 (weeks 1-38, 2021)" which is
quite a lot to discuss in itself ...
For a start, what does "unvaccinated and unvaccinated versus %
vaccinated" actually mean? It would seem to imply that there should
be two curves on the graph, labelled accordingly, but there are
four, none of which have the second label! They are:
Adjusted unvaccinated no-covid mortality rate
Adjusted vaccinated no-covid mortality rate
1 dose
2 dose
Secondly, they seem unaware that the the age group 60-69 were not
done as one group. The UK governments delivery plan is still
displayed in this government document from Spring 2021 ...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_- _Spring_2021.pdf
... and the relevant section, p156, Table 2, & later para 41, reads
...
5 All those 65-69 years of age 2.9M
6 All those aged 16 years to 64 years
with underlying health conditions 7.3M
7 all those aged 60-64 years of age 1.8M
... so how come their figures have apparently combined these three
groups into one?
Thirdly, the spikes in the graphs of each dose don't coincide with
"shortly after the initial big rollout of the vaccination" for this
age group, as claimed in the video, as I well know because I
happened to be in it at the time. The spike in the '1 dose' curve
is about week 6-7, about half way through February, but I didn't
have my first dose until the second week in March, and I am not
alone, because from the para in the above document we have:
"The Governments ambition to offer everyone in JCVI cohorts 1 to 4
at least one dose of the vaccine by 15 February was met two days
early."
So the 70+ age range had just been been completed at the peak of the
spike, and 65-70 year olds were just beginning to be done, so the
maximum of this spike for the 60-69 age range, and therefore
probably the rest of it, can have *NOTHING* to do with their just
having been vaccinated, indeed *NOTHING* to do with their
vaccination status at all.
Similarly the spike in the '2 dose' curve is about week 18, first
week in May, which again is not "shortly after the initial big
rollout of the vaccination", this time the second dose, for this age
group. I didn't receive mine until a week later, add another week
or two for me to get complications from it and ultimately die from
them, and again the peak is much too early.
So their analysis is riddled with mistakes, as might be expected
from the fact that it was it was done by a group of people whose
political motivations are already well known to override their
scientific impartiality.
No need to watch further!
In a nutshell:
It's crap, like everything else you post.
Guardian: End Mass Jabs
The Times: End Free Tests.
Daily Mail: Scotland Against Lockdown.
Telegraph: Dodgy Covid Data
Evening Standard: Covid is Endemic.
and wait for it .....
BBC: Cut Self Isolation Period.
One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Oh and now GBNew's Mark Dolan really goes for it. the left would have
an apoplexy if they had the nerve to watch it, which they won't.
h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = n i J m S N x l e E M
The narrative is changing folks, history about to be re-written..
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the NHS
load argument, it has slightly more weight.
In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others, while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other innocent
people by passing on their infection.
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you passing it
to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the NHS load
argument, it has slightly more weight.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 21:18:35 +0000, Vir Campestris ><vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 08/01/2022 11:05, Bob Latham wrote:
It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
didn't need jabbing.
He was on BBC radio 4 the other day.
His arguments have some merit - he knows:
* He's had COVID
* He's been tested, and has good antibody levels
* He's young and healthy
* He works in a hospital where he is exposed to COVID on a daily basis
So he's decided that he isn't at risk.
They didn't explain why he won't have it, just why he feels he doesn't
need it.
The problem though is that the anti-vaxxers will use his argument to >>persuade many people who are not young and healthy to avoid having it.
"You shouldn't have the vaccine, this doctor won't".
I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that the serious cases that he's >>treating are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.
Andy
Unfortunately, as well as the "antivaxxers" who think that *nobody*
should have the vaccine, there's another selfrighteous group of
zealots preaching the gospel that *everyone* should have it, and even >suggesting sanctions of some sort against those who don't.
They're both wrong of course, because any medical treatment that is >considered the best option for someone is a matter for that individual
and their own doctor, and ultimately their own decision. We're all
different, and our medical needs and risks are different.
The worrying thing is that the latter option, the "gospel of everyone"
is in danger of being forced upon us by one means or another, and
those who vehemently resist this are often lumped in with the other
group by people who don't appear to understand the difference.
On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.
You do not have a source for that assertion.
That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
wrong.
I also note your wife's misfortune.
A few weeks back someone told be that because of the reports on the
yellow card scheme he hadn't been jabbed.
I didn't have the numbers to hand; now I do.
Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
That's the downside.
Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
140,000.
I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
(By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
conditions, usually low platelet count)
On 10/01/2022 10:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:18:10 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,
Erm, that seems to be to be untrue. Courts hand down a variety of sentences >>> for 'murders'. Or at least that't my impression from seeing many cases
reported over the years.
so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.
If you say so. However I've thought the 'penalty' depended on the details >>> of the case. At least that's what the judges seem to think. Are you a
judge?
No, but as you suggest, the penalty depends on other details of the
case, not any presumed value of the life that has been taken. If a
life has been taken according to the legal definition of murder, then
it's murder. Whether it is or isn't murder is a binary choice with no
other numerical values possible.
Rod.
How about "Not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter" possibilities,
which depend less on the death and more on the quality of the
prosecutions case?
Jim
Darwin basic law of nature has no compassion. As he wrote, those who
fail to adapt to their environment are not fit to survive.
You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing,
mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy road
while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary care
they incur and should also permit other more responsible people to get
treatment before them.
If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
In many countries - e.g. the USA - such decisions *are* taken many times
per day. if you're injured doing something dangerous and have no insurance >for it, you can get dumped back on the street. Or the *ambulance* may
refuse to take you.
And an insurance company may either refuse to insure a
given risk or demand a price far higher than you can pay. i.e. The cost of >medical treatment *will* vary upwards if you want to engage in dangerous >'sports', etc.
It's not a doctor's job to judge the morality of anyone who ends up
needing medical attention, only to provide it.
Rod.
None of those activities you mention are contagious and harm other
members of the public. Nor do accidents inthose activities inherently
require hospital care when it is most scarse.
I got the idea from UK doctors who pointed out on graphs that higher infection rates follow vaccination waves and not only in this country. Apparently ...
In article <59a8937c39bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Guardian: End Mass Jabs The Times: End Free Tests. Daily Mail:
Scotland Against Lockdown. Telegraph: Dodgy Covid Data Evening
Standard: Covid is Endemic. and wait for it ..... BBC: Cut Self
Isolation Period.
One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Oh and now GBNew's Mark Dolan really goes for it. the left would have an apoplexy if they had the nerve to watch it, which they won't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJmSNxleEM
The narrative is changing folks, history about to be re-written..
On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.
You do not have a source for that assertion.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:57:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing,
mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy
road while using a phone should be required to pay for the
unnecessary care they incur and should also permit other more
responsible people to get treatment before them.
If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
In many countries - e.g. the USA - such decisions *are* taken many
times per day. if you're injured doing something dangerous and have no >insurance for it, you can get dumped back on the street. Or the
*ambulance* may refuse to take you.
This is not the USA, thank goodness.
And an insurance company may either refuse to insure a given risk or
demand a price far higher than you can pay. i.e. The cost of medical >treatment *will* vary upwards if you want to engage in dangerous
'sports', etc.
It may be a good idea to take out nedical insurance in the UK if you
choose to take part in something dangerous,
but I don't think a hospital
or ambulance in this country would ever dump a patient in the street
because they couldn't pay.
In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
You do not have a source for that assertion.
That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
wrong.
I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
link at the time but I didn't.
Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.
It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.
Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
That's the downside.
OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health.
There is
no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
you at that age/health.
On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
much easier.
We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised
and leave
children alone.
Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
140,000.
I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
(By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
conditions, usually low platelet count)
I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.
You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
get when infected.
But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
admitted.
The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.
But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
being.
On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
You do not have a source for that assertion.
That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
wrong.
I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
link at the time but I didn't.
LIAR! It's been your modus operandi established unmistakably for over
two years to post multiple false claims without providing the slightest evidence for them.
Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.
Yet you do not hesitate to spew most of them in here. If even you can't
be arsed to follow them up, why do you think anyone here should be interested?
It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.
Already debunked, their analysis was riddled with errors: https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/RHLupjpmyM0/m/nsn9_nN6CAAJ
Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
That's the downside.
OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health.
Nonsense! Vaccines, like all medical procedures, carry a risk of side-effects, but what matters is whether the risk of side effect is
worse than the risks of not having the procedure. In this case the
stats are beyond question, even at younger age groups, the risk of
severe consequences from the disease are much higher than from the vaccine.
See, for example:
Covid: Vaccine complications dwarfed by virus risks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434
"A major review of vaccines suggests the AstraZeneca jab does raise the
risk of blood clots and another serious condition that can cause bleeding.
But the study found the risk of such problems following a coronavirus infection was still much higher.
The University of Oxford-led team also found an increased risk of stroke after the Pfizer jab - but again at a much lower rate than after infection.
The team said it once again showed the "substantial" benefit of
vaccination."
There is
no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
you at that age/health.
But still substantially more likely than the vaccine itself.
On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
much easier.
People who are younger usually have people who are older in their family
and circle of acquaintance, and therefore they need to get themselves vaccinated to protect not just themselves but also other more vulnerable people that they know.
We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised
As long as those choices do not endanger others.
and leave
children alone.
Stick to facts, stop trying to use children as emotional blackmail to
mislead others.
Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
140,000.
I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
(By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
conditions, usually low platelet count)
I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.
You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
get when infected.
But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
admitted.
Nonsense, you only have to compare the UK figures with other similar countries, like for example Germany whom you keep harping on about in
the entirely mistaken belief that their figures are worse than ours when
they are not, or South Korea, to know that the *MAJORITY* of deaths were avoidable:
Deaths per 100,000
UK: 224.7
Germany: 137.2
S Korea: 11.7
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for
themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
being.
As long as their decision does not endanger the lives of others, as does refusing vaccination.
See, for example, the figures given in BBC's debunking of the claims
made by and about the doctor who confronted the Health Secretary:
Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59929638
""The vaccines are reducing transmission only for about eight weeks with Delta," he said.
"For Omicron, it's probably less."
But that's not exactly what the evidence shows."
See the more complicated stats given there, and particularly that the
two most widely used vaccines in the UK are different in this respect,
and, as most people were given a third jab that differs from their first
two, most people who have had boosters have had both, and thereby
benefit from the most effective of the two in maintaining response, as
well as the "broadening of the response" to help fight omicron, noted by
an expert in the recent Science In Action episode on the omicron variant:
Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t
Note also that the doctor says that he is pro-vaccination, though one
wonders then why as a health professional he considers it ethically acceptable to give himself a better chance of infecting others.
In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.
You do not have a source for that assertion.
Not quite the same thing I'll grant you but this graph is doing the
rounds this morning.
Captioned "virus of the unvaccinated dead and buried."
Let you all decide what to make of it...
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/israel-ratios.jpg
Has it occurred to you that you are part of the problem? If you and others stopped engaging over this issue he’d get bored and go away. I know you’ve
tried rational argument and eduction, but by now that has proven to be fruitless.
On 11/01/2022 13:40, Tweed wrote:
Has it occurred to you that you are part of the problem? If you and others >> stopped engaging over this issue he’d get bored and go away. I know you’ve
tried rational argument and eduction, but by now that has proven to be
fruitless.
I don't willingly do this, but unfortunately, what you suggest is
exactly how people like this work - they hope to bore all opposition
into silence, and then any shit they post goes unanswered, so
accumulates to become widely prevalent and thus acquires the status of 'fact'.
At least this way, anyone coming along later has a virtual boot-scrapper
to clean off his shit.
but I don't think a hospital
or ambulance in this country would ever dump a patient in the street
because they couldn't pay.
No, although you may get dumped on a trolly - if any are available - in a >corridor. or have the ambulance fail to arrive because they are all outside >the hospital already and waiting for their patient to be taken.
It still doesn't depend on the value of the victim's life.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:06:31 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Darwin basic law of nature has no compassion. As he wrote, those who
fail to adapt to their environment are not fit to survive.
We must be careful not to interpret the phrase "not fit to survive" to
mean "not entitled to survive". It's an easy trap to fall into (or an
easy trick to be wary of?) because "fit" can mean something like
"deserving" or "entitled" in other contexts.
We must also realise that Darwin meant "adapt" in this context to
refer to a species, not any individual creature.
Rod.
On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
You do not have a source for that assertion.
That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to
prove me wrong.
I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system
is diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a
note of the link at the time but I didn't.
LIAR! It's been your modus operandi established unmistakably
for over two years to post multiple false claims without
providing the slightest evidence for them.
[detailed refutation removed]
Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
writes this:
"UKHSA released England's Covid data for the last 4 weeks of
2021. In every age group 18 and above, the infection rates for
the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated. Overall, you
are about 2 times more likely to get Covid if you are
vaccinated."
https://twitter.com/10P8TRIOT/status/1479224749129887747
However if you go to the UK government source of that data, the
compilers issue some clear and detailed caveats about how to use
this data which 10P8TRIOT mysteriously omitted. Here they are
quoted below. The capitals are mine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly- surveillance-reports (6th Jan 2022 report, page 42)
COMPARING CASE RATES AMONG VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
POPULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTIMATE VACCINE
EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST COVID-19 INFECTION.
Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number
of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 17 in this
report.
The rates are calculated per 100,000 in people who have
received either 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or in people who
have not received a COVID-19 vaccine.
These figures are updated each week as the number of
unvaccinated individuals and individuals vaccinated with 2
doses in the population changes.
THE CASE RATES IN THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED POPULATIONS
ARE UNADJUSTED CRUDE RATES THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
UNDERLYING STATISTICAL BIASES IN THE DATA AND THERE ARE LIKELY
TO BE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE 2 POPULATION GROUPS.
For example:
people who are fully vaccinated may be MORE HEALTH CONSCIOUS
and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so
more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data
provided by the NHS Test and Trace)
many of those who were at the HEAD OF THE QUEUE FOR
VACCINATION ARE THOSE AT HIGHER RISK FROM COVID-19 due to their
age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of
underlying health issues
people who are fully vaccinated and people who are
unvaccinated may BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD
TO SOCIAL INTERACTIONS and therefore may have differing levels
of exposure to COVID-19
people who have never been vaccinated are MORE LIKELY TO HAVE
CAUGHT COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the
cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural
immunity to the virus for a few months which may have
contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks
In article <XnsAE1CB99F138AE37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
writes this:
Okay, thanks for that.
At least with this accusation I'm not accused of lying.
"UKHSA released England's Covid data for the last 4 weeks of
2021. In every age group 18 and above, the infection rates
for the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated.
Overall, you are about 2 times more likely to get Covid if
you are vaccinated."
https://twitter.com/10P8TRIOT/status/1479224749129887747
However if you go to the UK government source of that data, the
compilers issue some clear and detailed caveats about how to
use this data which 10P8TRIOT mysteriously omitted. Here they
are quoted below. The capitals are mine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-
weekly-surveillance-reports (6th Jan 2022 report, page 42)
COMPARING CASE RATES AMONG VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
POPULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTIMATE VACCINE
EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST COVID-19 INFECTION.
Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a
number of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to
17 in this report.
The rates are calculated per 100,000 in people who have
received either 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or in people
who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine.
These figures are updated each week as the number of
unvaccinated individuals and individuals vaccinated with 2
doses in the population changes.
THE CASE RATES IN THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
POPULATIONS ARE UNADJUSTED CRUDE RATES THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT UNDERLYING STATISTICAL BIASES IN THE DATA AND THERE
ARE LIKELY TO BE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE 2
POPULATION GROUPS. For example:
people who are fully vaccinated may be MORE HEALTH
CONSCIOUS and therefore more likely to get tested for
COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case
(based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace)
many of those who were at the HEAD OF THE QUEUE FOR
VACCINATION ARE THOSE AT HIGHER RISK FROM COVID-19 due to
their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or
because of underlying health issues
people who are fully vaccinated and people who are
unvaccinated may BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY, PARTICULARLY WITH
REGARD TO SOCIAL INTERACTIONS and therefore may have
differing levels of exposure to COVID-19
people who have never been vaccinated are MORE LIKELY TO
HAVE CAUGHT COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the
period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them
some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which
may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few
weeks
In honesty, what I was looking at was a post full of graphs
showing how infections went up following vaccination waves, not
sure it's the same source as you found. If I find time I'll have
a look back, I do have an idea who it might have been.
Some of those caveats seem a bit desperate to me. Just because
it comes from the government doesn't mean it's true.
Anyway, Scotland backing down on covid restrictions after they
got it wrong and absurdly saying what they did had an effect -
yes BJ laughing. Don't assume I'm a BJ fan, I'm not.
Bob.
At least with this accusation I'm not accused of lying.
Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
link at the time but I didn't.
The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.
Some of those caveats seem a bit desperate to me.
Just because it
comes from the government doesn't mean it's true.
Anyway, Scotland backing down on covid restrictions after they got it
wrong and absurdly saying what they did had an effect - yes BJ
laughing. Don't assume I'm a BJ fan, I'm not.
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:16:55 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
but I don't think a hospital or ambulance in this country would ever
dump a patient in the street because they couldn't pay.
No, although you may get dumped on a trolly - if any are available - in
a corridor. or have the ambulance fail to arrive because they are all >outside the hospital already and waiting for their patient to be taken.
That's to do with availability of resources, not a decision about the patient's entitlement to treatment based on what they were presumed to
be doing that landed them in hospital.
If I find time I'll have a look back, I do have an idea who it
might have been.
[SNIP]
the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
VACCINATED.
Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands
of doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way
behind with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped
then the lunatics really have taken over.
Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
Tweets this morning...
So many lies being exposed now.
Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.
Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
these things.
[trim to context]
Then we now have Imperial College London (of all people) now
saying T-cells from common colds can protect against coronavirus
infection, study finds. So prof Sunetra Gupta and others were
correct all along then. I'm shocked - not.
Now what was it JJ said about this back then?
I thought T-cells was an item only mentioned by right wingers?
On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
VACCINATED.
You're comparing two completely different population sizes.
Ten times as many people are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.
Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands
of doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way
behind with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped
then the lunatics really have taken over.
Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
The health service would function better if these idiots weren't
using up valuable NHS resources.
In article <59a93ff89ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
If I find time I'll have a look back, I do have an idea who it
might have been.
I spent a couple of hours last night looking back at the posts from
the person I suspected published the graphs. I got as far back as
boxing day - (lots of posts) I didn't find the graphs but did see
tables which the caption said showed the correlation between being
vaccinated and then going down with covid and other viruses. Again in honesty, (I never lie though I may be mistaken), I couldn't get my
head around the tables but it was late.
This morning though we have this in the Telegraph... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/
Everyone is now pretty sure it came from the lab it's only communist apologists who still claim otherwise, well they would wouldn't they.
The we have the Pfizer boss telling us in video that two doses of its
current Covid-10 vaccine offer "very limited protection if any"
against infection from Omicron. But the good news is that they will
have an Omicron vaccine ready in March. Horse and stable door come to
mind.
Remind me again how vaccine passports reduce the spread of covid.
They don't stop you getting infected or spreading it and the majority
of people currently infected with covid ARE VACCINATED.
Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands of
doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way behind
with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped then the
lunatics really have taken over.
Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
Tweets this morning...
So many lies being exposed now.
Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.
Then we now have Imperial College London (of all people) now saying
T-cells from common colds can protect against coronavirus infection,
study finds. So prof Sunetra Gupta and others were correct all along
then. I'm shocked - not.
Now what was it JJ said about this back then?
therefore most people have only very limited if any pre-existing
anti-body and T-cell defences against it, though I believe there is
some suggestion of some immunity in some people from similarity to a
common cold virus.
I thought T-cells was an item only mentioned by right wingers?
Anyone asked where the 6000 deaths a day Sage predicted are ?
If anyone in any other line of work made this scale of error they
would be out of a job sage have done it Again and Again. Computer
models - always FOS.
The EU has made a health statement about not continuing with banging
more vaccines into people, there will be a health consequence.
Then this makes interesting reading. https://swprs.org/professor-ehud-qimron-ministry-of-health-its-time-to-admit-failure/
Finally on CNN yesterday, (it's all over twitter) CNN admitting masks
are no good against covid. - honestly I'm not making it up and it's
CNN, they're just as narrative minded and ideological as the BBC.
Do you know how bonkers that sounds? -- "Just because it comes from the government doesn't mean it's true." The notes are by the government statistician who compiled the data in the table your source quote. Of
course he knows the limitations of his own work.
Your fear of conspiracy denies even the person who assembled the data
the authority to comment on his own work.
(it's all over twitter)
Which IMV, with Scottish daily case rates higher than they've ever been,
or at least known to have been, and UK death rates beginning to rise
quite sharply again, is probably going to be turn out to be a bad
decision, but we'll have to see what happens. At least fewer people are dying now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
Tweets this morning...
So many lies being exposed now.
Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.
Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
these things.
In article <XnsAE1D899E6596437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
VACCINATED.
You're comparing two completely different population sizes.
No, it was a simple statement of fact I wasn't comparing
anything.
Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking
thousands of doctors and nurses at the time when the health
service is way behind with everything. If this stupidity
doesn't get stopped then the lunatics really have taken over.
Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
and in fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as
I'm fully vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.
The health service would function better if these idiots
weren't using up valuable NHS resources.
I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
statements like that are usually wrong.
We don't even know if the reason they went into hospital was
covid or some other problem and indeed we don't know why they're
still in there. Don't think the propaganda fear mongers wouldn't
allow you to assume the wrong thing.
In article <XnsAE1CC81AB2C7E37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know how bonkers that sounds? -- "Just because it comes
from the government doesn't mean it's true." The notes are by
the government statistician who compiled the data in the table
your source quote. Of course he knows the limitations of his
own work.
Your fear of conspiracy denies even the person who assembled
the data the authority to comment on his own work.
Bob's MO again. Everything has to be cherry-picked or
'interpreted' to end up supporting his beliefs. i.e. he starts
from his belief and then processes any evidence to fit that.
Jim
In article <XnsAE1D899E6596437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
VACCINATED.
You're comparing two completely different population sizes.
No, it was a simple statement of fact I wasn't comparing anything.
Ten times as many people are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.
Yes that is absolutely true, I fully agree, never said or suggested otherwise.
Never the less, it makes a complete mockery of the idea that vaccine passports are in any way effective or rational, they're an utter
nonsense.
Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands
of doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way
behind with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped
then the lunatics really have taken over.
Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
The health service would function better if these idiots weren't
using up valuable NHS resources.
I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
statements like that are usually wrong.
That comment is like me saying there are more people unvaccinated
in America than vaccinated in the UK and America has had 690,000
more deaths than the UK.
Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
and in fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as
I'm fully vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.
That the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated is an
official statistic.
You should also look at official statistics rather than rely on
Twitter as your only source of data.
The health service would function better if these idiots
weren't using up valuable NHS resources.
I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
statements like that are usually wrong.
We don't even know if the reason they went into hospital was
covid or some other problem and indeed we don't know why they're
still in there. Don't think the propaganda fear mongers wouldn't
allow you to assume the wrong thing.
Statistician David Spiegelhalter explained recently that many
people went into hospital with another condition than Covid but
contracted it there and, weakened from their original illness,
ended up in ICU.
Don't let Covidiot fear mongers
frighten you into overlooking effective precautions.
In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
That comment is like me saying there are more people unvaccinated
in America than vaccinated in the UK and America has had 690,000
more deaths than the UK.
What are you on about?
Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is no
secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not improved
by only meeting vaccinated people.
Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
and in fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as
I'm fully vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.
That the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated is an
official statistic.
Yes it is and it's seems reasonable that that is the case and until I
hear it questioned I'm happy with it.
You should also look at official statistics rather than rely on
Twitter as your only source of data.
I do, I have little choice, it's thrown at me. I use them as a guide
and not gospel, I know they're not trying to educate with the truth,
they're trying to manipulate opinion. hence the absurd predictions
and crazy modelling.
My wife and I are triple jabbed and we aren't dining out at the
moment whilst the infection rate is high. We do have friends and
family in the house but in reduced numbers and frequency.
When forced to wear masks by the law, I'm very confident cloth masks
are useless and even the Germans don't allow them so we wear N95
masks. If I've got to wear the damn thing I might as well wear a
better one.
We stay away from crowded places when we have a choice.
In article <59a9a05d02bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
Tweets this morning...
So many lies being exposed now.
Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.
Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
these things.
It *looks* like her source is CDC.
Here's the tweet about CDC...
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/game-over.jpg
Also Dean Kelly responds to Allison about CDC's position on masks and
common cold protection.
Then Doctor Clare Craig on Allison's post said...
"Agree with this.
Except not everyone will get it. Only a minority will."
Definitely a narrative shift at the moment.
In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
That comment is like me saying there are more people
unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and America
has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
What are you on about?
Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is
no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
yes.
My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not
improved by only meeting vaccinated people.
On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
That comment is like me saying there are more people
unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and America
has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
What are you on about?
Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is
no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
yes.
My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not
improved by only meeting vaccinated people.
If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
inference is untrue.
I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
Covidiots.
An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching Covid
and also has a higher viral load when infected.
That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated, yet
the they form lss than a tenth of the population.
In article <XnsAE1DBA75BEDF437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
That comment is like me saying there are more people
unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and America
has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
What are you on about?
Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is
no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
yes.
My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not
improved by only meeting vaccinated people.
If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
inference is untrue.
That would be true if the number of people infected both vaxed and
unvaxed were the same but I'm very sure they're not. Look at all the arguments you yourself passed to me yesterday about vaxed people
changing behaviour etc. There's also vastly more vaxed people.
I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
Covidiots.
Ok, if you wish to get a response from me
you'll need to drop the
silly insults like Covididiots. What is it with the left, you'll be
giving me 'Brexshit' next like your mate, so childish.
An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching Covid
"Not much if at all" said the head of Pfizer yesterday. They will
have a vaccine out by March that will protect against infection by
this variant. I quoted his exact words earlier today.
and also has a higher viral load when infected.
That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated, yet
the they form lss than a tenth of the population.
I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more
likely to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source than a
vaxed one. That's a reach that is.
We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and clearly
with current circumstances they're a nonsense. In addition any form
of apartheid and that's what it would be, is a marker of tyranny and
is a weapon of nasty governments.
To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid when
we're in such a none covid health crisis. Especially when we remember
that 20 months ago we were all outside clapping NHS doctors and
nurses trying to save lives without any jabs and precious little PPE.
And now we have lunatics planning to sack those people? Fair and
decent? I don't think so.
Bob has moved on silently. He receives a lot of corrections but never
says thank you.
We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and clearly
with current circumstances they're a nonsense.
To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid when
we're in such a none covid health crisis.
In the Telegraph this morning.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/13/lord-frost-covid-lockdowns-serious-mistake-government-needs/
Article by Lord Frost.
In article <59a9c7fa4bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and
clearly with current circumstances they're a nonsense.
To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid
when we're in such a none covid health crisis.
One by one .. bit by bit .... the truth slowly comes out.
In the Telegraph this morning.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/13/lord-frost- covid-lockdowns-serious-mistake-government-needs/
Article by Lord Frost.
In which he says...
I think, honestly, people are going to look back at the last
couple of years globally and see lockdown as a pretty serious
public policy mistake, he said.
I would like to see the Government ruling out lockdowns for the
future; repealing the legislation; ending them. We cant afford
In article <XnsAE1DA3565C7E737B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob has moved on silently. He receives a lot of corrections but
never says thank you.
Be cautious of assuming that means he understands and accepts
all such corrections and then *doesn't* essentialy make the same
error again in a different guise, over and over again.
Jim
I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more likely
to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source than a vaxed one.
Actually I assume the opposite. Namely that Bob has run out of points
to make to support his firmly held but erroneous view.
When he doesn't answer he has gone off to lick his wounds.
In article <XnsAE1DBA75BEDF437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
That comment is like me saying there are more people
unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and
America has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
What are you on about?
Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There
is no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
yes.
My only point on that statistic is that your chances of
avoiding coming into contact with someone infected with covid
are not improved by only meeting vaccinated people.
If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
inference is untrue.
That would be true if the number of people infected both vaxed
and unvaxed were the same but I'm very sure they're not. Look at
all the arguments you yourself passed to me yesterday about
vaxed people changing behaviour etc. There's also vastly more
vaxed people.
I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
Covidiots.
Ok, if you wish to get a response from me you'll need to drop
the silly insults like Covididiots. What is it with the left,
you'll be giving me 'Brexshit' next like your mate, so childish.
An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching
Covid
"Not much if at all" said the head of Pfizer yesterday. They
will have a vaccine out by March that will protect against
infection by this variant. I quoted his exact words earlier
today.
and also has a higher viral load when infected.
That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated,
yet the they form lss than a tenth of the population.
I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more
likely to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source
than a vaxed one. That's a reach that is.
We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and
clearly with current circumstances they're a nonsense. In
addition any form of apartheid and that's what it would be, is a
marker of tyranny and is a weapon of nasty governments.
To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid
when we're in such a none covid health crisis. Especially when
we remember that 20 months ago we were all outside clapping NHS
doctors and nurses trying to save lives without any jabs and
precious little PPE. And now we have lunatics planning to sack
those people? Fair and decent? I don't think so.
An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching
Covid
Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
writes this:
In article <XnsAE1EC19A83A3E37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching
Covid
Really?
Would you like to comment on these..
4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people),
with percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1.jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2.jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3.jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4.jpg
Bob.
In article <XnsAE1CB99F138AE37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
writes this:
Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
Pandemic of the jabbed.
4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people),
with percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg
Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
Pandemic of the jabbed.
4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people), with percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg
Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
Pandemic of the jabbed.
4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people), with percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg
4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people)
In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.
First off my typo that should have been "argument is NOT a good one",
sorry about that.
You do not have a source for that assertion.
That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
wrong.
I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
link at the time but I didn't. Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.
It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.
I also note your wife's misfortune.
As far as I know my wife has not had a misfortune. I think you may be referring to her friend who did. I didn't go into detail with them
about the precise nature of the problem but it was concerning a blood
vessel of some type which appeared very prominently across her chest
within hours of her having AZ Jab1. He GP sent her to a specialist
there and then. It was a very scary time for her and her family, they
held their breath when eventually she got the second shot. I'm not
sure if she's been boosted.
A few weeks back someone told be that because of the reports on the
yellow card scheme he hadn't been jabbed.
I don't know of a yellow card scheme.
I didn't have the numbers to hand; now I do.
Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
That's the downside.
OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There is
no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
you at that age/health.
On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
much easier.
We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and leave
children alone.
Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
140,000.
I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
(By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
conditions, usually low platelet count)
I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.
You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
get when infected.
But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
admitted.
The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.
But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
being.
On 13/01/2022 19:23, Bob Latham wrote:
Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
Pandemic of the jabbed.
Fake news reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm
vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative
(vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than
unvaccinated people), with percentage ranging from 0.0% to
-79.5% within 90 days.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg
More pointless breaches of other people's copyright. The
original report is here, fuck knows why you couldn't just link
to it instead of giving four faulty links to different pages of
it, unless you were trying to hide the fact that as usual it's
something you read on Shitter:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.
21268565v1.full.pdf
p3 ...
"Conclusions
Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against
infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in
the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta.
Our results may be confounded by behaviours that we were unable
to account for in our analyses. Further research is needed to
examine protection against severe outcomes."
... and p4 ...
"We excluded: long-term care residents; individuals who had
received only 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine or who had received
their second dose <7 days prior to being tested; individuals who
had received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca Vaxzevria,
COVISHIELD) because VE for that schedule is known to be lower;
those who had received non-Health Canada authorized vaccine(s);
and those who received the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine
(which, while approved for use in Canada, was largely
unavailable and very rarely used)."
But the majority of the UK population have had a mixture of A-Z
and P/B vaccines, and, as has already been explained to you
multiple times in this thread, other research has shown that two
different vaccines are more effective than repeated shots of the
same type of vaccine, so the Canadian findings are unlikely to
apply here:
Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t
Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and showed
greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to fully
vaccinate a person.
(1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?
(2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
vaccine?
(3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:
"We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint
If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here,
then why have you had 3 jabs?
No one forced you.
It was entirely your choice.
On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There
is no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely
to kill you at that age/health.
On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health
problems hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the
decision is much easier.
We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and
leave children alone.
In your early twenties and healthy the risk from both the virus
_and_ the vaccine is trivial.
However if you are in your early twenties, and you do get infected,
there's a significant chance you'll pass it on.
Or if you're really luck breed a new variant.
But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision
for themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone
should respect other people's decisions, it's called being a
decent human being.
Apart from the mess the NHS are making (thank you, NHS) I don't
think that people should be allowed to make choices that endanger
other people.
We don't let people drink and drive do we?
Even if the unvaccinated don't die they are taking up hospital
space in our "wonderful" NHS that could be used to treat other
conditions.
In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and
showed greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to
fully vaccinate a person.
(1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?
(2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
vaccine?
(3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:
"We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint
The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars
and have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda. So I
have to look for other sources myself.
If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here,
Except most if not all of it is true and slowly, bit by bit that
truth is coming out.
then why have you had 3 jabs?
Because I weighed up the very limited information I had
available to me at the time and made a decision just like anyone
else capable of thought and not behaving like virtue signalling
sheep.
No one forced you.
Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
It was entirely your choice.
With a lot of pressure yes true.
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people
are wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some
countries N95 masks compulsory for many months - made no
difference.
How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they
don't work!!
I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something
to the effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory
virus, all you can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.
As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines
help to prevent serious illness but protection against infection
is poor if any.
On 10:45 14 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Because I weighed up the very limited information I had
available to me at the time and made a decision just like anyone
else capable of thought and not behaving like virtue signalling
sheep.
Are you saying you were fooled into having the jabs and you now
regret having them?
Next time would you refuse them?
No one forced you.
Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
It was entirely your choice.
With a lot of pressure yes true.
Don't be silly. You had to attend your vaccination (perhaps after
applying for an appointment) and did that three times. Every step
is entirely voluntary.
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people
are wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some
countries N95 masks compulsory for many months - made no
difference.
How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they
don't work!!
I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something
to the effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory
virus, all you can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.
As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines
help to prevent serious illness but protection against infection
is poor if any.
Isn't that what government scientists have been saying ever since
Omicron emerged?
Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?
There's always a clever but mistaken scientist somewhere: Linus
Pauling won two Nobel prizes but he was wrong about the role of
vitamin C which he promoted enthusiastically but erroneously to
the end of his life.
I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc
and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.
In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and showed
greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to fully
vaccinate a person.
(1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?
(2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
vaccine?
(3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:
"We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint
The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars and
have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda. So I have to
look for other sources myself.
If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here,
Except most if not all of it is true and slowly, bit by bit that
truth is coming out.
then why have you had 3 jabs?
Because I weighed up the very limited information I had available to
me at the time and made a decision just like anyone else capable of
thought and not behaving like virtue signalling sheep.
No one forced you.
Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
It was entirely your choice.
With a lot of pressure yes true.
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people are
wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some countries N95
masks compulsory for many months - made no difference.
How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they don't
work!!
I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something to the
effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory virus, all you
can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.
As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines help
to prevent serious illness but protection against infection is poor
if any.
I think that has been shown to be true again and again across the
globe, nothing done by man stops it or makes a dent in it and we do incredible inhuman harm trying.
In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10:45 14 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Because I weighed up the very limited information I had
available to me at the time and made a decision just like anyone
else capable of thought and not behaving like virtue signalling
sheep.
Are you saying you were fooled into having the jabs and you now
regret having them?
No.
However, I think it's fair to say that at the time, I had higher
expectations of my jabs than has transpired with regard to preventing transmission.
Science in Action
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszh0x
"Why covid-19 vaccines may not stop transmission
While vaccines against covid-19 are being developed at an
unprecedented speed, none of them have been tested to see if they can actually stop transmission of the virus. They are designed to stop
those who are vaccinated from developing covid-19 disease, but not
becoming infected. This says Virologist Malik Peiris from Hong Kong University means while vaccinated people themselves may be protected
they might also spread the virus."
Next time would you refuse them?
I don't know yet, I have little if anything to go on.
No one forced you.
Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
It was entirely your choice.
With a lot of pressure yes true.
Don't be silly. You had to attend your vaccination (perhaps after
applying for an appointment) and did that three times. Every step
is entirely voluntary.
You don't think there is pressure on people to take the vaccine?
I don't know where to begin to answer that it is so far removed from
reality. The pressure to get jabbed is unrelenting and constant, what nonsense.
As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines
help to prevent serious illness but protection against infection
is poor if any.
Isn't that what government scientists have been saying ever since
Omicron emerged?
Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?
I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.
There's always a clever but mistaken scientist somewhere: Linus
Pauling won two Nobel prizes but he was wrong about the role of
vitamin C which he promoted enthusiastically but erroneously to
the end of his life.
Sage and the always spectacularly wrong Neil Ferguson?
I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc
and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.
I'm not going to dignify that blinkered narrow thinking with a reply.
All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else,
people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.
Does Bob believe the junk science he posts?
In article <srq5g7$9n0$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There
is no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely
to kill you at that age/health.
On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health
problems hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the
decision is much easier.
We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and
leave children alone.
In your early twenties and healthy the risk from both the virus
_and_ the vaccine is trivial.
I dispute that. There are suddenly a significant numbers of athletes
and sports people having heart problems and we have zero long term
data on the effects of these vaccines.
However if you are in your early twenties, and you do get infected,
there's a significant chance you'll pass it on.
Yes, but at the moment the vaccines plus points are in preventing
serious illness, it's not scoring well at all on preventing
infection. Seen the infection curves (or should I say vertical
graphs) I take it?
Or if you're really luck breed a new variant.
Even that is in dispute. There are profs saying that the more we
block the main infection's path, the more variants will become the
new dominant.
Apart from the mess the NHS are making (thank you, NHS) I don't
think that people should be allowed to make choices that endanger
other people.
I think forcing people to undergo any medical treatment without
informed consent is - well to be honest, I can't think of a word bad
enough, it's evil.
I'm really shocked that people can think that's okay.
When I here people say stuff like this it makes me wonder if this
mass psychosis idea is true.
We don't let people drink and drive do we?
Entirely different.
Even if the unvaccinated don't die they are taking up hospital
space in our "wonderful" NHS that could be used to treat other
conditions.
Terrible, terrible thinking. Can't you see where thinking like that
will take us?
The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars and
have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda.
I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc and no amount of
factual discussion will shake that.
I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc and no amount of
factual discussion will shake that.
I'm not going to dignify that blinkered narrow thinking with a reply.
All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on truth
and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else, people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.
On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.
LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at a spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did.
All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else, people
with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.
Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or Jim. Here
we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of labelling someone pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to ignore them because you
have no rational answer to their arguments.
In article <srs1jt$1fe$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.
LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at a
spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did.
FWIW I don't think Bob is a liar. Just someone who is obsessive and
deluded. And, alas, wilfully clueless about science.
Hence his conceptionof "spectrum of scientists" includes laughable
examples like NO, and the author of the absurde "two point paper" - while
at the same time *refusing to even read* a book by some 'scientists' which bases its content and references as source *hundreds* of other via their
peer reviewed work and evidence.
On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
[...]
All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly
on truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone
else, people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.
Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or
Jim. Here we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of
labelling someone pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to
ignore them because you have no rational answer to their
arguments.
In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You don't think there is pressure on people to take the vaccine?
I don't know where to begin to answer that it is so far removed
from reality. The pressure to get jabbed is unrelenting and
constant, what nonsense.
Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?
I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has
been blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about
chopping the edge of graphs because it made things look worse,
giving briefings with data they knew when the gave it was wrong
etc. etc. etc.
In article <srs1jt$1fe$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.
LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at
a spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did.
FWIW I don't think Bob is a liar. Just someone who is obsessive and
deluded. And, alas, wilfully clueless about science.
Hence his conceptionof "spectrum of scientists" includes laughable
examples like NO, and the author of the absurde "two point paper" - while
at the same time *refusing to even read* a book by some 'scientists'
which bases its content and references as source *hundreds* of other via their peer reviewed work and evidence.
All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else,
people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.
Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or Jim.
Here we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of labelling
someone pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to ignore them
because you have no rational answer to their arguments.
Again, FWIW I don't mind if someone thinks my *politicial* views are
'left'. What does seem absurd is to try and use that to discredit any *science* I may point out - particularly if the person rejecting it
*refuses to even read it*! Such behaviour is just an evasive dodge and
being wilfully ignorant. The idea that someone's scientific ability is invalidated by having someone else brand them 'left' seems daft to me.
That said, I have no idea of any political view of the many scientists in works I've referenced. It is the evidence that matters, not the colour of
the socks the author wears.
Jim
In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers,
etc and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.
Bob's SOP MO. He starts from what he is determined to believe as
an article of faith. Then cherry-picks, misrepresents,
misunderstands, dismisses, etc, anything and everything to forge
the shapes he requires. His approach is the antithesis of
science.
Then, alas, keeps posting the resulting drivel here. Despite it
being plain we regard his behavious as tedious and idiotic.
Been doing it for years. Never learns because he already "KNOWS"
the TRUTH.
JJ has the patience to detail the ongoing idiocy.
I got bored
with doing that after the utterly ludicrous 'two point paper'
and Bob's visible terror when invited to read a useful book on
Climate Change that has hundreds of good references to
substantiate and clarify the reality he denies. To suit himself
he dismissed it as a "Bible" - having, of course, not read a
word of it.
Since then he's trotted out idiocies like the NO comments as if
they were worth more than a sad laugh. Seems not to notice that
its OT and no-one is really wanting him to sell his religion
here.
Maybe he insists on raising digital tv tech on political or
religious newsgroups as well.... Oh well, EM waves are really
'magic' anyway aren't they?... 8-]
Yawn,
Jim
One of the traits of antivaxxers et al is a feeling they aren't in
sufficient control and they're suffering oppression from official
bodies. Sometimes this insecurity comes from a lack of education,
experience, intelligence or simply feeling disenfranchised in
society -- whatever it is, it's too engrained in a person's
character to change.
I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments" discussions.
There was a snippet on the local TV news this evening, among the news
item that a walk-in vaccination hub had been set up.
One of the "vox pop" interviewees who had just had his first jab
explained his previous resistance to the vaccine as being a protest that poorer countries should be given the vaccines first because they
wouldn't be able to afford to buy them and it seemed wrong that the UK
has gone overboard with everyone offered two free doses to begin with
and now free booster jabs.
His reason for now wanting to catch up with his vaccination was that if
he wanted to be able to carry out the overseas visits his job included
then some of the countries he would be due to visit wouldn't let him in without a vaccine passport to prove he was fully vaccinated.
It is an interesting viewpoint that doesn't fit any of the categories
you listed. I thought the unusual reason was worth a mention, as was
his reason for changing his mind.
In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments" discussions.
I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can post it if you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess the level of 'science' knowledge it displays.
In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments"
discussions.
I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can
post it if you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess
the level of 'science' knowledge it displays. You may need an
electron microscope for that, though. :-)
However the magic two point paper seems to still be here.
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth. 20190806.15.pdf
JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on
the basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees.
They just publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up.
i.e. they can be used as vanity publishing for crap no good
journal would accept. The publisher just operates to make money
from the process.
For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be
shown to be cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc,
would quickly twig this. Have a look first and see what you make
of it. The fun is in spotting the flaws. :-)
Jim
On 15/01/2022 10:30, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments"
discussions.
I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can
post it if you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess
the level of 'science' knowledge it displays.
It's the post that started the thread, so easy enough to find,
but I watched only about half of it before losing all hope that
there would actually be anything factual or scientific to
debunk. There's zilch science in it, it's just a clueless
bigoted rant,
As an aside, my Googling stumbled across the following spoof
paper. It's a bit obvious but funny nevertheless.
https://xavierleroy.org/stuff/tomato/tomato.html
On 15/01/2022 15:06, Pamela wrote:
As an aside, my Googling stumbled across the following spoof paper.
It's a bit obvious but funny nevertheless.
https://xavierleroy.org/stuff/tomato/tomato.html
Perhaps for Bob's and Alexander's sakes we should clarify that no
sopranos were harmed in the above experiment!
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth. 20190806.15.pdf
JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on the
basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees. They just
publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up. i.e. they can be
used as vanity publishing for crap no good journal would accept. The publisher just operates to make money from the process.
For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be shown to
be cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc, would quickly
twig this. Have a look first and see what you make of it. The fun is
in spotting the flaws. :-)
Jim
The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look at Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised for the
way they accepted papers without any review.
In article <XnsAE2099C06F2AB37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.
20190806.15.pdf
JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on the
basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees. They just
publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up. i.e. they can
be used as vanity publishing for crap no good journal would
accept. The publisher just operates to make money from the
process.
For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be shown
to be cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc, would
quickly twig this. Have a look first and see what you make of it.
The fun is in spotting the flaws. :-)
Jim
The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look at
Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised for the
way they accepted papers without any review.
TBH you don't need much real science to spot the weevil in the
biscuit.
In essence the paper's 'evidence' is that three data points fit onto
a 'straight line' relationship between a pair of variables. (Via
being 'normalised' to the same pressure.)
However there are more than three bodies in the Solar system that
have atmospheres and could be plotted/included. So it seems, erm,
'odd', to just pick *two* of them other than Earth. Why not include
them all?
So I chose to look at another example of the relevant class of
objects... and it *doesn't* fit the relationship claimed in the
paper.
Hence the paper cherry-picked data that supported its conclusion and
omitted other data that doesn't.
Since I'm not a mind-reader I don't know if the author did that
deliberately, or was simply a poor 'scientist', and stopped when he
found a nice 'cherry'. Either way, the paper then falls into the
category that academics call 'cobblers'.
Example of how real scientists will tend to check work, not simply
assume it "must be right" because they like it.
FWIW It's not the worst example I've ever seen. That was a research
report at the end of a project a UK Research Council funded to the
tune of over 100,000 quid! The final report was ustter rubbish as the
idea behind it was obviously daft. At least in that case they sprayed
a lot of data points onto their 'results' graphs before drawing
(fantasy) straight lines though the cloud of points. But the project
was run by a well known prof so got the money. (sigh) I suspect they
realised the results were weak/dribble, but were required to put in a
final report for others to check.
Jim
On 10:54 16 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
On 15/01/2022 15:06, Pamela wrote:
On 10:30 15 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
However the magic two point paper seems to still be here.
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20190806.15.pdf
JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on
the basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees.
They just publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up.
i.e. they can be used as vanity publishing for crap no good
journal would accept. The publisher just operates to make money
from the process.
Mmmm ... sciencepublishinggroup.com ... that rings a denialist bell!
[...]>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group
"Science Publishing Group
[...]
Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York City[2] but is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7]
SPG uses an Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the
authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by
scientific experts before publication.[8]
Criticism of publishing practices
The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university professor Fiona
McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics
and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms
"Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon
series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the
SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal
of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1][10]"
So, just as I thought, publishers of pseudo-science, including
denialism, and now we know why Bob didn't want to link to anything, he
knew it wouldn't stand up in court.
So to the so-called 'paper' itself, it's by Robert Ian Holmes, and apparently even other denialists find it so bonkers that not even they
can agree with it:
w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m /2018/02/06/ideal-gases/
"So I’m sorry, but the underlying premise of this paper is wrong. Yes, planetary atmospheres generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, duh, why
wouldn’t they … and no, that doesn’t mean that you can diagnose or rule
out heating processes simply because the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas
Law. They will always obey the law regardless of how they are heated, so
you can’t rule out anything."
The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look at
Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised for the
way they accepted papers without any review.
[...]
In essence the paper's 'evidence' is that three data points fit onto
a 'straight line' relationship between a pair of variables. (Via
being 'normalised' to the same pressure.)
[...]
So I chose to look at another example of the relevant class of
objects... and it *doesn't* fit the relationship claimed in the
paper.
[...]
the paper then falls into the category that academics call 'cobblers'.
FWIW It's not the worst example I've ever seen. That was a research
report at the end of a project a UK Research Council funded to the
tune of over 100,000 quid! The final report was ustter rubbish as the
idea behind it was obviously daft. At least in that case they sprayed
a lot of data points onto their 'results' graphs before drawing
(fantasy) straight lines though the cloud of points. But the project
was run by a well known prof so got the money. (sigh) I suspect they
realised the results were weak/dribble, but were required to put in a
final report for others to check.
[...]
I recall a study which they looked at a large number of scientific
papers and compared the experimental results with what was being
claimed in the abstract of the paper and they discovered quite a
disparity.
As you probably know, this became so troublesome in medicine that the Cochrane group was created to perform independant meta-analyses. Their reject rate of low quality studies with poor methodology is astounding.
For a given topic, I have seen Cochrane identify something like 50
papers dealing with the topic but Cochrane is prepared to accept only
half a dozen as having validity.
In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine trusted information which has been scientifically proven rather than determine
what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect knowledge.
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine trusted >information which has been scientifically proven rather than determine
what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect knowledge.
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
Yes, thankfully that's true.
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.
In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
remedy as unproven by*scientific* *study* even though there are
benefits being derived.
On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
Yes, thankfully that's true.
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
Again an absurd claim made without provenance.
There is no way that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by
your behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.
However, what it might do is infect sufficient numbers of the
unvaccinated, although it might also kill some of them, to
increase thereby the level of herd immunity.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
/sage models but most things are.
False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
Yes, thankfully that's true.
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
Just on the off chance I thought I'd see what Mr. Nasty is saying
this morning.
Again an absurd claim made without provenance.
There is no way that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by
your behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.
I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.
Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 S u 8 7 8 h S _ w g
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
/sage models but most things are.
False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.
On 16/01/2022 14:44, Pamela wrote:
On 10:54 16 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
However, while it's easy to dismiss sciencepublishinggroup.com, it's important to understand that such commercial organisations and modus
operandi are part of problems in the wider science publishing
environment:
Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
As you probably know, this became so troublesome in medicine that the Cochrane group was created to perform independant meta-analyses.
Their reject rate of low quality studies with poor methodology is astounding. For a given topic, I have seen Cochrane identify something
like 50 papers dealing with the topic but Cochrane is prepared to
accept only half a dozen as having validity.
In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine
trusted information which has been scientifically proven rather than determine what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect knowledge.
Yes. Every year there are more and more scientists doing more and more research, so it would seem rational to suppose that there is more chaff
as well as more grain, and that it's becoming increasingly difficult to winnow out those few bad scientists that are over-claiming at best or fraudulent at worst. This is mostly a problem with the 'soft' sciences
such as psychology, sociology, animal behaviour, etc, but sometimes
spills over into the 'hard' sciences as well:
BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
However, as the report above makes clear, problems with scientific
claims are being retracted by the originating scientists themselves
and/or unmasked by other scientists, they are not being exposed by politically motivated pseudo-scientists.
On 17/01/2022 13:02, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected
with Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are
vertical upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
Yes, thankfully that's true.
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron
(anagram: moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural
immunity and a lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
/sage models but most things are.
Just on the off chance I thought I'd see what Mr. Nasty is saying
this morning.
Says Mr. Nastier
Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way
that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your
behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.
I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.
I never said that you claimed it, I said it was an absurd claim
(whoever made it). Further, repeating here a claim from
elsewhere, without bothering to check its provenance before
repeating it, is in effect restating the claim here, so your
attempt to pass the blame for the absurdity of it onto others is
just yet another example of your chronic dishonesty. *YOU*
repeated it here despite its obvious untruth, therefore it's
*YOUR* trolling of this ng with it and countless other like
absurdities that is the problem here.
Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 S u 8 7 8 h S _ w g
Dr. Chris Martenson is an economic researcher, not an
epidemiologist, no more need be said.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
/sage models but most things are.
False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.
There is, as I have proved above.
On 17/01/2022 16:44, Bob Latham wrote:
Back to the bin with you.
Any lies and fake news you continue to post here will continue to be
reported to your news server, regardless of whether you choose to read
the rebuttals here or not.
In article <ss3tbp$oj2$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2022 13:02, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way
that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your
behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.
And yet the video says it with numbers admittedly early on before
christmas. I never claimed it was correct in fact I specifically
stated I wasn't claiming that which for some reason you removed,
can't think why but I've replaced that.
But driven by hate, you saw a chance to attack me and predictably you
jumped in with nonsense which you'll now defend with ever greater
nonsense for ever, it's a repeating pattern with you.
I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.
I never said that you claimed it, I said it was an absurd claim
(whoever made it). Further, repeating here a claim from
elsewhere, without bothering to check its provenance before
repeating it, is in effect restating the claim here, so your
More black is white arguing from a loser.
attempt to pass the blame for the absurdity of it onto others is
just yet another example of your chronic dishonesty. *YOU*
repeated it here despite its obvious untruth, therefore it's
*YOUR* trolling of this ng with it and countless other like
absurdities that is the problem here.
Twisted bullshit.
So if that's the case why did you claim you reported the post. Why
would anyone report a post that only reports what someone else said
and specifically states that I was not making that claim myself.
Don't bother to answer that, it will only be more nonsense twisting
reality and I'm not going to read it anyway.
You're wriggling, I know it, anyone who read my original post and
your response knows it though I do expect your far left mates to
suspend truth and honesty to come to your aid.
Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
vaccines, there have been others ...
Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 S u 8 7 8 h S _ w g
^^^^^^^^^
Credibility when the behaviour is that of a 5 years old.
Dr. Chris Martenson is an economic researcher, not an
epidemiologist, no more need be said.
Yes, always rubbish anyone that says something you disagree with,
it's the way of the far left mob.
It's an opinion and people are allowed to have them and they don't
need to agree with yours and if they don't it doesn't mean they're
wrong. You are not the truth, the way and the life.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
/sage models but most things are.
False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.
There is, as I have proved above.
You accused me of making a false claim. Nothing I wrote in that post
was false.
You were wrong.
I'm not going to continue to argue with someone I have zero respect
for and is prepared to argue black is white indefinitely and I
believe has a serious mental disorder.
Back to the bin with you.
In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
[...]
Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way that
omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your behaviour) can be
safer than any of the approved vaccines.
I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.
Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...N
Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Su878hS_wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Su878hS_wg
At around 22.5 minutes into the video.
This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it
in his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv.
This all illustrates
how the whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful
idiots are repeating the Tweet?
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.
[...]
BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it
in his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv.
This all illustrates how the whole antivax movement is comedy. How
many more useful idiots are repeating the Tweet?
Ta-DA. Here comes the far left to the rescue !!
BTW, I'm not anti-vax, I've had 3.
Funny I see people pushing vaccines at the moment on the grounds of preventing infection and spread are wrong because they don't prevent infections with Omicron. These are people bonded to agenda that
ignore the science unless it suites them.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaccine++.png
So not vaccinated have the lowest infection rate of the 4 groups.
**I have not said the vaccine doesn't help if you become infected.**
So if your concerned about passing the infection to others, the
unvaxed are fine So therefore the social duty argument collapses as
does vaccine passports.
When oh when, will the left ever learn that just because other people
have a different opinion doesn't make them fools or idiots.
-----------------
Found this on line and had to laugh.
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed. -----------------
It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
matters that it exists and what it claims.
I didn't even mention a tweet or video until the mr nasty popped up
and attacked me for nothing.
What I said was:
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.
What I said was perfectly correct.
Bob.
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed.
In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it
in his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv.
This all illustrates
how the whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful
idiots are repeating the Tweet?
Ta-DA. Here comes the far left to the rescue !!
BTW, I'm not anti-vax, I've had 3.
Funny I see people pushing vaccines at the moment on the grounds of preventing infection and spread are wrong because they don't prevent infections with Omicron. These are people bonded to agenda that
ignore the science unless it suites them.
h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / v a c c i n e + + . p n g
So not vaccinated have the lowest infection rate of the 4 groups.
**I have not said the vaccine doesn't help if you become infected.**
So if your concerned about passing the infection to others, the
unvaxed are fine So therefore the social duty argument collapses as
does vaccine passports.
When oh when, will the left ever learn that just because other people
have a different opinion doesn't make them fools or idiots.
It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
matters that it exists and what it claims.
What I said was:
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.
On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't
work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the
jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the
jabbed.
You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
"It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
matters that it exists and what it claims."
My, what jumbled logic you're using! Are you posting under the
influence?
On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't
work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the
jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the
jabbed.
You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad Latham. :)
In article <XnsAE22DE3F381AD37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
"It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
matters that it exists and what it claims."
My, what jumbled logic you're using! Are you posting under the
influence?
No. What I said is logically fine if you addressing the accusation
about my original post.
Sorry you can't see that.
Bob.
On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab
works and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab
doesn't work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are
putting the jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't
protect the jabbed.
You have
reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
It isn't as daft as your paragraph above suggests.
If you are really interested in the more complex scenario it is
available, but as you tend to stir rather than learn I don't
suppose you will be bothered to find it.
In article <XnsAE2359F8E19D937B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab
works and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab
doesn't work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are
putting the jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't
protect the jabbed.
You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad Latham. :)
That was humour from the net which I thought may be enjoyed or a
least raise a smile.
Wooosh.
Bob.
No. What I said is logically fine if you addressing the accusation
about my original post.
Sorry you can't see that.
Right I see. My knowledge is inadequate proven by the fact that I
don't agree with you and covid ideology.
At the moment with Omicron it looks like the hospital/death
prevention argument for the vaccine is still valid. Or more honestly,
I've not seen an argument anywhere against that.
At the moment with Omicron it looks like the defence from infection
argument is bust and in that regard you stand less chance of getting
infected if you're not jabbed.
No! I'm not arguing against the jab, I'm facing the truth.
I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and it's
clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
Then don't even mention the idiocy of sacking health workers for
being unjabbed. This is insane on any level.
Firstly, thanks to the lockdown, we have a major health crisis of
none covid patients who are dying. Secondly, many people went outside
20 months ago and clapped these same workers for their fight to save
covid lives without any jab and without much PPE. We need these
people and never more so.
And now, they're unsafe and should be sacked?
Howling mad.
Indeed, because of their exposure, many will already have had covid
which gives better protection than the vaccine anyway. We all know
that hospitals and care homes are the best places in the country to
get infected. They've been hammered with covid exposure for 20 months
how can they possibly be a danger to anyone now.
And also, why will these doctors and nurses become dangerous in
April? If they're dangerous then why weren't they suspended before
christmas?
This is an argument of logic against ideology. I have no time for
ideology but it continually drives the left.
This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it in
his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv. This all illustrates how the
whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful idiots are
repeating the Tweet?
On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
Out of interest, how do I go from viewing that web page to making a
bookmark of the programme to hear using my Android BBC Sounds app? I'm
logged in to the BBC site on my PC's browser but don't see a link where
I can bookmark (or subscribe) to Inside Science.
To do this I have to launch the Sounds app and use that to search for
the programme .
The same goes for your other link below although this time it's video. However it can't be found using the iPlayer app's search function.
Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
Am I overlooking some shortcuts or feature tucked away somewhere on the
web page? It's as if the BBC web site has a part which is not
reflected in or integrated with BBC apps.
On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed.
You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad Latham. :)
In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it in
his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv. This all illustrates how the
whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful idiots are
repeating the Tweet?
Alas, it is a 'comedy' that can lead to leathal consequences. Wilful ignorance spread as 'truth' can cause deaths.
Jim
On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
Right I see. My knowledge is inadequate proven by the fact that I
don't agree with you and covid ideology.
Your knowledge is inadequate because, as long as it has a right-wing political bias, you believe every absurdity you read on Shitter.
At the moment with Omicron it looks like the hospital/death
prevention argument for the vaccine is still valid. Or more
honestly, I've not seen an argument anywhere against that.
At the moment with Omicron it looks like the defence from infection
argument is bust and in that regard you stand less chance of getting
infected if you're not jabbed.
Again, you are failing to note a fundamental principle of simple
mathematics, that *NUMBERS* of unvaccinated people getting infected
are lower than the vaccinated people getting infected because there
are far fewer of them to infect, however the *PROPORTION* of
unvaccinated people getting infected is higher than the vaccinated
people getting infected.
No! I'm not arguing against the jab, I'm facing the truth.
No, you're grossly distorting it.
[Snip false argument based on above misunderstanding of basic maths]
I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and
it's clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED AGAIN!
More Or Less - Asymptomatic Covid-19 cases https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0py6
Findings of studies looking for truly asymptomatic carriers
*throughout* the course of their 'disease' range from 15% to 28%. The researcher interviewed on the programme found 23%:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
"Now, evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will experience no symptoms, and they will transmit the virus to
significantly fewer people than someone with symptoms. But
researchers are divided about whether asymptomatic infections are
acting as a ‘silent driver’ of the pandemic."
Additionally, many people are pre-symptomatic:
Coronavirus: Majority testing positive have no symptoms https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155
"Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
National Statistics."
Then don't even mention the idiocy of sacking health workers for
being unjabbed. This is insane on any level.
They have an ethical responsibility - a concept you clearly don't understand otherwise you wouldn't be posting this diarrhoea here -
to safeguard the lives of others, and that is best done by being
vaccinated.
Firstly, thanks to the lockdown, we have a major health crisis of
none covid patients who are dying. Secondly, many people went
outside 20 months ago and clapped these same workers for their fight
to save covid lives without any jab and without much PPE. We need
these people and never more so.
So they should get themselves jabbed.
And now, they're unsafe and should be sacked?
Howling mad.
I wouldn't wish to be treated by anyone who refused to be vaccinated,
because to me that would imply and unreliability and a selfishness in
their character, and a dangerous lack of basic medical knowledge.
Indeed, because of their exposure, many will already have had covid
which gives better protection than the vaccine anyway. We all know
that hospitals and care homes are the best places in the country to
get infected. They've been hammered with covid exposure for 20
months how can they possibly be a danger to anyone now.
And also, why will these doctors and nurses become dangerous in
April? If they're dangerous then why weren't they suspended before
christmas?
This is an argument of logic against ideology. I have no time for
ideology but it continually drives the left.
The above is an argument of ideology against logic, the vaccinations
are both safe, the dangers from covid-19 far outweigh the dangers of
any side effects from the vaccine, and effective, otherwise we
wouldn't be wasting millions of pounds giving them.
On 17/01/2022 22:12, Pamela wrote:
On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
They're both radio, Radio 4 and World Service.
[Question about the Sounds App]
Sorry, I can't help you with the BBC Sounds app, mine wants me to
sign in, but when I do so, errors. This is probably related to the
fact that I haven't allowed cookies, which is in turn related to the
fact that there doesn't appear to be a way of saving my disallow-all-that-I-can preferences. Talking about pissups and
breweries, I notified them a week or more back that the track listing
for the Viennese New Year Concert has been showing that for last
year's concert, but when I looked a few days later it was still doing
so.
I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and it's
clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that
a lot of patients who became in-patients for something else
appeared to be infected with Covid during their stay.
The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they
did a 100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed
that around 25% of those who tested positive either had no
symptoms or had mild symptoms which they assumed was something
else.
Further monitoring indicated that those testing positive
but showing no symptoms did show symptoms a few days later. In
that asymptomatic window,
patients were being infected by other patients or non-medical staff
(porters, cleaners etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.
This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.
On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that a
I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and
it's clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
lot of patients who became in-patients for something else appeared to
be infected with Covid during their stay.
The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they did
a 100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed that
around 25% of those who tested positive either had no symptoms or had
mild symptoms which they assumed was something else. Further
monitoring indicated that those testing positive but showing no
symptoms did show symptoms a few days later. In that asymptomatic
window, patients were being infected by other patients or non-medical
staff (porters, cleaners etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.
This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.
Jim
I'm sorry but testing positive for covid (no doubt with far too many
cycles in a PCR test) does not mean you're infected and it certainly
doesn't mean infected enough to pass it on.
Yes, There is a brief asymptomatic window but it's not a few days and
passing it on in that window is not easy unless you have your tongue
down someone's throat.
In article <XnsAE2359F8E19D937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab
works and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab
doesn't work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are
putting the jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't
protect the jabbed.
You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad Latham. :)
I like that. :-) It could come to be a standard phrase in this
newsgroup!
You'll have noticed that Bob's ultimate denialist response is to
brand people "leftie', or 'woke'. He uses this as a shield against
actually dealing with what they wrote.
Jim
On 14:41 18 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
Around Easter 2020 one of the hospitals near me had a problem that a
I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and
it's clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
lot of patients who became in-patients for something else appeared to
be infected with Covid during their stay.
The hospital stopped all new admissions for a few days while they did
a 100% test of all staff and all patients, and this revealed that
around 25% of those who tested positive either had no symptoms or had
mild symptoms which they assumed was something else. Further
monitoring indicated that those testing positive but showing no
symptoms did show symptoms a few days later. In that asymptomatic
window, patients were being infected by other patients or non-medical
staff (porters, cleaners etc) who were not expected to wear full PPE.
This was reported in a BBC Points West news item.
Jim
That is a larger group than was anticipated and recently led
statisticians like Spiegelhalter to believe deaths from complications
caused by a Covid supra-infection (sic) were not fully detected,
especially long ago
This means the headcount usually used for deaths from Covid while in
hospital may be an underestimate.
As one level-headed doctor put it, it's hard to think of a condition
that requires hospital admission which wouldn't be made worse by Covid.
Needless to say, disgruntled Covid-deniers completely misunderstood
this co-incidence of factors and instead chanted a mantra which asked
"Did someone die FROM Covid or WITH Covid?".
Yes, There is a brief asymptomatic window but it's not a few days and
passing it on in that window is not easy unless you have your tongue
down someone's throat.
A interesting and optimistic video that I've only just picked up.
It's about immunity and is based on the data from South Africa.
It explained some things to me that I was aware of but didn't
understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLbJ0H8zdc
Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
they had symptoms?
This is what happens when you believe computer models..
Very short video from Steve Baker MP.
https://t.co/axf3B1jyGf
[...]
This is certainly by far the best link that Bob has produced in a
while, but even so yet again we have a self-appointed expert vanity publishing his own opinions and pontificating about something that
seems to be beyond his level of expertise. I do not doubt his
nursing skills and associated knowledge, but he should stick to those subjects, where his expertise lies, and not stray into areas where he
is more likely to make mistakes of the sort he has made already
previously and now here.
On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
they had symptoms?
Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the 100%
survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid infections
were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of the hospital
already treating the patients who had come in with serious Covid symptoms.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a positive
Covid test actually showed symptoms?
In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
Yes, thankfully that's true.
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.
On 18/01/2022 20:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
they had symptoms?
Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the 100%
survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid infections
were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of the hospital
already treating the patients who had come in with serious Covid symptoms. >>
Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a positive
Covid test actually showed symptoms?
What surprises me from that (and for once I'm in agreement with Bob) is
that in the middle of a pandemic people with symptoms of the disease are going in to work without having been tested already.
Andy
What surprises me from that (and for once I'm in agreement with Bob) is
that in the middle of a pandemic people with symptoms of the disease are >going in to work without having been tested already.
On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
Yes, thankfully that's true.
Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.
I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.
The point to my comment, which you seem to have ignored, is that
your claim that "The graphs are vertical upwards" is incorrect.
On 18/01/2022 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
Hang on a moment. What about the 75% of staff and patients that
tested positive and did have symptoms? Why were the staff there if
they had symptoms?
Er ... It is a hospital in the early days of the pandemic, before
vaccines became available. That specific hospital was doing the
100% survey because patients going in for reasons other than Covid
infections were developing Covid symptoms, plus the large area of
the hospital already treating the patients who had come in with
serious Covid symptoms.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that 75% of those showing a
positive Covid test actually showed symptoms?
I was trying to understand why the BBC site often presents the same information in two different ways. Even the schedule itself appears in
two different places on the BBC site and with slightly different
appearance. This is what I mean for Radio 4.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j Black and white favicon on
browser
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm Orange Sounds
favicon on browser
I use mainly the Sounds app but find it lacks all the text information
about a programme as found on the web site. Seems perverse.
On 19:46 18 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
This is certainly by far the best link that Bob has produced in a
while, but even so yet again we have a self-appointed expert vanity
publishing his own opinions and pontificating about something that
seems to be beyond his level of expertise. I do not doubt his
nursing skills and associated knowledge, but he should stick to those
subjects, where his expertise lies, and not stray into areas where he
is more likely to make mistakes of the sort he has made already
previously and now here.
The article which nurse John Campbell discusses is a PRE-PRINT. It's
not peer reviewed or checked.
With only 13 participants, the study is very underpowered. Despite its impressively detailed methodology, the paper has too few participants
to be properly certain of its results. It does not calculate confidence limits nor statistical significance as these are likely to be
embarassing.
Most participants were under 40, with a few under 50 and only one over
60, so this is a relatively young group whose response to infection is
not typical of older people at risk.
Following your point about vaccinated participants, at 13m30s Campbell
says:
"More than half were vaccinated, which could skew the results a
little bit".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLbJ0H8zdc#t=13m30s
If you're comparing the protective effect of previous infections then
you don't want ANY subjects to have had the vaccine, never mind half of
them.
John Campbell is a shrewd YouTube who has drummed up hundreds of
thousands of highly monetisable views from those who watch his lengthy videos. I recall he devoted dozens of videos promoting the idea the
vaccine injection should be aspirated. In the end, the vaccine worked perfectly well without aspiration although Campbell still received his
cut from YouTube and all his protracted (money-making) notions about aspiration get forgotten.
John Campbell is a shrewd YouTube who has drummed up hundreds of
thousands of highly monetisable views from those who watch his lengthy videos. I recall he devoted dozens of videos promoting the idea the
vaccine injection should be aspirated. In the end, the vaccine worked perfectly well without aspiration although Campbell still received his
cut from YouTube and all his protracted (money-making) notions about aspiration get forgotten.
All valid points.
In article <XnsAE238216F8A9F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
I was trying to understand why the BBC site often presents the same
information in two different ways. Even the schedule itself appears
in two different places on the BBC site and with slightly different
appearance. This is what I mean for Radio 4.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j Black and white favicon
on browser
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm Orange
Sounds favicon on browser
I use mainly the Sounds app but find it lacks all the text
information about a programme as found on the web site. Seems
perverse.
I'm not sure. I've suspected that the reason is that the initial
'schedules' pages constructors work nicely for those who come in to
the site via the main 'radio' schedules pages. But when 'Sounds' was
added for 'podcasts' they built a different constructor.
I'll see if I can find out if no-one here already knows. But it may
have made sense to avoid risking 'breaking' the old radio arrangement
to cover 'sounds' as well. And instead generate a new constructor.
Might also be that two different (groups of) people enter data for
linear or podcast.
FWIW I tend to starts off from the radio / TV broadcast shedules and
divert into the poodcasts as and when. These days many of the R4
items are 'extended' podcast versions anyway if downloaded via either
way using the pid. Or at least, that's what gip finds if I ask for
the radio version.i.e. I often get a result that is longer than the
broadcast slot.
Jim
Oh I see, you weren't discussing the infection rate, you were
criticizing my description of the graphs.
That's disappointing.
On 19/01/2022 11:13, Bob Latham wrote:
Oh I see, you weren't discussing the infection rate, you were
criticizing my description of the graphs.
That's disappointing.
When you describe a rapidly dropping infection rate as "almost
vertically upwards" you are factually incorrect.
I hesitate to ascribe reasons for this in a public place.
Andy
When I wrote that the net was full of graphs from across the world
especially Europe showing vertical or near vertical infection rates.
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
On 21/01/2022 10:29, Bob Latham wrote:
When I wrote that the net was full of graphs from across the world
especially Europe showing vertical or near vertical infection rates.
LIE! You wrote that first ...
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
.... but in fact the peak of our case rates had already passed on
1/1/2022, and by the time you wrote that on the
was already falling
rapidly:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
On 15:41 21 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
On 21/01/2022 10:29, Bob Latham wrote:
When I wrote that the net was full of graphs from across the world
especially Europe showing vertical or near vertical infection
rates.
LIE! You wrote that first ...
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
... but in fact the peak of our case rates had already passed on
1/1/2022, and by the time you wrote that on the 10th was already
falling rapidly:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
As an aside, I wanted to take a look at what someone called
"GraphCrimes" was writing on Twitter about misleading graphs. It
seems in the last few days his account got blocked.
https://mobile.twitter.com/graphcrimes
On 21/01/2022 10:29, Bob Latham wrote:
When I wrote that the net was full of graphs from across the world
especially Europe showing vertical or near vertical infection rates.
LIE! You wrote that first ...
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
... but in fact the peak of our case rates had already passed on
1/1/2022, and by the time you wrote that on the 10th was already
falling rapidly:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
On 17:47 21 Jan 2022, Pamela said:
On 15:41 21 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
On 21/01/2022 10:29, Bob Latham wrote:
When I wrote that the net was full of graphs from across the world
especially Europe showing vertical or near vertical infection
rates.
LIE! You wrote that first ...
On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.
... but in fact the peak of our case rates had already passed on
1/1/2022, and by the time you wrote that on the 10th was already
falling rapidly:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
As an aside, I wanted to take a look at what someone called
"GraphCrimes" was writing on Twitter about misleading graphs. It
seems in the last few days his account got blocked.
https://mobile.twitter.com/graphcrimes
It's okay now. May have been my browser.
I'm not sure. I've suspected that the reason is that the initial 'schedules' pages constructors work nicely for those who come in to
the site via the main 'radio' schedules pages. But when 'Sounds' was
added for 'podcasts' they built a different constructor.
I could understand it if there were several entry points (in the Sounds
app or on the web site) which all routed to the same page. However, the
BBC site has more than one *destination* page.
I expect that of the bonkers left which is why I don't read most of
their posts any longer. They enjoy attacking anyone who doesn't follow
their narrow agendas and ideologies with any nonsense they can find. But
I thought you were better than that.
On 01:54 18 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
On 17/01/2022 22:12, Pamela wrote:
On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
[...]
BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4
They're both radio, Radio 4 and World Service.
Quite true. My mistake about the format.
[Question about the Sounds App]
Sorry, I can't help you with the BBC Sounds app, mine wants me to
sign in, but when I do so, errors. This is probably related to the
fact that I haven't allowed cookies, which is in turn related to the
fact that there doesn't appear to be a way of saving my
disallow-all-that-I-can preferences. Talking about pissups and
breweries, I notified them a week or more back that the track listing
for the Viennese New Year Concert has been showing that for last
year's concert, but when I looked a few days later it was still doing
so.
I was trying to understand why the BBC site often presents the same >information in two different ways. Even the schedule itself appears in
two different places on the BBC site and with slightly different
appearance. This is what I mean for Radio 4.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j
Black and white favicon on browser
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/schedules/bbc_radio_fourfm
Orange Sounds favicon on browser
I use mainly the Sounds app but find it lacks all the text information
about a programme as found on the web site. Seems perverse.
If you can find the BBC blog of the people who produce BBC software, it is really obvious why nothing works properly.
Microsoft had a similar problem. They had two teams working on the
operating system and one was a lot better than the other, and they
took turn and turn about on the releases.
So we got:
Win 98 Stable, Updated to Win 98SE, also good
Win ME Not as good
Win XP A good one, merging home (ME) and business (NT) streams
Win Vista A bit of a dog
Win 7 Another good one
Win 8 Not popular; 8.1 was very quick to follow replacing the GUI
Win 10 Much better than Win 8
Jim
On 22/01/2022 11:42, Martin wrote:
If you can find the BBC blog of the people who produce BBC software,
it is
really obvious why nothing works properly.
Microsoft had a similar problem. They had two teams working on the operating system and one was a lot better than the other, and they took
turn and turn about on the releases.
So we got:
Win 98 Stable, Updated to Win 98SE, also good
Win ME Not as good
Win XP A good one, merging home (ME) and business (NT) streams
Win Vista A bit of a dog
Win 7 Another good one
Win 8 Not popular; 8.1 was very quick to follow replacing the GUI
Win 10 Much better than Win 8
https://mobile.twitter.com/graphcrimes
It's okay now. May have been my browser.
I think it is the service running slow.
On 22/01/2022 12:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 22/01/2022 11:42, Martin wrote:
If you can find the BBC blog of the people who produce BBC software,
it is
really obvious why nothing works properly.
Microsoft had a similar problem. They had two teams working on the
operating system and one was a lot better than the other, and they took
turn and turn about on the releases.
So we got:
Win 98 Stable, Updated to Win 98SE, also good
Win ME Not as good
You've expounded this theory before, I think, but the problem is that
you've left out 2k, which goes here. For my money, it's the best
version of them all, far superior to anything before or since, and
certainly far superior to XP.
Win XP A good one, merging home (ME) and business (NT) streams
Win Vista A bit of a dog
Win 7 Another good one
Win 8 Not popular; 8.1 was very quick to follow replacing the GUI
Win 10 Much better than Win 8
On 22/01/2022 11:42, Martin wrote:
If you can find the BBC blog of the people who produce BBC software, it is >> really obvious why nothing works properly.
Microsoft had a similar problem. They had two teams working on the
operating system and one was a lot better than the other, and they took
turn and turn about on the releases.
So we got:
Win 98 Stable, Updated to Win 98SE, also good
Win ME Not as good
Win XP A good one, merging home (ME) and business (NT) streams
Win Vista A bit of a dog
Win 7 Another good one
Win 8 Not popular; 8.1 was very quick to follow replacing the GUI
Win 10 Much better than Win 8
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:38:00 +0000, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 22/01/2022 11:42, Martin wrote:
If you can find the BBC blog of the people who produce BBC software, it is >>> really obvious why nothing works properly.
Microsoft had a similar problem. They had two teams working on the
operating system and one was a lot better than the other, and they took
turn and turn about on the releases.
So we got:
Win 98 Stable, Updated to Win 98SE, also good
Win ME Not as good
Win XP A good one, merging home (ME) and business (NT) streams
Win Vista A bit of a dog
Win 7 Another good one
Win 8 Not popular; 8.1 was very quick to follow replacing the GUI
Win 10 Much better than Win 8
At some point the former DEC team joined Microsoft. Win7 ???
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:37:02 |
| Calls: | 6,646 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,327,175 |
