On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 19:41:48 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
<598a5dc698bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

>In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob said his wife found the info. That reminds me a little of
>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>
>Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>
><Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>
>After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>
>https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/16500316/third-dose-of-pfizer-jab-gives-almost-total-immunity/

Thank you for the link. We can now compare the report in The Sun with
the Pfizer press release:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing

The Sun says (first para. of article): "A THIRD dose of the Pfizer
vaccine provides near total immunity to Covid-19, a crucial study has
revealed."

Pfizer says: "In the trial, a booster dose administered to individuals
who previously received the Pfizer-BioNTech primary two-dose series
restored vaccine protection against COVID-19 to the high levels achieved
after the second dose, showing a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% when
compared to those who did not receive a booster. "

The Sun goes on to say: "In a group of 5,000 people who had two jabs
only, 109 showed Covid symptoms.

But in another group of 5,000, who had been given a third shot almost a
year after the second, the number was just five.

Scientists said the additional shot restored protection to "excellent"
levels achieved shortly after the second dose.

They added a booster shot is 95.6 per cent effective against Covid-19,
compared with two jabs and a placebo."

That is a more accurate report of what was in the press release but the
tone has already been set by the sensationalist headline and opening
paragraph which misrepresent the result.

The second paragraph of The Sun article says "Researchers conducted the
first full trial of the BioNTech/Pfizer booster, as virus cases rise
across the UK." but the Pfizer press release does not mention the UK.
The press release says that the results will be shared with FDA and EMA
"and other regulatory agencies around the world". The UK is 'other' as
far as they are concerned. It seems that The Sun has invented a
connection with rising case rates in the UK. It is clear from the press
release that this study was started several months ago at least -
"median follow-up of 2.5 months". It The Sun had meant that the study
took place while UK cases were rising from mid-May to mid-July this year
then they would have written "as cases rose across the UK earlier this
year" or something like that.

Although The Sun has reported the numbers, they have misrepresented them
but perhaps no more that is expected from that newspaper.

The report (or one like it) was introduced into the group like this:

"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."

Only one of the groups of 5000 is mentioned. The 95.6% from the Pfizer
press release that was reported correctly by The Sun has somehow become
99.9%. It also fails to mention that this was a study of the effect of
the booster on people who have already had two doses.

The source found originally may have been even worse than the report in
The Sun and may have mentioned only one of the groups of 5,000. If so,
then anything else coming from that source should be rated as having
little credibility and be used only as a way to search for a more
reputable source of data.

On 21:09 12 Nov 2021, Owen Rees said:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 19:41:48 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
> <598a5dc698bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:
>>In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob said his wife found the info. That reminds me a little of
>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>
>>Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>
>><Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>
>>After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>
>>https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/16500316/third-dose-of-pfizer-jab-giv
>>es-almost-total-immunity/
>
> Thank you for the link. We can now compare the report in The Sun
> with the Pfizer press release:
>
> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer
> -and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>
> The Sun says (first para. of article): "A THIRD dose of the Pfizer
> vaccine provides near total immunity to Covid-19, a crucial study
> has revealed."
>
> Pfizer says: "In the trial, a booster dose administered to
> individuals who previously received the Pfizer-BioNTech primary
> two-dose series restored vaccine protection against COVID-19 to the
> high levels achieved after the second dose, showing a relative
> vaccine efficacy of 95.6% when compared to those who did not receive
> a booster. "
>
> The Sun goes on to say: "In a group of 5,000 people who had two jabs
> only, 109 showed Covid symptoms.
>
> But in another group of 5,000, who had been given a third shot
> almost a year after the second, the number was just five.
>
> Scientists said the additional shot restored protection to
> "excellent" levels achieved shortly after the second dose.
>
> They added a booster shot is 95.6 per cent effective against
> Covid-19, compared with two jabs and a placebo."
>
> That is a more accurate report of what was in the press release but
> the tone has already been set by the sensationalist headline and
> opening paragraph which misrepresent the result.
>
> The second paragraph of The Sun article says "Researchers conducted
> the first full trial of the BioNTech/Pfizer booster, as virus cases
> rise across the UK." but the Pfizer press release does not mention
> the UK. The press release says that the results will be shared with
> FDA and EMA "and other regulatory agencies around the world". The UK
> is 'other' as far as they are concerned. It seems that The Sun has
> invented a connection with rising case rates in the UK. It is clear
> from the press release that this study was started several months
> ago at least - "median follow-up of 2.5 months". It The Sun had
> meant that the study took place while UK cases were rising from
> mid-May to mid-July this year then they would have written "as cases
> rose across the UK earlier this year" or something like that.
>
> Although The Sun has reported the numbers, they have misrepresented
> them but perhaps no more that is expected from that newspaper.
>
> The report (or one like it) was introduced into the group like this:
>
> "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."
>
> Only one of the groups of 5000 is mentioned. The 95.6% from the
> Pfizer press release that was reported correctly by The Sun has
> somehow become 99.9%. It also fails to mention that this was a study
> of the effect of the booster on people who have already had two
> doses.
>
> The source found originally may have been even worse than the report
> in The Sun and may have mentioned only one of the groups of 5,000.
> If so, then anything else coming from that source should be rated as
> having little credibility and be used only as a way to search for a
> more reputable source of data.

Interesting analysis. Goes to show why the Sun is not a reliable
source of hard facts.

On 19:41 12 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob said his wife found the info. That reminds me a little of
>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>
> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.

I hope your testicles are alright after the vaccine.

> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>

I've seen people online discuss whther I am hard left or hard right.
It's interesting how two totally different views can be formed.

Responses to Covid shouldn't really fall into partisan political
camps. I wonder how much that's a consequence of Trump (and to a
lesser extent Boris) handling the outbreak badly and then relying on
self-serving priorities to justify their bumbling.

On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bob said his wife found the info. That reminds me a little of
>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>
> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.

No surprise there, you are a serial liar.

> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>

So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you criticised
Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your actual political
affiliations.

> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>
> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b - g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /

Mmmm! The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
article: to report a crappy source like T h e S u n without giving
it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is absolutely
typical of your past behaviour.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>
>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>
> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>
>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>
> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you criticised
> Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your actual political
> affiliations.
>
>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>
>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1 6 5
>> 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b - g i v e
>> s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>
> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n   without giving
> it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is absolutely
> typical of your past behaviour.
>

I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were released
last month. The more so when it took only seconds to find companies'
release:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing

which includes the headline

"First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine booster
trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% against disease
during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"

Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to ignore".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10:40 13 Nov 2021, Robin said:

> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,     Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>
>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>
>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>
>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>
>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your
>> actual political affiliations.
>>
>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>
>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1
>>> 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b -
>>> g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>
>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
>> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n  
>> without giving it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore
>> it is absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>
>
> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
> media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were released
> last month. The more so when it took only seconds to find
> companies' release:
>
> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-
> detail/pfizer -and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>
> which includes the headline
>
> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>
> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to
> ignore".

Shouldn't you be telling that to Bob and perhaps his wife too? Bob
initially posted about the results of a study he wife read and later
revealed it was from the Sun.

In article <XnsADE0D96BF67BB37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting analysis. Goes to show why the Sun is not a reliable source
> of hard facts.

Alas, that is quite common for the general press. Sometimes because it
helps sales. Sometimes simply a lack of full understanding of how their
report misrepresents or is ambiguous. So an arise even when the intent is
good and the writer generally knows their topic. Stats can be tricky to
explain and interpret. Many people who are highly capable in their specific
field may not fully understand them.

There's an example of this in the current PE. I did email them to point out
something given as 'stats' in a table because it is ambiguous and thus may
be misleading because of what has *not* been made clear. I'll see if I get
a useful reply or it gets dealt with.

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 <smmorf$ukv$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bob said his wife found the info. That reminds me a little of Nicki
> >> Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's testicles after
> >> he took the vaccine.
> >
> > Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.

> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.

Bob can sometime be upleasant in his responses, but I do think he believes
what he writes about the topics. I do NOT think he is a liar. The
difficulty is the rigid way he sticks to seeing everything though his
politically-coloured glasses. So any hint of things that he doesn't like
get branded 'leftie', 'woke', etc rather than understood. Thus I DO think
he prefers to believe what suits him on some topics as a result of some of
his 'political' views. being fairly rigid.

As exampled, attempts to get him to learn how to assess scientific results
which touch him on that nerve simply get regarded as 'attacks' from
'lefties', etc. Whereas reports that seem to support him he will
uncritically accept and promote... Yet generally fall to shreds when
examined using the scientific approach. Sour cherries.

It is a shame because on other topics that don't trigger his "leftie
conspiracy" sensitivity he is capable, and rational, and friendly. But I
see no sign that he is deliberately dishonest or a liar. Just enmeshed by a
specific set of beliefs.

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 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>
>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>
>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>
>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>
>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your
>> actual political affiliations.
>>
>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>
>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1 6 5
>>> 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b - g i v e
>>> s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>
>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
>> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n   without
>> giving it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is
>> absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>
> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
> media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were released
> last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to find companies'
> release:
>
> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>
> which includes the headline
>
> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine booster
> trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% against disease
> during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>
> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to ignore".

Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread, T h e S u n
got it wrong in a particular way involving particular numbers, and
those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even he himself now
admitting that he couldn't find any other source for them???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 10:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> In article <smmorf$ukv$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>
>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>
> Bob can sometime be upleasant in his responses, but I do think he believes
> what he writes about the topics. I do NOT think he is a liar. The
> difficulty is the rigid way he sticks to seeing everything though his
> politically-coloured glasses. So any hint of things that he doesn't like
> get branded 'leftie', 'woke', etc rather than understood. Thus I DO think
> he prefers to believe what suits him on some topics as a result of some of
> his 'political' views. being fairly rigid.
>
> As exampled, attempts to get him to learn how to assess scientific results
> which touch him on that nerve simply get regarded as 'attacks' from
> 'lefties', etc. Whereas reports that seem to support him he will
> uncritically accept and promote... Yet generally fall to shreds when
> examined using the scientific approach. Sour cherries.
>
> It is a shame because on other topics that don't trigger his "leftie
> conspiracy" sensitivity he is capable, and rational, and friendly. But I
> see no sign that he is deliberately dishonest or a liar. Just enmeshed by a
> specific set of beliefs.

Having spent 18 months debunking Bob's trolling, I believe I've proved
deliberate dishonesty enough times to be more cynical.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>
>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>
>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>
>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>
>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your
>>> actual political affiliations.
>>>
>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>
>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1 6
>>>> 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b - g i
>>>> v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>>
>>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
>>> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n   without
>>> giving it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is
>>> absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>
>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
>> media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were released
>> last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to find companies'
>> release:
>>
>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>
>> which includes the headline
>>
>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% against
>> disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>>
>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to
>> ignore".
>
> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,  T h e  S u n
>   got it wrong in a particular way involving particular numbers, and
> those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even he himself now
> admitting that he couldn't find any other source for them???!!!
>

What did The Sun get factually wrong?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 13/11/2021 15:02, Robin wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>>
>>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>>
>>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>>
>>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your
>>>> actual political affiliations.
>>>>
>>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>>
>>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1 6
>>>>> 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b - g i
>>>>> v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>>>
>>>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
>>>> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n   without
>>>> giving it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is
>>>> absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>>
>>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
>>> media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were released
>>> last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to find companies'
>>> release:
>>>
>>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>>
>>> which includes the headline
>>>
>>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
>>> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>>>
>>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to
>>> ignore".
>>
>> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,  T h e  S u
>> n    got it wrong in a particular way involving particular numbers,
>> and those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even he himself
>> now admitting that he couldn't find any other source for them???!!!
>
> What did The Sun get factually wrong?

See Owen Rees' debunking 12/11/21 21:09, where he states T h e S u n
misquoted various figures, which seemed to the same ones as Bob
misquoted too.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 16:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 15:02, Robin wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>>>
>>>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your
>>>>> actual political affiliations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>>>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1
>>>>>> 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b -
>>>>>> g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
>>>>> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n   without
>>>>> giving it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is
>>>>> absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
>>>> media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were released
>>>> last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to find
>>>> companies' release:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>>>
>>>> which includes the headline
>>>>
>>>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>>>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
>>>> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>>>>
>>>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to
>>>> ignore".
>>>
>>> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,  T h e  S
>>> u n    got it wrong in a particular way involving particular numbers,
>>> and those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even he himself
>>> now admitting that he couldn't find any other source for them???!!!
>>
>> What did The Sun get factually wrong?
>
> See Owen Rees' debunking 12/11/21 21:09, where he states  T h e  S u n
> misquoted various figures, which seemed to the same ones as Bob
> misquoted too.
>

Owen Rees stated explicitly the contrary:

"Although The Sun has reported the numbers..."

For completeness he then continues with,

"... they have misrepresented them but perhaps no more that is expected
from that newspaper."

an accusation which seems to me at best debatable. It could be argued
it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the plain words. We are
not told when injections were carried out but they can't have started
long ago as "the median time between the second dose and the booster
shot or the placebo was approximately 11 months". The period in which
the study was carried out includes the monitoring period and so will
extend until quite recently. And I can all too easily imagine the Sun's
counsel dealing with "seems that The Sun has invented a connection with
rising case rates in the UK".

I note too that he and you ignore all the other papers - e.g. The Mirror
- that ran the same story with the same headline.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 13/11/2021 18:21, Robin wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 16:35, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 15:02, Robin wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>>>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>>>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>>>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>>>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of your
>>>>>> actual political affiliations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>>>>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h / 1
>>>>>>> 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a b -
>>>>>>> g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the original
>>>>>> article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u n   without
>>>>>> giving it provenance so that everyone would know to ignore it is
>>>>>> absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over the
>>>>> media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were
>>>>> released last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to find
>>>>> companies' release:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>>>>
>>>>> which includes the headline
>>>>>
>>>>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>>>>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
>>>>> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to
>>>>> ignore".
>>>>
>>>> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,  T h e  S
>>>> u n    got it wrong in a particular way involving particular
>>>> numbers, and those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even
>>>> he himself now admitting that he couldn't find any other source for
>>>> them???!!!
>>>
>>> What did The Sun get factually wrong?
>>
>> See Owen Rees' debunking 12/11/21 21:09, where he states  T h e  S u n
>> misquoted various figures, which seemed to the same ones as Bob
>> misquoted too.
>
> Owen Rees stated explicitly the contrary:
>
> "Although The Sun has reported the numbers..."
>
> For completeness he then continues with,
>
> "... they have misrepresented them but perhaps no more that is expected
> from that newspaper."
>
> an accusation which seems to me at best debatable.  It could be argued
> it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the plain words.  We are
> not told when injections were carried out but they can't have started
> long ago as "the median time between the second dose and the booster
> shot or the placebo was approximately 11 months".  The period in which
> the study was carried out includes the monitoring period and so will
> extend until quite recently.  And I can all too easily imagine the Sun's
> counsel dealing with "seems that The Sun has invented a connection with
> rising case rates in the UK".

I've just reread Owen's post, probably more carefully than I did
earlier, the Pfizer report, and the article in T h e S u n. The
last update acknowledged on the newspaper's report is 3:14 22/10, while
Owen's post was some days later 21:09 12/11, so I don't think anything
has changed in it since.

With some justification, Owen mentions that the sentence "Researchers
conducted the first full trial of the BioNTech/Pfizer booster, as virus
cases rise across the UK." is somewhat misleading, as, although it
doesn't actually say so, to the casual reader it seems to imply that the
trials were done in the UK. To a casual reader of some mental laziness,
it could also imply some doubt as to the veracity of the vaccine claims,
because despite the vaccines, cases are rising. This sentence is very
typical of the way such newspapers slant reports by juxtaposition.

Yes, they quoted the figure of 95.6% correctly, while Bob quoted 99.9%!

However, the newspaper refers twice to figures of 5,000 people, but
those figures do not occur anywhere in the Pfizer report or the Business
Wire news item linked from it, and typically the newspaper gave no links
that could be used to compare their write up of the story with an
original press release by the company, so we can't actually be sure that
the Pfizer report linked is the same source as they were using, though
in the absence of another, it seems likely, but in that case where did
the 5,000 figure come from?

I think I can rest my case, m'lud.

> I note too that he and you ignore all the other papers - e.g. The Mirror
> - that ran the same story with the same headline.

Because those weren't the one linked by Bob!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/11/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 18:21, Robin wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 16:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 15:02, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>>>>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>>>>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>>>>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>>>>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of
>>>>>>> your actual political affiliations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>>>>>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h /
>>>>>>>> 1 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a
>>>>>>>> b - g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the
>>>>>>> original article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u
>>>>>>> n   without giving it provenance so that everyone would know to
>>>>>>> ignore it is absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over
>>>>>> the media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were
>>>>>> released last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to
>>>>>> find companies' release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which includes the headline
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>>>>>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
>>>>>> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know to
>>>>>> ignore".
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,  T h e
>>>>> S u n    got it wrong in a particular way involving particular
>>>>> numbers, and those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even
>>>>> he himself now admitting that he couldn't find any other source for
>>>>> them???!!!
>>>>
>>>> What did The Sun get factually wrong?
>>>
>>> See Owen Rees' debunking 12/11/21 21:09, where he states  T h e  S u
>>> n misquoted various figures, which seemed to the same ones as Bob
>>> misquoted too.
>>
>> Owen Rees stated explicitly the contrary:
>>
>> "Although The Sun has reported the numbers..."
>>
>> For completeness he then continues with,
>>
>> "... they have misrepresented them but perhaps no more that is
>> expected from that newspaper."
>>
>> an accusation which seems to me at best debatable.  It could be argued
>> it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the plain words.  We are
>> not told when injections were carried out but they can't have started
>> long ago as "the median time between the second dose and the booster
>> shot or the placebo was approximately 11 months".  The period in which
>> the study was carried out includes the monitoring period and so will
>> extend until quite recently.  And I can all too easily imagine the
>> Sun's counsel dealing with "seems that The Sun has invented a
>> connection with rising case rates in the UK".
>
> I've just reread Owen's post, probably more carefully than I did
> earlier, the Pfizer report, and the article in   T h e   S u n.  The
> last update acknowledged on the newspaper's report is 3:14 22/10, while
> Owen's post was some days later 21:09 12/11, so I don't think anything
> has changed in it since.
>
> With some justification, Owen mentions that the sentence "Researchers
> conducted the first full trial of the BioNTech/Pfizer booster, as virus
> cases rise across the UK." is somewhat misleading, as, although it
> doesn't actually say so, to the casual reader it seems to imply that the
> trials were done in the UK.  To a casual reader of some mental laziness,
> it could also imply some doubt as to the veracity of the vaccine claims,
> because despite the vaccines, cases are rising.  This sentence is very
> typical of the way such newspapers slant reports by juxtaposition.
>
> Yes, they quoted the figure of 95.6% correctly, while Bob quoted 99.9%!
>
> However, the newspaper refers twice to figures of 5,000 people, but
> those figures do not occur anywhere in the Pfizer report or the Business
> Wire news item linked from it, and typically the newspaper gave no links
> that could be used to compare their write up of the story with an
> original press release by the company, so we can't actually be sure that
> the Pfizer report linked is the same source as they were using, though
> in the absence of another, it seems likely, but in that case where did
> the 5,000 figure come from?
>
> I think I can rest my case, m'lud.

M'lud* might well do so - on the basis that the origin of the 5,000
figures should be apparent to the meanest intellect:

a. the releases refer to "more than 10,000 participants";

b. it is normal in such trials to allocate participants randomly to the
vaccine or the placebo;

c. moreover the release contrasts the results of the vaccine and the
placebo groups in a way ("During the study period, there were 5 cases of
COVID-19 in the booster group, and 109 cases in the non-boosted group")
which would be not just misleading but unlawful** if the groups were not
of near-enough equal sizes - i.e. each more than 5,000.

*in a purely "gedanken" case of course. You can take comfort from the
fact that The Sun would never take action against you for defamation
given the threshold introduced by s.1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013
("harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not serious
harm unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial
loss”). Harm to your reputation is of course another matter.

** it is price-sensitive information

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:21:09 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in
<8e472de7-aa6a-0fdd-fe6b-c201e9eadb8d@outlook.com>:

>Owen Rees stated explicitly the contrary:
>
>"Although The Sun has reported the numbers..."
>
>For completeness he then continues with,
>
>"... they have misrepresented them but perhaps no more that is expected
>from that newspaper."
>
>an accusation which seems to me at best debatable. It could be argued
>it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the plain words.

The misrepresentation is in the headline and the first two paragraphs.
Next after that come two pictures so that is what is "above the fold".
The term which originated in newspapers is now applied to web sites to
mean what can be seen without scrolling.

Headline - "PERFECT SHOT Third dose of Pfizer Covid jab gives almost
total immunity, scientists reveal"
para 1 - "A THIRD dose of the Pfizer vaccine provides near total
immunity to Covid-19, a crucial study has revealed."

Pfizer does not claim that a third dose gives almost total immunity.

>We are
>not told when injections were carried out but they can't have started
>long ago as "the median time between the second dose and the booster
>shot or the placebo was approximately 11 months". The period in which
>the study was carried out includes the monitoring period and so will
>extend until quite recently. And I can all too easily imagine the Sun's
>counsel dealing with "seems that The Sun has invented a connection with
>rising case rates in the UK".

Para 2 - "Researchers conducted the first full trial of the
BioNTech/Pfizer booster, as virus cases rise across the UK."

Pfizer does not relate its trial to the UK in any way.

>
>I note too that he and you ignore all the other papers - e.g. The Mirror
>- that ran the same story with the same headline.

I did not 'ignore' other papers in the sense of having seen their
reports and chosen to say nothing about them. I did not look elsewhere
until other papers were mentioned.

The Mirror headline for the corresponding article is also misleading -
"Pfizer booster jab offers 'near total' protection against Covid, trial
data shows".

The article that follows reports what was in the Pfizer press release
reasonable accurately. They say 10,000 participants where the Pfizer
release says more than 10,000 but, unlike The Sun, they do not describe
this as two groups of 5,000.

The Times has a similarly misleading headline - "Booster dose of Pfizer
vaccine offers near-total protection from Covid".

The Independent has the headline "Pfizer booster dose offers
exceptionally high levels of protection against Covid and all variants,
study shows". The first paragraph quotes the 95.6% figure so they go
directly to the number they are describing as "exceptionally high". It
is a very short article but seems to be accurate as far as it goes.

Which other UK papers reported the booster trial?

Washington Times (USA) has the headline "Pfizer vaccine booster highly
effective in late-stage trial".

Jamaica Observer headline - "Pfizer says COVID booster shot 95.6 per
cent effective"

In terms of accurate reporting of the Pfizer booster trial in the papers
whose online editions I have looked at, Jamaica Observer is best, The
Sun worst.

On 13/11/2021 23:35, Robin wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 18:21, Robin wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 16:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 15:02, Robin wrote:
>>>>> On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>>>>>>>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.  That reminds me a little of
>>>>>>>>>> Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's friend's
>>>>>>>>>> testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>>>>>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of
>>>>>>>> your actual political affiliations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she got
>>>>>>>>> the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h /
>>>>>>>>> 1 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r - j a
>>>>>>>>> b - g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y /
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mmmm!  The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the
>>>>>>>> original article: to report a crappy source like   T h e   S u
>>>>>>>> n   without giving it provenance so that everyone would know to
>>>>>>>> ignore it is absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over
>>>>>>> the media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were
>>>>>>> released last month.  The more so when it took only seconds to
>>>>>>> find companies' release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which includes the headline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>>>>>>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
>>>>>>> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know
>>>>>>> to ignore".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,  T h e
>>>>>> S u n    got it wrong in a particular way involving particular
>>>>>> numbers, and those numbers seemed to be what Bob was quoting, even
>>>>>> he himself now admitting that he couldn't find any other source
>>>>>> for them???!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> What did The Sun get factually wrong?
>>>>
>>>> See Owen Rees' debunking 12/11/21 21:09, where he states  T h e  S u
>>>> n misquoted various figures, which seemed to the same ones as Bob
>>>> misquoted too.
>>>
>>> Owen Rees stated explicitly the contrary:
>>>
>>> "Although The Sun has reported the numbers..."
>>>
>>> For completeness he then continues with,
>>>
>>> "... they have misrepresented them but perhaps no more that is
>>> expected from that newspaper."
>>>
>>> an accusation which seems to me at best debatable.  It could be
>>> argued it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the plain words.
>>> We are not told when injections were carried out but they can't have
>>> started long ago as "the median time between the second dose and the
>>> booster shot or the placebo was approximately 11 months".  The period
>>> in which the study was carried out includes the monitoring period and
>>> so will extend until quite recently.  And I can all too easily
>>> imagine the Sun's counsel dealing with "seems that The Sun has
>>> invented a connection with rising case rates in the UK".
>>
>> I've just reread Owen's post, probably more carefully than I did
>> earlier, the Pfizer report, and the article in   T h e   S u n.  The
>> last update acknowledged on the newspaper's report is 3:14 22/10,
>> while Owen's post was some days later 21:09 12/11, so I don't think
>> anything has changed in it since.
>>
>> With some justification, Owen mentions that the sentence "Researchers
>> conducted the first full trial of the BioNTech/Pfizer booster, as
>> virus cases rise across the UK." is somewhat misleading, as, although
>> it doesn't actually say so, to the casual reader it seems to imply
>> that the trials were done in the UK.  To a casual reader of some
>> mental laziness, it could also imply some doubt as to the veracity of
>> the vaccine claims, because despite the vaccines, cases are rising.
>> This sentence is very typical of the way such newspapers slant reports
>> by juxtaposition.
>>
>> Yes, they quoted the figure of 95.6% correctly, while Bob quoted 99.9%!
>>
>> However, the newspaper refers twice to figures of 5,000 people, but
>> those figures do not occur anywhere in the Pfizer report or the
>> Business Wire news item linked from it, and typically the newspaper
>> gave no links that could be used to compare their write up of the
>> story with an original press release by the company, so we can't
>> actually be sure that the Pfizer report linked is the same source as
>> they were using, though in the absence of another, it seems likely,
>> but in that case where did the 5,000 figure come from?
>>
>> I think I can rest my case, m'lud.
>
> M'lud* might well do so - on the basis that the origin of the 5,000
> figures should be apparent to the meanest intellect:
>
> a.    the releases refer to "more than 10,000 participants";
>
> b.    it is normal in such trials to allocate participants randomly to
> the vaccine or the placebo;
>
> c.    moreover the release contrasts the results of the vaccine and the
> placebo groups in a way ("During the study period, there were 5 cases of
> COVID-19 in the booster group, and 109 cases in the non-boosted group")
> which would be not just misleading but unlawful** if the groups were not
> of near-enough equal sizes - i.e. each more than 5,000.

While not wishing to dispute your reasonable assumptions, the paper said
things that the original report did not, without giving provenance for
them, and that's the point. If the reporter had rung or emailed someone
from Pfizer to confirm those details, and consequently reported along
the lines "Pfizer have confirmed to us ..." that would have been not
just accurate reporting, but seen to be accurate reporting, whereas, as
things stand, actually we don't really know where these figures come
from - they may well be derived as you say, but perhaps they were from
a different source entirely; either way, the paper has failed to clarify
exactly where their, as opposed to Pfizer's, figures come from.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18:21 13 Nov 2021, Robin said:
> On 13/11/2021 16:35, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/11/2021 15:02, Robin wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2021 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 10:40, Robin wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 22:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2021 19:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <XnsADE0B044E21F737B93@144.76.35.252>, ���
>>>>>>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob said his wife found the info.� That reminds me a little
>>>>>>>> of Nicki Minaj's uncheckable claim about her cousin's
>>>>>>>> friend's testicles after he took the vaccine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well thanks for that, trying to make it look like I'm lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No surprise there, you are a serial liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Sigh - the left! Always so nice.>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So yet again we see the childish reduction to absurdity: you
>>>>>> criticised Bob, therefore you must be a leftie, regardless of
>>>>>> your actual political affiliations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a good look neither of us found the original article she
>>>>>>> got the info from but, clearly The Sun read it too..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e s u n . c o . u k / h e a l t h
>>>>>>> / 1 6 5 0 0 3 1 6 / t h i r d - d o s e - o f - p f i z e r -
>>>>>>> j a b - g i v e s - a l m o s t - t o t a l - i m m u n i t y
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmmm!� The cynic in me suggests that in fact that was the
>>>>>> original article: to report a crappy source like�� T h e��
>>>>>> S u n�� without giving it provenance so that everyone would
>>>>>> know to ignore it is absolutely typical of your past behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am surprised you were surprised by a figure that was all over
>>>>> the media and websites (including gov.uk) when the results were
>>>>> released last month.� The more so when it took only seconds to
>>>>> find companies' release:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-
>>>>> detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-phase-3-trial-data-showing
>>>>>
>>>>> which includes the headline
>>>>>
>>>>> "First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine
>>>>> booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%
>>>>> against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent
>>>>> strain"
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny about that in a "crappy source" that "everyone would know
>>>>> to ignore".
>>>>
>>>> Except that, according to the narrative of this subthread,� T h
>>>> e� S u n �� got it wrong in a particular way involving
>>>> particular numbers, and those numbers seemed to be what Bob was
>>>> quoting, even he himself now admitting that he couldn't find any
>>>> other source for them???!!!
>>>
>>> What did The Sun get factually wrong?
>>
>> See Owen Rees' debunking 12/11/21 21:09, where he states� T h e�
>> S u n misquoted various figures, which seemed to the same ones as
>> Bob misquoted too.
>>
>
> Owen Rees stated explicitly the contrary:
>
> "Although The Sun has reported the numbers..."
>
> For completeness he then continues with,
>
> "... they have misrepresented them but perhaps no more that is
> expected from that newspaper."
>
> an accusation which seems to me at best debatable. It could be
> argued it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the plain words.
> We are not told when injections were carried out but they can't
> have started long ago as "the median time between the second dose
> and the booster shot or the placebo was approximately 11 months".
> The period in which the study was carried out includes the
> monitoring period and so will extend until quite recently. And I
> can all too easily imagine the Sun's counsel dealing with "seems
> that The Sun has invented a connection with rising case rates in the
> UK".
>
> I note too that he and you ignore all the other papers - e.g. The
> Mirror - that ran the same story with the same headline.

It's strange that you're expecting Bob's wife to quote what is in
several other newspapers, when he reported what she saw in the Sun?

Perhaps you're coming to this thread late and haven't seen the earlier
discussion.

In article <smog88$cp2$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Having spent 18 months debunking Bob's trolling, I believe I've proved
> deliberate dishonesty enough times to be more cynical.

I recall a story about someone seeing a tombstone in a chruchyard that had
the inscription:

"Not dead. Just sleeping."

and saying, "He's not fooling anyone but himself!"

....which is curious however you look at it. :-)

But it may have been Spike Milligan. ...Or do I mean Spike Miligner, the
well known typing error? 8-] I can't recall where I read it.

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 message <598ac884cbnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>In article <smog88$cp2$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Having spent 18 months debunking Bob's trolling, I believe I've proved
>> deliberate dishonesty enough times to be more cynical.
>
>
>I recall a story about someone seeing a tombstone in a chruchyard that had
>the inscription:
>
>"Not dead. Just sleeping."
>
>and saying, "He's not fooling anyone but himself!"
>
>...which is curious however you look at it. :-)
>
>But it may have been Spike Milligan. ...Or do I mean Spike Miligner, the
>well known typing error? 8-] I can't recall where I read it.
>
>Jim
>

It sounds like a line that Dave Allen might have come up with.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In article <598ac884cbnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smog88$cp2$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:

> > Having spent 18 months debunking Bob's trolling, I believe I've
> > proved deliberate dishonesty enough times to be more cynical.

> I recall a story about someone seeing a tombstone in a chruchyard
> that had the inscription:

> "Not dead. Just sleeping."

> and saying, "He's not fooling anyone but himself!"

> ...which is curious however you look at it. :-)

> But it may have been Spike Milligan. ...Or do I mean Spike
> Miligner, the well known typing error? 8-] I can't recall where I
> read it.

Last Wednesday afternoon my wife and I had our no.3 jab. Until we got
the paperwork we didn't know what jab we we're getting. When we got
home my wife goggled to try and find out how effective the jab we'd
had was at protecting us form getting covid.

She found an item quoting 5 in 5000. After a little thought by me I
realised that that told me very little and was NOT useful information.

I mentioned this to the group and was in effect called a liar. I
don't lie ever, though I may be mistaken!

I asked Judi if she could find the article again. She couldn't but
found the Sun quoting the same numbers, presumably from the same
source.

In order to show I was not lying I posted a link to the Sun article.

I didn't claim anything about the vaccine good or bad. My great crime
was to say the numbers I'm mentioned earlier didn't mean much if
anything.

Since then a huge wave of accusations and nastiness is thrown my way.
Have you people gone mad?

Well most of you seem to be fully signed up members of all the
current religions and cults; CC, gender politics, defund the police
etc. etc. so maybe that gives me a hint.

Bob.

On 13/11/2021 15:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> I recall a story about someone seeing a tombstone in a chruchyard that had
> the inscription:
>
> "Not dead. Just sleeping."
>
> and saying, "He's not fooling anyone but himself!"
>
> ...which is curious however you look at it. :-)
>
> But it may have been Spike Milligan. ...Or do I mean Spike Miligner, the
> well known typing error? 8-] I can't recall where I read it.
>
> Jim
>
Spike Milligan when he was alive said during a TV chat show that he
wanted "I TOLD YOU I WAS ILL" on his gravestone.

From Wikipedia:
The headstone of Spike Milligan's grave in the grounds of St Thomas'
Winchelsea, East Sussex. The name of his last wife was added along with
birth and death dates and an additional epitaph. Spike Milligan's
epitaph includes the phrase Dúirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite, Irish for
"I told you I was ill". The headstone is positioned roughly midway
between the New Inn and the church door.

There is a footnote which links to another item about the attitude of
the Church Of England to Irish on gravestones:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/church-of-england-disowns-ruling-irish-epitaph-gravestone

If you follow that link you discover:
"the epitaph on Spike Milligan’s headstone in St Thomas’s church
graveyard in Winchelsea – “Dúirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite” (“I told
you I was ill”) – was in Irish.

It is in Irish precisely because the diocese of Chichester did not
consider his chosen epitaph appropriate for a churchyard, and an Irish
translation was the compromise reached by the family with the diocese."

Jim

On 11:19 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
> Last Wednesday afternoon my wife and I had our no.3 jab. Until we got
> the paperwork we didn't know what jab we we're getting.

Pfizer is used for all booster jabs.

In article <XnsADE28921D82CD37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11:19 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> >
> > Last Wednesday afternoon my wife and I had our no.3 jab. Until we
> > got the paperwork we didn't know what jab we we're getting.

> Pfizer is used for all booster jabs.

Thank you, I didn't know that. I knew I couldn't have the
Astra-Zenica but thought that Moderna or Pfizer were in use.

Bob.

On 14/11/2021 11:19, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <598ac884cbnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
[snip sob story]
>
> Since then a huge wave of accusations and nastiness is thrown my way.
> Have you people gone mad?

This is what happens to you when you are serially dishonest.

> Well most of you seem to be fully signed up members of all the
> current religions and cults; CC, gender politics, defund the police
> etc. etc. so maybe that gives me a hint.

See what I mean? The above is blatantly dishonest?

--

Fake news kills!

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