On 09/11/2021 20:21, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/11/2021 18:53, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> Mathematician James Ward.
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1457446058129334275?s=20
>>
>> I note that by choosing a short time span of the last two months he
>> misses out most conveniently the highest and lowest points of the
>> pandemic and also emphasises, by the consequent stretch of the vertical
>> scale, the recent fall, thereby giving a rather misleading impression of
>> the state of things. I don't wish to exaggerate and press alarm bells
>> but actually things are worse than he makes out. Despite the falls of
>> the last two weeks, we still have the highest daily case rates in the
>> entire world, and they have not yet reached as low even as their
>> *AVERAGE* of the last four months or so, daily hospital admissions are
>> still bumping around just under 1,000 a day, and daily deaths are still
>> bumping around just under 200 a day. And the longer this continues, the
>> higher the probability of a new mutation making things worse.
>
> We don’t have the highest daily case rate in the world.
>
> UK is about 380 per 100,000
>
> There are many countries in Europe alone that are currently worse, and
> largely on an upward trend at the moment.

Ah! Ambiguity of word rate, so clearly I didn't phrase that well - I
meant rate of total cases per day, not rate per 100,000 per day.

> https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/country-overviews
>
> Prof Sarah Gilbert, main person behind the Oxford vaccine is not
> particularly worried about mutations. (Various newspaper articles can be
> found)

Variants do seem to have been a major concern over much of the pandemic,
but let's hope she's right.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/11/2021 20:30, charles wrote:
>
> I have discovered, first hand, that the statistics might be a bit over the
> top. I, as an infected person, have a reference number. As a close contact
> of my wife, who also has Covid, I have a different reference number and am
> even told to go for a test - despite the fact that on my other reference
> number, I'va lready been for a test and come out positive. Despite the
> common NHS number, DoB and address, I'm two statistics where I should only
> be one.

LOL! Nothing, absolutely nothing, would surprise me about our so-called
'world beating' test and trace system!

But you're right, it does raise some concern over the accuracy of the
statistics, and that's frustrating, because what you don't know, you
can't manage properly.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 20:30, charles wrote:
>>
>> I have discovered, first hand, that the statistics might be a bit over the
>> top. I, as an infected person, have a reference number. As a close contact
>> of my wife, who also has Covid, I have a different reference number and am
>> even told to go for a test - despite the fact that on my other reference
>> number, I'va lready been for a test and come out positive. Despite the
>> common NHS number, DoB and address, I'm two statistics where I should only
>> be one.
>
> LOL! Nothing, absolutely nothing, would surprise me about our so-called
> 'world beating' test and trace system!
>
> But you're right, it does raise some concern over the accuracy of the
> statistics, and that's frustrating, because what you don't know, you
> can't manage properly.
>

Equally there’s a lot of unreported cases. Some don’t know they have it,
some may suspect but avoid getting tested. The ONS random testing scheme
seems to me a better idea to know what’s going on.

In article <smeddg$r14$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 17:51, Bob Latham wrote:
>

> > I agree about the future, it may well shoot back up again, nobody
> > knows but that wasn't the point.

> Actually, that was always the *MOST IMPORTANT* point, and why GBNews's
> self-propagandising by dissing others was a thoroughly unprofessional
> waste of time, telling us absolutely nothing about the state of the
> pandemic, but giving us every reason to distrust GBNews as a reliable
> news source.

I wish everyone would listen to the recent 'Life Scientific' where they
interview the remarkable person who got together the mass genetic
sequencing of the virus. This is very important because the covid virus is
still optimising towards being able to live off its new host - us! As a
result, variants can be expected to occur that do a 'better job' (from the
virus's POV) of infecting people. We're probably a long way from being able
to regard it as being like flu.

Hence the fluctuations in case rates aren't, and won't be, all down to
human behaviour variations. And vaccination, although vital at present,
isn't a perfect 'get out of jail free' subsitute for measures aimed at
reducing transmission using spacing, masks, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <smel7c$rgu$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/country-overviews

> Prof Sarah Gilbert, main person behind the Oxford vaccine is not
> particularly worried about mutations. (Various newspaper articles can be
> found)

Specific reference? I'm not sure that others might fully agree with that.
cf.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011498

The 'variant' situation has been modest recently, but that's not a
guarantee for the future. I recommend people to listen to the above
programme.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <smehcm$sl4$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Despite the falls of the last two weeks, we still have the highest
> daily case rates in the entire world, and they have not yet reached as
> low even as their *AVERAGE* of the last four months or so, daily
> hospital admissions are still bumping around just under 1,000 a day,
> and daily deaths are still bumping around just under 200 a day. And
> the longer this continues, the higher the probability of a new mutation
> making things worse.

And the number of people who will suffer due to delayed diagnosis or
treatment of other medical problems will rise. Probably also more skilled
people will quit the NHS due to burn-out.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smel7c$rgu$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/country-overviews
>
>> Prof Sarah Gilbert, main person behind the Oxford vaccine is not
>> particularly worried about mutations. (Various newspaper articles can be
>> found)
>
> Specific reference? I'm not sure that others might fully agree with that.
> cf.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011498
>
> The 'variant' situation has been modest recently, but that's not a
> guarantee for the future. I recommend people to listen to the above
> programme.
>
> Jim
>

Sarah Gilbert gave a talk to the Royal Society of Medicine on the subject.
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a recording or transcript, and all
we have are the second hand accounts from the journalists present. I don’t
know nearly enough about the subject to know if Sarah Gilbert or Sharon
Peacock is correct.

What we do appear to know is that covid isn’t currently mutating into
anything really bad, and by now it has had many billions of chances. We
also know that flu does mutate fairly quickly, but again it never seems to
turn into something really terrible.

I know I can’t live my life on the basis that something bad might happen,
because ultimately it will and will be the cause of my death. I can attempt
to mitigate known risks, but worrying about unknown risks is a route to
deep unhappiness. Ultimately you have to try to get on with what you
currently have and know about.

On 18:53 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <smedhu$sdn$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've no idea where your graph comes from. It's immediately
>> suspicious as its data encompasses the period that the official
>> data marks as unconfirmed. I don't believe the official data is
>> dishonest, so I'm basing my decisions on that source alone.
>
>
> Mathematician James Ward.
>
> https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1457446058129334275?s=20
>
> Bob.

Thinking of graphs, do you think the line shown in the following graph
is drawn in the correct place? It could almost be drawn sloping
downwards rather than upwards.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/bin/10654_2021_808
_Fig1_HTML.jpg

OR https://tinyurl.com/graph-line-fit

--
For context, it is used to illustrate "Increases in COVID-19 are
unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947
counties in the United States".

In article <smeq98$1j0$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 09/11/2021 20:30, charles wrote:
> >>
> >> I have discovered, first hand, that the statistics might be a bit over
> >> the top. I, as an infected person, have a reference number. As a close
> >> contact of my wife, who also has Covid, I have a different reference
> >> number and am even told to go for a test - despite the fact that on my
> >> other reference number, I'va lready been for a test and come out
> >> positive. Despite the common NHS number, DoB and address, I'm two
> >> statistics where I should only be one.
> >
> > LOL! Nothing, absolutely nothing, would surprise me about our
> > so-called 'world beating' test and trace system!
> >
> > But you're right, it does raise some concern over the accuracy of the
> > statistics, and that's frustrating, because what you don't know, you
> > can't manage properly.
> >

> Equally there‘s a lot of unreported cases. Some don‘t know they have it,

I didn't, since I had none of the known symptoms. Howerv SWMBO insisted
I get tested .

> some may suspect but avoid getting tested. The ONS random testing scheme
> seems to me a better idea to know what‘s going on.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <XnsADDE727DF19B537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thinking of graphs, do you think the line shown in the following graph
> is drawn in the correct place? It could almost be drawn sloping
> downwards rather than upwards.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/bin/10654_2021_808
> _Fig1_HTML.jpg

Wow! A graph with technicolor measles! 8-]

I've seen worse, though. I recall an eminent academic who'd got a north of
100k UKP grant to develop something that was clearly impossible. His
'results' were a bit like the above. Saw them as luck would have it,
because I was sent his final report to judge and comment upon.

His project implicity required faster-than-light propagation of EM waves,
and when I looked, found it was based on some fundamental flaws in the ways
he'd 'analysed' the system. Shame I'd not been asked to referee the
proposal *before* he burnt the money!

That said, without an explanation for the colour charting of the measles,
maybe it shows something to someone meaningful who knows the magic code.
Lacking that, I can't say. Might mean a lot to someone. And unlike Bob's
old cherry, it does have more than a couple of points. Maybe they should
have fitted an Nth-order spline to the data, or a set of Beziers to loop
though them all. 8-]

Maybe working with/for ye olde NPL has biassed me in favour of *accurate*
measurements that give clear and sensible results!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14:08 10 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <XnsADDE727DF19B537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thinking of graphs, do you think the line shown in the following
>> graph is drawn in the correct place? It could almost be drawn
>> sloping downwards rather than upwards.
>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/bin/
>> 10654_2021_808_Fig1_HTML.jpg
>
> Wow! A graph with technicolor measles! 8-]
>
> I've seen worse, though. I recall an eminent academic who'd got a
> north of 100k UKP grant to develop something that was clearly
> impossible. His 'results' were a bit like the above. Saw them as
> luck would have it, because I was sent his final report to judge and
> comment upon.
>
> His project implicity required faster-than-light propagation of EM
> waves, and when I looked, found it was based on some fundamental
> flaws in the ways he'd 'analysed' the system. Shame I'd not been
> asked to referee the proposal *before* he burnt the money!
>
> That said, without an explanation for the colour charting of the
> measles, maybe it shows something to someone meaningful who knows
> the magic code. Lacking that, I can't say. Might mean a lot to
> someone. And unlike Bob's old cherry, it does have more than a
> couple of points. Maybe they should have fitted an Nth-order spline
> to the data, or a set of Beziers to loop though them all. 8-]
>
> Maybe working with/for ye olde NPL has biassed me in favour of
> *accurate* measurements that give clear and sensible results!
>
> Jim

The measles graph comes from this Covid paper which every card-
carrying anivaxxer is now quoting.

"Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across
68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

In article <XnsADDEAE7E712F237B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14:08 10 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> > In article <XnsADDE727DF19B537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Thinking of graphs, do you think the line shown in the following
> >> graph is drawn in the correct place? It could almost be drawn
> >> sloping downwards rather than upwards.
> >
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/bin/
> >> 10654_2021_808_Fig1_HTML.jpg
> >
> > Wow! A graph with technicolor measles! 8-]
> >
> > I've seen worse, though. I recall an eminent academic who'd got a
> > north of 100k UKP grant to develop something that was clearly
> > impossible. His 'results' were a bit like the above. Saw them as
> > luck would have it, because I was sent his final report to judge and
> > comment upon.
> >
> > His project implicity required faster-than-light propagation of EM
> > waves, and when I looked, found it was based on some fundamental
> > flaws in the ways he'd 'analysed' the system. Shame I'd not been
> > asked to referee the proposal *before* he burnt the money!
> >
> > That said, without an explanation for the colour charting of the
> > measles, maybe it shows something to someone meaningful who knows
> > the magic code. Lacking that, I can't say. Might mean a lot to
> > someone. And unlike Bob's old cherry, it does have more than a
> > couple of points. Maybe they should have fitted an Nth-order spline
> > to the data, or a set of Beziers to loop though them all. 8-]
> >
> > Maybe working with/for ye olde NPL has biassed me in favour of
> > *accurate* measurements that give clear and sensible results!
> >
> > Jim

> The measles graph comes from this Covid paper which every card-
> carrying anivaxxer is now quoting.

> "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across
> 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States".

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

As someone who has now had 3 jabs and caught Covid, I'm very grateful for
the jabs, I'm still alive and not suffering particularly badly.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <59894bf90echarles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> As someone who has now had 3 jabs and caught Covid, I'm very
> grateful for the jabs, I'm still alive and not suffering
> particularly badly.

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.

I've also realised one other possible reason why the left and media
(same thing) don't wish for this to be linked to the Wuhan lab. The
narrative and propaganda already coming out of the UN and WHO is that
they cannot give us good health unless we control - you guessed it -
climate change. So it looks like they wish to swing the opinion to
CV19 being the result of climate change which would be very much
harder if it came from the lab.

I'd laugh but these lunatics are dangerous and are determined to
destroy our lifes.

Bob.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <smel7c$rgu$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/country-overviews
>>
>>> Prof Sarah Gilbert, main person behind the Oxford vaccine is not
>>> particularly worried about mutations. (Various newspaper articles can be
>>> found)
>>
>> Specific reference? I'm not sure that others might fully agree with that.
>> cf.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011498
>>
>> The 'variant' situation has been modest recently, but that's not a
>> guarantee for the future. I recommend people to listen to the above
>> programme.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>Sarah Gilbert gave a talk to the Royal Society of Medicine on the subject.
>Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a recording or transcript, and all
>we have are the second hand accounts from the journalists present. I don’t
>know nearly enough about the subject to know if Sarah Gilbert or Sharon
>Peacock is correct.
>
>What we do appear to know is that covid isn’t currently mutating into
>anything really bad, and by now it has had many billions of chances. We
>also know that flu does mutate fairly quickly, but again it never seems to
>turn into something really terrible.
>
>I know I can’t live my life on the basis that something bad might happen,
>because ultimately it will and will be the cause of my death. I can attempt
>to mitigate known risks, but worrying about unknown risks is a route to
>deep unhappiness. Ultimately you have to try to get on with what you
>currently have and know about.

Quite so. For about a year and a half I hardly went out at all, and
only got to see family members at a distance or through windows, and
have only gradually managed to return to normal life. My youngest
grandchild was only four when the madness started, and now she's
nearly six, having been denied hugs from me for about a quarter of her
little life. I feel that I've had a couple of important years stolen
from me at an age when I don't know how many years I have left, and I
have no intention of giving up even more. I've accepted all the
vaccinations my surgery has offered (covid, flu, shingles) and I'm
still here. I'll die of something some day as I've always known and
accepted, as everybody does, but I don't intend to spend the end of my
life cowering in fear. Life is for living. Life without human contact
of some sort isn't really living at all. The insanity must end.

Rod.

In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the trial
> only 5 ever developed CV19.

I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then the only
concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting
the virus.

Bob.

In article <5989a6251ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the trial
> > only 5 ever developed CV19.

> I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then the only
> concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting
> the virus.

I'd agree with that, but it probably saved me getting very ill and ending
up in hospital from where I might not have walked out.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <XnsADDEAE7E712F237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> The measles graph comes from this Covid paper which every card- carrying
> anivaxxer is now quoting.

> "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68
> countries and 2947 counties in the United States".

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

Given that many factors can affect the rate of infection you could use such
a plot to show that almost NONE of them are 'related'.

This is why science tends to have to deal with being able to control or
assess in a way the seperates out factors.

And it seems to have already been determined that being vaccinated isn't
going to give 100% prevention from simply being infected. It does reduce
the chance, and the seriousness of the resulting symptoms and outcomes,
but isn't a total block. Add to that variations in the 'variant' and
individuals. Indeed it may be that some populations are affected in
different ways to others to different variants, etc.

Not read the reference. Does it deal with all that and get anything
with statistical significance? If so, a better graphic might have been
wise.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <59894bf90echarles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > As someone who has now had 3 jabs and caught Covid, I'm very grateful
> > for the jabs, I'm still alive and not suffering particularly badly.

> 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.

We got our booster a week ago. Different type to our initial vaxes. This
time I got a sore arm and had mild flu-like symptoms. However the arm that
was sore was the one that took the flu jag. So I suspect I 'got flu' rather
than it being the covid jag.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <rpnpog9f8aur4ikrvf69qk83vompt7e494@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >
> >What we do appear to know is that covid isn<t currently mutating into
> >anything really bad, and by now it has had many billions of chances.

Depends a bit on your cut-off for "really bad". And from the POV of the
virus the selection is for infection and replication capability, not for
host mortality. However the variations are in essence randomised natural
selection, not planned by the virus.

And not all variants for all populations are equally 'good' or 'bad' in
terms of impact.

> > We also know that flu does mutate fairly quickly, but again it never
> >seems to turn into something really terrible.

Omission of tense there. You mean "doesn't seem *as yet* to have turned
into..." And virologists, etc, keep pointing out that covid is NOT flu.

Humans and flu have been dancing for many decades. Occasionally, a new flu
turns out to be particularly nasty, but since infectability and propagation
is the main outcome of natural selection, the process favours variations
that *don't* promptly kill the host. Once dead they can't walk about
infecting others.

We've only danced with covid for a few years as yet. It now has a chance to
randomly try variations whilst out 'learned' range of ID-and-resist for it
is much more limited than for flu. It *and us* have a lot to learn about
each other and how to cope.

Hence the flu analogy is a poor one. People really should listen to the
programme I suggested. The higher the infection rates we have, the faster
we may have to run to prepare for 'very bad' new variant's as natural
selection drives covid to find ways around our current vaccination
protection.

> >The insanity must end.

True. That's why people need to understand the science, not the wishful
thinking.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 11/11/2021 10:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The higher the infection rates we have, the faster
> we may have to run to prepare for 'very bad' new variant's as natural
> selection drives covid to find ways around our current vaccination
> protection.

This is true to some extent, but the successful viruses are the ones
that don't make the hunt for vaccines necessary. The common cold falls
into this category. So too does Chicken Pox to some extent. Once a
virus doesn't kill or immobilise, the cost of preventing it ceased to be
worthwhile.

Jim

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:27:19 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>We got our booster a week ago. Different type to our initial vaxes. This
>time I got a sore arm and had mild flu-like symptoms. However the arm that
>was sore was the one that took the flu jag. So I suspect I 'got flu' rather
>than it being the covid jag.

Similarly with me. Only a small reaction to the flu vaccine but not
the covid one. Though some people seem to feel quite ill after the
covid jab, I've had no effects at all, much as I expected because I
normally have no effects from the flu jab either. But this time
although I felt nothing at all, a slight pink patch on the arm that
had had the flu jab appeared two days later, and then vanished the day
after that. I haven't had any other adverse effects or any symptoms of
either disease. Once I had symptoms a bit like a common cold and tried
a covid test, but it was negative, so most likely it was just a common
cold. I'm almost disappointed. Almost.

Rod.

On 10:16 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the trial
>> only 5 ever developed CV19.
>
> I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then the
> only concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't prevent you
> getting the virus.
>
> Bob.
>

Are you disputing the lab results stated by Pfizer that only 5 out of
5000 developed Covid in their trial?

Pfizer hasn't claimed the Pfizer jab gives "99.9% protection". No
nummerical claim about protection is mentioned in their press release:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-a
nd-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results

Surely the problem arises from your own inference and not with the
facts.

In view of your hostile outlook, why didn't you refuse the jab?

On 11/11/2021 10:19, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Not read the reference. Does it deal with all that and get anything
> with statistical significance? If so, a better graphic might have been
> wise.

I have just read the reference and it is an honest attempt at making
sense of the figures, but it overlooks one flaw in the way the figures
are presented.

For comparison purposes the figures are quoted as X in 100,000. It works
for comparing rates within individual countries, because the population
stays roughly the same, so today's figures can be compared with last
week or last month. When comparing countries, the difference in
population does make a difference. An extra case in a population of
1,000,000 gives an increase of 0.1 per 100,000. In a population of
10,000, one extra case gives an increase of 10 per 100,000.

It is interesting to note that most of the countries with the highest
rates per 100,000 people are those with the smaller populations. The
metric wasn't designed for the use to which it has been put in this study.

Jim

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:40:19 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <smeddg$r14$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>> On 09/11/2021 17:51, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>
>> > I agree about the future, it may well shoot back up again, nobody
>> > knows but that wasn't the point.
>
>> Actually, that was always the *MOST IMPORTANT* point, and why GBNews's
>> self-propagandising by dissing others was a thoroughly unprofessional
>> waste of time, telling us absolutely nothing about the state of the
>> pandemic, but giving us every reason to distrust GBNews as a reliable
>> news source.
>
>I wish everyone would listen to the recent 'Life Scientific' where they
>interview the remarkable person who got together the mass genetic
>sequencing of the virus. This is very important because the covid virus is
>still optimising towards being able to live off its new host - us! As a
>result, variants can be expected to occur that do a 'better job' (from the
>virus's POV) of infecting people. We're probably a long way from being able
>to regard it as being like flu.
>
>Hence the fluctuations in case rates aren't, and won't be, all down to
>human behaviour variations. And vaccination, although vital at present,
>isn't a perfect 'get out of jail free' subsitute for measures aimed at
>reducing transmission using spacing, masks, etc.

More Or Less is worth listening to too.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

In article <XnsADDF7963E5E0B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10:16 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> > In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the trial
> >> only 5 ever developed CV19.
> >
> > I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then the
> > only concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't prevent you
> > getting the virus.
> >
> > Bob.
> >

> Are you disputing the lab results stated by Pfizer that only 5 out
> of 5000 developed Covid in their trial?

No I'm not. I'm saying the statement is meaningless simply because it
does not state how many people were exposed to the virus and it may
well be that only 5 were.

> Pfizer hasn't claimed the Pfizer jab gives "99.9% protection". No
> nummerical claim about protection is mentioned in their press
> release:

I didn't claim they had said that.

But the article raises the 5 in 5000 figure clearly intending people
to drawer the 99.9% protection conclusion when it offers no
information at all about protection from infection except it isn't
100%. Very, very simple logic.

> Surely the problem arises from your own inference and not with the
> facts.

My logic is 100% sound and you're trying to shit stir again.

> In view of your hostile outlook, why didn't you refuse the jab?

On what basis do you base your idea I'm hostile to the jab?

Bob.