On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 11:19:15 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
<598b37700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

>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!

Let me remind you what you wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:32:41 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
<5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

>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.

=== end of quote from 11 Nov ===

You did not say that the item quoting 5 in 5000 told you very little.
You said "Trying to make you think this meant 99.9% protection". You
then went on to assert that this was propaganda. You do not say who you
think is behind that propaganda but the implication is that it is the
companies who manufacture the vaccine.

>
>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.

If you know roughly when she found the article you should be able to
find it in her browser history.

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

The Sun reported both the 5 in 5000 who had the booster and the 109 in
5000 who did not with the 109 coming first. The two together tell you a
lot more than either on its own.

Now that I have a better idea what to seach for I can find plenty of
reports that mention both n in 5000 figures or report the 10,000 but I
have not found any that report only the 5 in 5000 who had a booster.

>
>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.

You claimed that the numbers were propaganda having quoted only half the
trial result whether because you chose a poor quality source or
selectively quoted from a source that had both numbers.

Asserting that results from a trial are propaganda based on a partial
quote is claiming that the vaccine is less effective than the
manufacturers suggest.

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

You have been shown to choose poor quality sources and/or quote
selectively then use that as the basis for some assertion.

>
>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.

What I have read here does not support that claim.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 13:37:57 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
<598b442313bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

>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.

JCVI statement:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-booster-vaccine-programme-for-winter-2021-to-2022/jcvi-statement-regarding-a-covid-19-booster-vaccine-programme-for-winter-2021-to-2022

First choice is a standard dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2/
Comirnaty®).

Second choice is a half dose (50µg) of the Moderna
(mRNA-1273/Spikevax®).

For those where mRNA is contraindicated, AstraZeneca
(ChAdOx1-S/Vaxzevria®) may be considered for those who received it as
their primary course.

I have not found any data to say how many of each type of vaccine have
been given as boosters in the UK.

In article <v252pgdnk7fatehc9pja6e7s3h1n8ck9td@4ax.com>,
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 11:19:15 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
> <598b37700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

> >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!

> Let me remind you what you wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:32:41 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
> <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

> >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.

> === end of quote from 11 Nov ===

> You did not say that the item quoting 5 in 5000 told you very
> little. You said "Trying to make you think this meant 99.9%
> protection". You then went on to assert that this was propaganda.
> You do not say who you think is behind that propaganda but the
> implication is that it is the companies who manufacture the vaccine.

Yes, and to be honest it still looks like the information was
intended to mislead people who took it at face value. I think the 5
in 5000 us told almost nothing except it doesn't guarantee your
protection. The reason being we have no idea how many of the 5000
were exposed to the virus.

> >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.

> If you know roughly when she found the article you should be able
> to find it in her browser history.

That is true but in all honesty it never crossed my mind as I can't
remember the last time I used browser history and Judi never does,
I'm pretty sure she doesn't know how.

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

> The Sun reported both the 5 in 5000 who had the booster and the 109
> in 5000 who did not with the 109 coming first. The two together
> tell you a lot more than either on its own.

Possibly, I can see why you think that. Is this the same 5000 or a
different 5000?

> Now that I have a better idea what to seach for I can find plenty
> of reports that mention both n in 5000 figures or report the 10,000
> but I have not found any that report only the 5 in 5000 who had a
> booster.

> >
> >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.

> You claimed that the numbers were propaganda having quoted only
> half the trial result whether because you chose a poor quality
> source or selectively quoted from a source that had both numbers.

> Asserting that results from a trial are propaganda based on a
> partial quote is claiming that the vaccine is less effective than
> the manufacturers suggest.

I've not seen the trial, I just got numbers from my wife which I
still think were intended to give a false impression. She was clearly
misled by what she read. Without knowing how many were exposed it's
very ill defined. 4995 of the test people may have been retired and
banged up in their homes for all I know.

The 109 may have worked on covid wards. Unlikely I'll grant you but
without an idea of the exposure of the people.....

Bob.

On 15:28 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <v252pgdnk7fatehc9pja6e7s3h1n8ck9td@4ax.com>,
> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Let me remind you what you wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:32:41
>> +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
>> <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> === end of quote from 11 Nov ===
>>
>> You did not say that the item quoting 5 in 5000 told you very
>> little. You said "Trying to make you think this meant 99.9%
>> protection". You then went on to assert that this was propaganda.
>> You do not say who you think is behind that propaganda but the
>> implication is that it is the companies who manufacture the
>> vaccine.
>
> Yes, and to be honest it still looks like the information was
> intended to mislead people who took it at face value. I think the 5
> in 5000 us told almost nothing except it doesn't guarantee your
> protection. The reason being we have no idea how many of the 5000
> were exposed to the virus.

I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite the
fact no one else was misled by reading the source.

There's some peculiar logic going on there.

Why not accept responsibility for your own mistakes?

In article <XnsADE2BDAD65A2F37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15:28 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> > In article <v252pgdnk7fatehc9pja6e7s3h1n8ck9td@4ax.com>,
> > Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
> protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite
> the fact no one else was misled by reading the source.

> There's some peculiar logic going on there.

If 5 people in 5000 got the virus it is reasonable to assume that
4995 did not. 4995/5000 X 100 = 99.9%.

So from two figures alone 99.9% of the 5000 didn't get it. Depending
how it was presented I think many people would falsely assume that
meant 99.9 % protection and I think that was intended by news media
outlets.

I simply pointed out that that wasn't true and that some people had
been economical with the truth.

Bob.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 15:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
<598b4e46c6bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

>In article <v252pgdnk7fatehc9pja6e7s3h1n8ck9td@4ax.com>,
> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 11:19:15 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
>> <598b37700ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:
>
>> >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!
>
>> Let me remind you what you wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:32:41 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
>> <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:
>
>> >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.
>
>> === end of quote from 11 Nov ===
>
>> You did not say that the item quoting 5 in 5000 told you very
>> little. You said "Trying to make you think this meant 99.9%
>> protection". You then went on to assert that this was propaganda.
>> You do not say who you think is behind that propaganda but the
>> implication is that it is the companies who manufacture the vaccine.
>
>Yes, and to be honest it still looks like the information was
>intended to mislead people who took it at face value. I think the 5
>in 5000 us told almost nothing except it doesn't guarantee your
>protection. The reason being we have no idea how many of the 5000
>were exposed to the virus.

This is a problem with the source you used, not with the Pfizer press
release. A link to the press release has already been given in this
thread (more than once IIRC) but here it is again.

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

There is a description of how the trial was conducted: more than 10,000
people randomized 1:1 into booster and placebo groups. 5 infected in the
booster group, 109 in the placebo group: relative vaccine efficacy of
95.6% (95% CI: 89.3, 98.6).

>
>
>> >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.
>
>> If you know roughly when she found the article you should be able
>> to find it in her browser history.
>
>That is true but in all honesty it never crossed my mind as I can't
>remember the last time I used browser history and Judi never does,
>I'm pretty sure she doesn't know how.

It is something worth learning, especially if you intend to use things
you find on the web as the basis for an argument.

>
>> >In order to show I was not lying I posted a link to the Sun
>> >article.
>
>> The Sun reported both the 5 in 5000 who had the booster and the 109
>> in 5000 who did not with the 109 coming first. The two together
>> tell you a lot more than either on its own.
>
>Possibly, I can see why you think that. Is this the same 5000 or a
>different 5000?

Read the article in The Sun: "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."

It is clear from that that there were two groups. It is a poor
description of the trial compared to the Pfizer press release but it
will do.

>
>> Now that I have a better idea what to seach for I can find plenty
>> of reports that mention both n in 5000 figures or report the 10,000
>> but I have not found any that report only the 5 in 5000 who had a
>> booster.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>> You claimed that the numbers were propaganda having quoted only
>> half the trial result whether because you chose a poor quality
>> source or selectively quoted from a source that had both numbers.
>
>> Asserting that results from a trial are propaganda based on a
>> partial quote is claiming that the vaccine is less effective than
>> the manufacturers suggest.
>
>I've not seen the trial, I just got numbers from my wife which I
>still think were intended to give a false impression. She was clearly
>misled by what she read. Without knowing how many were exposed it's
>very ill defined. 4995 of the test people may have been retired and
>banged up in their homes for all I know.
>
>The 109 may have worked on covid wards. Unlikely I'll grant you but
>without an idea of the exposure of the people.....

See the Pfizer press release linked above. It does not have as much
detail as they will present to FDA or for peer-reviewed publication but
it does say this: "Median age of participants was 53 years, with 55.5%
of participants between 16 and 55 years, and 23.3% of participants 65
years and older. Multiple subgroup analyses showed efficacy was
consistent irrespective of age, sex, race, ethnicity, or comorbid
conditions."

If the only numbers you found were the 5 in 5000 for the booster group
in the trial then you have a problem in finding good quality sources of
information. I have not yet found a source that has only that number for
the trial. All those that I found that mention 5000 mention both groups
in a way that makes it clear that they are separate groups in the trial.

In article <eim2pghqt3uqv57nm17nbb9ph0c1mgoe3m@4ax.com>,
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 15:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in

> >Yes, and to be honest it still looks like the information was
> >intended to mislead people who took it at face value. I think the 5
> >in 5000 us told almost nothing except it doesn't guarantee your
> >protection. The reason being we have no idea how many of the 5000
> >were exposed to the virus.

> This is a problem with the source you used,

Yes, though I don't know what the original was. My wife wasn't doing
a research item, she came back from the vaccination wanting to know
how good the jab was she's just had. Seems understandable to me. She
probably read the first thing that came up.

> not with the Pfizer press release.

I've not said anything about the Pfizer press release !! I didn't
know there was one until you lot banged on about it.

> A link to the press release has already been given
> in this thread (more than once IIRC) but here it is again.

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

> There is a description of how the trial was conducted: more than
> 10,000 people randomized 1:1 into booster and placebo groups. 5
> infected in the booster group, 109 in the placebo group: relative
> vaccine efficacy of 95.6% (95% CI: 89.3, 98.6).

I'm glad for us all that it looks effective. I'm not happy with what
my wife read on Wednesday night.

Bob.

In article <smr3po$bja$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> > 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?

Well, it is wrong. I've never argued to 'defund the police'. And CC
certainly isn't a religion or cult. Bob likes to dismiss a book on that
which he's refused to read as a 'Bible'. But since he refuses to read
it.... that tells you more about him than about the book.

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 19:08 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADE2BDAD65A2F37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15:28 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>> > In article <v252pgdnk7fatehc9pja6e7s3h1n8ck9td@4ax.com>,
>> > Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
>> protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite
>> the fact no one else was misled by reading the source.
>
>> There's some peculiar logic going on there.
>
> If 5 people in 5000 got the virus it is reasonable to assume that
> 4995 did not. 4995/5000 X 100 = 99.9%.
>
> So from two figures alone 99.9% of the 5000 didn't get it. Depending
> how it was presented I think many people would falsely assume that
> meant 99.9 % protection and I think that was intended by news media
> outlets.
>
> I simply pointed out that that wasn't true and that some people had
> been economical with the truth.
>
> Bob.

It's not so much your calculation that's the issue but your claim that
you were hoodwinked into thinking it.

You clipped out my quotation showing what you originally said. Here it
is:

"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"

You're fussing over something which never happened. The data about how
many participants in each group were affected is given the link Owen
posted to the FDA site.

In article <XnsADE2BDAD65A2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
> protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite the
> fact no one else was misled by reading the source.

TBH what I find strangest is that anyone should believe anything they read
in The Sun! ...Perhaps with the exception of the cover date which you can
easily check.

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 <598bb3d4ccnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <XnsADE2BDAD65A2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
> > protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite the
> > fact no one else was misled by reading the source.

> TBH what I find strangest is that anyone should believe anything they read
> in The Sun! ...Perhaps with the exception of the cover date which you can
> easily check.

> Jim

aren't the Page 3 girls real?

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

On 15/11/2021 15:14, charles wrote:
>
> In article <598bb3d4ccnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> TBH what I find strangest is that anyone should believe anything they read
>> in The Sun! ...Perhaps with the exception of the cover date which you can
>> easily check.
>
> aren't the Page 3 girls real?

I think that depends on *exactly* what you mean by 'real', and beyond
that whether you mean 100%!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 19:08:19 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in
<598b62620cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>:

>In article <XnsADE2BDAD65A2F37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15:28 14 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>> > In article <v252pgdnk7fatehc9pja6e7s3h1n8ck9td@4ax.com>,
>> > Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
>> protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite
>> the fact no one else was misled by reading the source.
>
>> There's some peculiar logic going on there.
>
>If 5 people in 5000 got the virus it is reasonable to assume that
>4995 did not. 4995/5000 X 100 = 99.9%.
>
>So from two figures alone 99.9% of the 5000 didn't get it. Depending
>how it was presented I think many people would falsely assume that
>meant 99.9 % protection and I think that was intended by news media
>outlets.
>
>I simply pointed out that that wasn't true and that some people had
>been economical with the truth.

Who do you mean by "some people" there?

The post where this topic was introduced seemed to me to be pointing the
finger at vaccine manufacturers and accusing them of propaganda.

So far no example of any source that quoted only one half of the trial
has been produced. Several sources have been found that give the figures
for both halves of the trial with varying degrees of accuracy and in
some cases with sensationalist and misleading headlines and opening
paragraphs, but a reasonable approximation of the results is in the
articles if you bother to read them.

In message <598bd0c891charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
>In article <598bb3d4ccnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <XnsADE2BDAD65A2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I find it strange that you infer something incorrectly ("99.8%
>> > protection") and then blame the source for misleading you, despite the
>> > fact no one else was misled by reading the source.
>
>> TBH what I find strangest is that anyone should believe anything they read
>> in The Sun! ...Perhaps with the exception of the cover date which you can
>> easily check.
>
>> Jim
>
>aren't the Page 3 girls real?
>

Aren't they 10 or more years in the past now? (I can't be sure, as I've
never read a copy, but I thought I'd read that they'd been phased out..)
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 10:40 10 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> 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.

I'd like to hear that. Do you have the date of broadcast or a name?

> 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

In article <nj35pgl6vq7no8oo86fibl162obiije8c5@4ax.com>,
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Who do you mean by "some people" there?

> The post where this topic was introduced seemed to me to be
> pointing the finger at vaccine manufacturers and accusing them of
> propaganda.

That's entirely in your mind, I didn't mention them.

It's the media that has form for deception and propaganda.

But knock yourself out, I'm sure you've not finished yet making
something out of nothing.

Bob.

On 15/11/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
> On 10:40 10 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'd like to hear that. Do you have the date of broadcast or a name?

The Life Scientific
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7

Particular episode:
Sharon Peacock on hunting pandemic variants of concern
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011498

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/11/2021 18:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> And CC
> certainly isn't a religion or cult.

In principle it certainly isn't. But unfortunately it's become just that
to a vociferous minority.

Bill

On 16/11/2021 01:12, williamwright wrote:
>
> On 14/11/2021 18:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>   And CC
>> certainly isn't a religion or cult.
>
> In principle it certainly isn't. But unfortunately it's become just that
> to a vociferous minority.

.... of climate deniers.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <598bd0c891charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > TBH what I find strangest is that anyone should believe anything they
> > read in The Sun! ...Perhaps with the exception of the cover date which
> > you can easily check.

> > Jim

> aren't the Page 3 girls real?

No idea. Don't ever see or read The Sun.

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 <smufek$2r3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
> > On 10:40 10 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
> >
> >> In article <smeddg$r14$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> >> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I'd like to hear that. Do you have the date of broadcast or a name?

> The Life Scientific https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7

> Particular episode: Sharon Peacock on hunting pandemic variants of
> concern https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011498

Yes, I think that was the one, although I'd have to listen again to be
sure.

FWIW I regard 'Life Scientific', 'Inside Science', and 'More or Less' as
excellent sources of information about science. Recommend all of them for
those who actually want to learn and understand. 'Rutherford and Fry'
is also good if you're happy with the way it's presented.

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 <ivgesqFp97sU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 18:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > And CC certainly isn't a religion or cult.

> In principle it certainly isn't. But unfortunately it's become just that
> to a vociferous minority.

It may look like that to a bored old fart who'll be dead by the time the
serious damage we've set in motion comes to pass. But the young will be the
ones whose lives will be badly affected. So I find it understandable that
they are rather pissed-off with the 'old' politicians and those who've
grown rich and comfy/powerful from causing the damage.

They are 'vociferous' because they've been finding that those in power keep
ignoring them and failing to make the changes needed to limit the harm
we've been dumping onto their lives. They get greenwash rather than
changes.

I wish this were a game. But it's not! It is literally deadly serious for
many billions of people. Wishful delusions and debating tricks won't alter
that a jot.

And the science and evidence for the overall effects are now quite clear.
The main variable now is re what we actually do over the next decade or two
to either minimise the impact - or not.

Personally, I feel the young have ever reason to be angry with the old -
particularly those who deny, delay, show wilful ignorance, etc, in the face
of what the science shows clearly for those who have a clue and are
prepared to listen and understand rather than play games or shove their
head in the sand.

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 16/11/2021 11:03, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> In article <ivgesqFp97sU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/11/2021 18:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>> And CC certainly isn't a religion or cult.
>
>> In principle it certainly isn't. But unfortunately it's become just that
>> to a vociferous minority.
>
> It may look like that to a bored

.... not to mention boring ...

> old fart who'll be dead by the time the
> serious damage we've set in motion comes to pass. But the young will be the
> ones whose lives will be badly affected. So I find it understandable that
> they are rather pissed-off with the 'old' politicians and those who've
> grown rich and comfy/powerful from causing the damage.
>
> They are 'vociferous' because they've been finding that those in power keep
> ignoring them and failing to make the changes needed to limit the harm
> we've been dumping onto their lives. They get greenwash rather than
> changes.
>
> I wish this were a game. But it's not! It is literally deadly serious for
> many billions of people. Wishful delusions and debating tricks won't alter
> that a jot.
>
> And the science and evidence for the overall effects are now quite clear.
> The main variable now is re what we actually do over the next decade or two
> to either minimise the impact - or not.
>
> Personally, I feel the young have ever reason to be angry with the old -
> particularly those who deny, delay, show wilful ignorance, etc, in the face
> of what the science shows clearly for those who have a clue and are
> prepared to listen and understand rather than play games or shove their
> head in the sand.

+1 to all that.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:50:53 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <smufek$2r3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
>> > On 10:40 10 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
>> >
>> >> In article <smeddg$r14$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
>> >> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I'd like to hear that. Do you have the date of broadcast or a name?
>
>> The Life Scientific https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7
>
>> Particular episode: Sharon Peacock on hunting pandemic variants of
>> concern https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0011498
>
> Yes, I think that was the one, although I'd have to listen again to be
> sure.
>
> FWIW I regard 'Life Scientific', 'Inside Science', and 'More or Less' as
> excellent sources of information about science. Recommend all of them
> for those who actually want to learn and understand. 'Rutherford and
> Fry'
> is also good if you're happy with the way it's presented.
>
> Jim

I don't know why, but Jacob Bronovsky used to irritate me.

In message <sn633j$6i8$1@dont-email.me>, Sysadmin <jon@home.net> writes
>I don't know why, but Jacob Bronovsky used to irritate me.

Really? I still have fond memories of his 1970s (?) series "The Ascent
of Man", which for me remains head and shoulders above any programmes
about the history of science that we've had on TV since.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)