Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <rpnpog9f8aur4ikrvf69qk83vompt7e494@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What we do appear to know is that covid isn<t currently mutating into
>>> anything really bad, and by now it has had many billions of chances.
>
> Depends a bit on your cut-off for "really bad". And from the POV of the
> virus the selection is for infection and replication capability, not for
> host mortality. However the variations are in essence randomised natural
> selection, not planned by the virus.
>
> And not all variants for all populations are equally 'good' or 'bad' in
> terms of impact.
>
>
>>> We also know that flu does mutate fairly quickly, but again it never
>>> seems to turn into something really terrible.
>
> Omission of tense there. You mean "doesn't seem *as yet* to have turned
> into..." And virologists, etc, keep pointing out that covid is NOT flu.
>
> Humans and flu have been dancing for many decades. Occasionally, a new flu
> turns out to be particularly nasty, but since infectability and propagation
> is the main outcome of natural selection, the process favours variations
> that *don't* promptly kill the host. Once dead they can't walk about
> infecting others.
>
> We've only danced with covid for a few years as yet. It now has a chance to
> randomly try variations whilst out 'learned' range of ID-and-resist for it
> is much more limited than for flu. It *and us* have a lot to learn about
> each other and how to cope.
>
> Hence the flu analogy is a poor one. People really should listen to the
> programme I suggested. The higher the infection rates we have, the faster
> we may have to run to prepare for 'very bad' new variant's as natural
> selection drives covid to find ways around our current vaccination
> protection.
>
>>> The insanity must end.
>
> True. That's why people need to understand the science, not the wishful
> thinking.
>
> Jim
>

You miss my point. I’m not equating covid with flu, simply pointing out
that a rapidly mutating virus like flu hasn’t since WW1 mutated into
something really bad.

Covid hasn’t yet mutated into something worse (for humans) than the delta
variant, and the dice has been shaken many billions of times so far.
Perhaps it might, but perhaps not.

But where does that leave us? Having all your vaccines is about the best
you can do. The only other mitigation that is effective is a lock down,
which I don’t think anyone is prepared to do on the basis of something that
*might* happen. Sure, if a vaccine evading mutation turns up we might have
to rethink, so community surveillance is a good thing to do.

Neither mask wearing nor social distancing are going to eradicate the virus
- they are only helpful in reducing the rate of infection and aren’t long
term solutions.

So at the moment I’m awaiting my booster vaccination. Pending that I’m
wearing an FFP3 mask when out shopping etc, simply because it seems a bit
daft risking catching the virus just before the booster. 2 weeks after my
booster I will go back to a relatively normal life until I’m informed that
something materially bad has occurred that needs me to rethink. I see no
alternative.

On 11/11/2021 09:32, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> I've also realised one other possible reason why the left and media
> (same thing) don't wish for this to be linked to the Wuhan lab. The
> narrative and propaganda already coming out of the UN and WHO is that
> they cannot give us good health unless we control - you guessed it -
> climate change. So it looks like they wish to swing the opinion to
> CV19 being the result of climate change which would be very much
> harder if it came from the lab.

Bullshit left in for others to laugh at.

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

I am laughing at right now, but also ridiculing, your absurd paranoid
attempts to turn everything that you disagree with into a mega
international conspiracy.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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

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

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

Yes. And since people can be infected, but show no symptoms, yet then
infect someone else, we can expect there to be a level of 'hidden'
infection occurring. You can probably get a handle on this via stats of
what we do observe, but it is a difficulty. In essence it implies there
tends to be more infections than the figures show. Hard to say if it is
ultimately significant as that depends on, say, it giving rise to a new
variant of serious concern.

The evidence does indicate that the jags *reduce* the rates of infection,
etc, quite a lot. But not to zero, and the precise values may be hard to
establish - particularly given many variants, etc. For the virus the jags
are just another set of hurdles it will naturally select to deal with. So a
jag that worked well at one time may not later on.

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 <smisvb$bdt$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 10:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > The higher the infection rates we have, the faster we may have to run
> > to prepare for 'very bad' new variant's as natural selection drives
> > covid to find ways around our current vaccination protection.

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

Agreed. But the virus has no game plan or intent. It simply succeeds by
replications, feeding off its hosts, and spreading. Mutations and
variations that succeed aid that process.

So any road that *may eventually* lead to the above state can be a hard one
for the unlucky hosts. May also take many years. Its a random walk. And
even a virus that reaches that state may then spawn a more dangerous
variant. The virus has no ultimate aim in mind.

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 <bb2qoghuj0cjn28b66u4ite5puor7o4gvu@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:

> More Or Less is worth listening to too.

Emphatically endorsed! I just wish they had the full 30min issue *every*
week. There are the short regular issues on BBCWS, though.

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 <smj3i8$og7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> But where does that leave us? Having all your vaccines is about the best
> you can do. The only other mitigation that is effective is a lock down,
> which I don't think anyone is prepared to do on the basis of something
> that *might* happen. Sure, if a vaccine evading mutation turns up we
> might have to rethink, so community surveillance is a good thing to do.

Thats far too binary a view. Any measure that reduces infection rates can
help. In particular: if they combine and can keep 'R' below unity then the
case rate - and also chances of mutations of serious concern - reduce. This
is a long war, not a short battle.

AND by keeping rates down you help the NHS to recover and deal with all the
other problems with people waiting for ambulances, treatments, diagnosis,
etc.

Since the jag does NOT fully prevent infections employing other measures
helps by getting a lower R value and this helps us all.

Shame that many politicians fail to understand this. ...Maybe they've
never been a gardener and encountered Ground Elder! 8-]

Jim

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

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <smj3i8$og7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But where does that leave us? Having all your vaccines is about the best
>> you can do. The only other mitigation that is effective is a lock down,
>> which I don't think anyone is prepared to do on the basis of something
>> that *might* happen. Sure, if a vaccine evading mutation turns up we
>> might have to rethink, so community surveillance is a good thing to do.
>
> Thats far too binary a view. Any measure that reduces infection rates can
> help. In particular: if they combine and can keep 'R' below unity then the
> case rate - and also chances of mutations of serious concern - reduce. This
> is a long war, not a short battle.
>
Not really, as with global warming we are at the mercy of the rest of the
planet. The delta variant didn’t start in the UK.

In article <5989aae74bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5989a6251ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

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

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

> Yes. And since people can be infected, but show no symptoms, yet
> then infect someone else, we can expect there to be a level of
> 'hidden' infection occurring.

Oh dear I'm going to be in trouble again. :-)

Based on my take of what none agenda experts say..

There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
cough.

Personally I think there are probably a few people who are briefly
pre-symptomatic, ie. they are infected but they have no symptoms yet.
Again from what i've read, I think during this stage unless you're
engaged in playing tonsil-tennis or similar, transmission is
*unlikely*.

I think that a far larger number of so called asymptomatics are
people who have been the victim of too much sensitivity in the PCR
tests or contamination in makeshift labs . Material has been found
from somewhere but maybe not even the two complete elements the test
requires and not enough material for the person to be infected. There
is a reason for recommending 25 cycles maximum and a reason why our
government does far more ie. over 40.

All serious indications I've seen to date put asymptomatic
transmission as insignificant in covid's spread. Maybe for the right
reasons, maybe not but propaganda has been used here to seriously
exaggerate this. It plays a crucial role in the argument to lock up
healthy people in lockdown or restrict their lives.

Call be cynical by all means, life's teachings.

> The evidence does indicate that the jags *reduce* the rates of
> infection, etc, quite a lot.

Yes, I *think* that is the case. After the coming winter we should
have a clearer picture on this compared to last year. Fingers crossed.

> But not to zero, and the precise values may be hard to establish -
> particularly given many variants, etc. For the virus the jags are
> just another set of hurdles it will naturally select to deal with.
> So a jag that worked well at one time may not later on.

I don't have a formed opinion on that, just questions I don't have
answers to.

Bob.

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

>In article <59894bf90echarles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> As someone who has now had 3 jabs and caught Covid, I'm very
>> grateful for the jabs, I'm still alive and not suffering
>> particularly badly.
>
>My wife and I got our 3rd or booster jab yesterday afternoon. We had
>Comirnaty which I think is made by Pfizer. So far, unlike the
>Astra-zenica no obvious side effects.

It is trivially easy to find sources (UK MHRA, EU EMA, USA FDA) that say
that Comirnaty is the name of the vaccine developed by BioNTech and
manufactured by BioNTech and Pfizer, the one more commonly referred to
as "the Pfizer vaccine".

When I had my booster yesterday (not the same as third dose of a primary
course), I was given a leaflet that very clearly and plainly names
Comirnaty and says the Marketing Authorization Holder is BioNTech and
the Manufacturers are BioNTech and Pfizer. The leaflet is "Pfleet no:
2021-0069403" and the one I was given was the first five pages of:

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/files/pil.12740.pdf?view=pil

>
>My wife googled the vaccine and it said it was remarkably good at
>preventing you getting the virus. It claimed that of 5000 people who
>were given the jab in the trial only 5 ever developed CV19. Trying to
>make you think this meant 99.9% protection. Of course, in reality
>this is meaningless because only 5 people may have been exposed to
>the virus in the test period. I certainly don't believe they exposed
>all 5000 people to the virus. So entirely propaganda.

I use DuckDuckGo rather than Google and a search for Comirnaty gives all
sorts of results from all sorts of people but the top results are
fda.gov, gov.uk and ema.europa.eu. There was no obvious link to a source
for the 5000 people claim so without a specific reference to a source
for the 5000 jabbed and 5 infected report we cannot evaluate the quality
of the source or whether or not they have anything to do with BioNTech,
Pfizer or any of the various regulatory agencies.

I also tried Google and once again the top results were the regulatory
agencies. There was a link to Pfizer (seventh - fourth of the More
results) but that is prescribing information for US physicians. It has a
clinical studies section but the number 5000 does not appear in it. That
clinical studies section describes a study of 36,621 participants.
18,242 given the vaccine of whom 8 became infected, 18,379 given a
placebo of whom 162 became infected. Their efficacy figure is given as
95.0% (95% credible interval: 90.3, 97.6).

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

In the absence of a source for the claim that the media are saying that
Covid-19 was caused by climate change I am inclined to assess the
argument that follows as having little credibility.

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

To which lunatics do you refer? Is this 'the left', 'the media' (which I
do not consider to be the same as 'the left'), big pharma, government,
random people posting on the internet?

In article <5989ca3438bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5989aae74bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <5989a6251ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> > <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

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

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

> > Yes. And since people can be infected, but show no symptoms, yet
> > then infect someone else, we can expect there to be a level of
> > 'hidden' infection occurring.

> Oh dear I'm going to be in trouble again. :-)

> Based on my take of what none agenda experts say..

> There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
> cough.

> Personally I think there are probably a few people who are briefly
> pre-symptomatic, ie. they are infected but they have no symptoms yet.
> Again from what i've read, I think during this stage unless you're
> engaged in playing tonsil-tennis or similar, transmission is
> *unlikely*.

I read that phase as the most infectious phase.

> I think that a far larger number of so called asymptomatics are
> people who have been the victim of too much sensitivity in the PCR
> tests or contamination in makeshift labs .

I first did a lateral flow test and then a PCR test - both showed Positive

> Material has been found from somewhere but maybe not even the two
> complete elements the test requires and not enough material for the
> person to be infected. There is a reason for recommending 25 cycles
> maximum and a reason why our government does far more ie. over 40.

> All serious indications I've seen to date put asymptomatic
> transmission as insignificant in covid's spread. Maybe for the right
> reasons, maybe not but propaganda has been used here to seriously
> exaggerate this. It plays a crucial role in the argument to lock up
> healthy people in lockdown or restrict their lives.

> Call be cynical by all means, life's teachings.

> > The evidence does indicate that the jags *reduce* the rates of
> > infection, etc, quite a lot.

By the time I caught it, I'd had 3 jabs (or jags in Scotland), My personal
experience is that they reduce tehseverity of the disease. Same for SWMBO,
but she's got a cough - which I haven't

>

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

On 12:35 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsADDF7963E5E0B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10:16 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> > In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the
>> >> trial only 5 ever developed CV19.
>> >
>> > I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then the
>> > only concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't prevent you
>> > getting the virus.
>> >
>> > Bob.
>> >
>
>> Are you disputing the lab results stated by Pfizer that only 5 out
>> of 5000 developed Covid in their trial?
>
> No I'm not. I'm saying the statement is meaningless simply because
> it does not state how many people were exposed to the virus and it
> may well be that only 5 were.

I have never heard such nonsense. Have you read the trial protocol?
If so then how did Pfizer manage to absolutely prevent a single one of
4,995 participants from catching Covid while living in the community?

>> Pfizer hasn't claimed the Pfizer jab gives "99.9% protection". No
>> nummerical claim about protection is mentioned in their press
>> release:
>
> I didn't claim they had said that.
>
> But the article raises the 5 in 5000 figure clearly intending people
> to drawer the 99.9% protection conclusion when it offers no
> information at all about protection from infection except it isn't
> 100%. Very, very simple logic.

So let me get this right .... Pfizer never made a statement about the
degree of protection but you made am unwarranted inference about it

Then you blamed Pfizer for permitting yourself to draw that inference
(which went beyond what Pfizer actually said).

That requires a lot of dodgy logic about cause and effect.

On 11/11/2021 16:49, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <5989aae74bnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. And since people can be infected, but show no symptoms, yet
>> then infect someone else, we can expect there to be a level of
>> 'hidden' infection occurring.

> There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
> cough.

To attempt to expel an attacking agent. Of course the attacking agent
also uses that to get itself spread around, but the primary reason is
the human body trying to get rid of something unhealthy to it, not
manipulation by the attacking agent. However there are attack agent
that do manipulate the host in such a manner, rabies is an example, it
makes the host more aggressive, and therefore more likely to bite, and
thus help the disease spread itself.

> Personally I think there are probably a few people who are briefly
> pre-symptomatic, [dangerous disinformation snipped] restrict their lives.
TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED AGAIN!

More Or Less - Asymptomatic Covid-19 cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0py6

Findings of studies looking for truly asymptomatic carriers *throughout*
the course of their 'disease' range from 15% to 28%. The researcher
interviewed on the programme found 23%:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

"Now, evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will
experience no symptoms, and they will transmit the virus to
significantly fewer people than someone with symptoms. But researchers
are divided about whether asymptomatic infections are acting as a
‘silent driver’ of the pandemic."

Additionally, many people are pre-symptomatic:

Coronavirus: Majority testing positive have no symptoms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

"Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for National
Statistics."

> Call be cynical by all means, life's teachings.

No, I'll call you what you are, an ignorant, dishonest,
self-opinionated, politically-motivated troll.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <5989cdbb02charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <5989ca3438bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Oh dear I'm going to be in trouble again. :-)

> > Based on my take of what none agenda experts say..

> > There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
> > cough.

> > Personally I think there are probably a few people who are
> > briefly pre-symptomatic, ie. they are infected but they have no
> > symptoms yet. Again from what i've read, I think during this
> > stage unless you're engaged in playing tonsil-tennis or similar,
> > transmission is *unlikely*.

> I read that phase as the most infectious phase.

If that were the case then there is no need for any virus to make you
cough as there must be a more effective way to transmit.

> > I think that a far larger number of so called asymptomatics are
> > people who have been the victim of too much sensitivity in the
> > PCR tests or contamination in makeshift labs .

> I first did a lateral flow test and then a PCR test - both showed
> Positive

OK, are you saying you were asymptomatic and you gave it to your wife?

> > Material has been found from somewhere but maybe not even the two
> > complete elements the test requires and not enough material for
> > the person to be infected. There is a reason for recommending 25
> > cycles maximum and a reason why our government does far more ie.
> > over 40.

> > All serious indications I've seen to date put asymptomatic
> > transmission as insignificant in covid's spread. Maybe for the
> > right reasons, maybe not but propaganda has been used here to
> > seriously exaggerate this. It plays a crucial role in the
> > argument to lock up healthy people in lockdown or restrict their
> > lives.

> > Call be cynical by all means, life's teachings.

> > > The evidence does indicate that the jags *reduce* the rates of
> > > infection, etc, quite a lot.

> By the time I caught it, I'd had 3 jabs (or jags in Scotland)

Oh, I was puzzled by that, thanks. I thought a jag was a car.

> , My
> personal experience is that they reduce tehseverity of the disease.

Sounds reasonable to me.

> Same for SWMBO, but she's got a cough - which I haven't

As it happens, as more information comes to light I grow more
convinced that Judi and I had this late February 2020 at the end of
half term.

We were both ill and incapacitated really for 5 weeks. We both had
very dry tickly coughs, aching, headaches, fever, and loss of taste.
I also had the worst sore throat of my life but Judi didn't, she had
worse aching than me. I don't recall ever having a dry cough before
in my life.

I have cousin who is a GP and I asked her at the time if I might have
Covid and she said no but she only had the info available to her at
the time.

She said no because it was too early and my sore throat was probably
a sore throat virus going around at the time and it isn't a covid
symptom.

My cousin didn't know that the virus was in the public domain in Sept
2019 and people in the UK had it by christmas 2019, so I no longer
think it was too early.

She also said I probably had the sore throat virus but Judi didn't
have a sore throat and sore throat is now well on the symptoms list
50% apparently, which sits nicely. It was very, very sore. I tried
all available treatments but all had zero effect. What did work, all
be if briefly, was Heinz tomato soup which I found myself heating up
another tin twice during each night. Strange times.

Whatever it was, it wasn't fun and TBH, I'm glad I didn't think it
was covid at the time, scary.

I think I picked it up in the pub on Wednesday 19/2/2020 and got
symptoms by the following Saturday

Bob.

On 11/11/2021 19:53, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5989cdbb02charles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <5989ca3438bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
>>> cough.

As already explained, it's the body's natural defence mechanism to get
rid of something unwanted and potentially harmful. Note that food going
down the wrong way and dust in your nose can also make you sneeze.

>>> Personally I think there are probably a few people who are
>>> briefly pre-symptomatic, ie. they are infected but they have no
>>> symptoms yet. Again from what i've read, I think during this
>>> stage unless you're engaged in playing tonsil-tennis or similar,
>>> transmission is *unlikely*.
>>
>> I read that phase as the most infectious phase.
>
> If that were the case then there is no need for any virus to make you
> cough as there must be a more effective way to transmit.

They don't, it's the body's own defence mechanism.

>>> I think that a far larger number of so called asymptomatics are
>>> people who have been the victim of too much sensitivity in the
>>> PCR tests or contamination in makeshift labs .
>>
>> I first did a lateral flow test and then a PCR test - both showed
>> Positive
>
> OK, are you saying you were asymptomatic and you gave it to your wife?

It scarcely matters who infected who, the point is that he got the
disease but had no symptoms.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <5989dafe2cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5989cdbb02charles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <5989ca3438bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > > Oh dear I'm going to be in trouble again. :-)

> > > Based on my take of what none agenda experts say..

> > > There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
> > > cough.

> > > Personally I think there are probably a few people who are
> > > briefly pre-symptomatic, ie. they are infected but they have no
> > > symptoms yet. Again from what i've read, I think during this
> > > stage unless you're engaged in playing tonsil-tennis or similar,
> > > transmission is *unlikely*.

> > I read that phase as the most infectious phase.

> If that were the case then there is no need for any virus to make you
> cough as there must be a more effective way to transmit.

> > > I think that a far larger number of so called asymptomatics are
> > > people who have been the victim of too much sensitivity in the
> > > PCR tests or contamination in makeshift labs .

> > I first did a lateral flow test and then a PCR test - both showed
> > Positive

> OK, are you saying you were asymptomatic and you gave it to your wife?

Yes.

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

On 11/11/2021 19:53, Bob Latham wrote:
> She also said I probably had the sore throat virus but Judi didn't
> have a sore throat and sore throat is now well on the symptoms list
> 50% apparently, which sits nicely. It was very, very sore. I tried
> all available treatments but all had zero effect. What did work, all
> be if briefly, was Heinz tomato soup which I found myself heating up
> another tin twice during each night. Strange times.
>

The trouble with those symptoms are that they are very similar to how I
felt in 1976 (so far too early to be Covid). My doctor didn't know
exactly what it was - until afterwards. I spent 3 weeks just taking pain
killers and the only food I could get down my sore throat for most of
that time was a raw egg in a room temperature glass of milk.

After I was over it and had a doctor's appointment to sign me fit for
work again I had a blood test, and that showed that I had suffered from
Glandular Fever. It apparently leaves a trace of something
characteristic in the blood once the virus is killed off by the body's
immune system.

I am not saying you didn't have Covid, just that there are other things
that might have provided similar symptoms. That is the problem that
your cousin was faced with when you asked.

Jim

On 11/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 19:53, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <5989cdbb02charles@candehope.me.uk>,
>>     charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <5989ca3438bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>>>     Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is a reason why respiratory infections make you sneeze and
>>>> cough.
>
> As already explained, it's the body's natural defence mechanism to get
> rid of something unwanted and potentially harmful.  Note that food going
> down the wrong way

.... can make you cough ...

> and dust in your nose can also make you sneeze.
>
>>>> Personally I think there are probably a few people who are
>>>> briefly pre-symptomatic, ie. they are infected but they have no
>>>> symptoms yet. Again from what i've read, I think during this
>>>> stage unless you're engaged in playing tonsil-tennis or similar,
>>>> transmission is *unlikely*.
>>>
>>> I read that phase as the most infectious phase.
>>
>> If that were the case then there is no need for any virus to make you
>> cough as there must be a more effective way to transmit.
>
> They don't, it's the body's own defence mechanism.
>
>>>> I think that a far larger number of so called asymptomatics are
>>>> people who have been the victim of too much sensitivity in the
>>>> PCR tests or contamination in makeshift labs .
>>>
>>> I first did a lateral flow test and then a PCR test - both showed
>>> Positive
>>
>> OK, are you saying you were asymptomatic and you gave it to your wife?
>
> It scarcely matters who infected who, the point is that he got the
> disease but had no symptoms.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:37:50 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in
<XnsADDFB3596EC0B37B93@144.76.35.252>:

>On 12:35 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> In article <XnsADDF7963E5E0B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10:16 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>>
>>> > In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>>> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the
>>> >> trial only 5 ever developed CV19.
>>> >
>>> > I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then the
>>> > only concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't prevent you
>>> > getting the virus.
>>> >
>>> > Bob.
>>> >
>>
>>> Are you disputing the lab results stated by Pfizer that only 5 out
>>> of 5000 developed Covid in their trial?

I am. The 5000 number does not come from Pfizer or any other source I
have been able to find.

>>
>> No I'm not. I'm saying the statement is meaningless simply because
>> it does not state how many people were exposed to the virus and it
>> may well be that only 5 were.
>
>I have never heard such nonsense. Have you read the trial protocol?
>If so then how did Pfizer manage to absolutely prevent a single one of
>4,995 participants from catching Covid while living in the community?
>

The Pfizer presentation to FDA dated December 10 2020 is available
online: https://www.fda.gov/media/144325/download

See CC-41 in particular. In the trial 18,198 people received the vaccine
of whom 8 became infected more that 7 days after dose 2, 18,325 received
a placebo of whom 162 became infected more than 7 days after dose 2. The
figures broken down by age, sex, race, ethnicity and country are on that
page.

The following pages have breakdowns by other categories.

There is a lot more data in the rest of the presentation.

>>> Pfizer hasn't claimed the Pfizer jab gives "99.9% protection". No
>>> nummerical claim about protection is mentioned in their press
>>> release:
>>
>> I didn't claim they had said that.
>>
>> But the article raises the 5 in 5000 figure clearly intending people
>> to drawer the 99.9% protection conclusion when it offers no
>> information at all about protection from infection except it isn't
>> 100%. Very, very simple logic.

Which article? No source has been given.

>
>So let me get this right .... Pfizer never made a statement about the
>degree of protection but you made am unwarranted inference about it
>
>Then you blamed Pfizer for permitting yourself to draw that inference
>(which went beyond what Pfizer actually said).
>
>That requires a lot of dodgy logic about cause and effect.

The whole argument seems to be based on an unspecified article from an
unspecified source using numbers that are nothing like the numbers
produced by Pfizer from their clinical trials and presented to FDA.

They tend to be more open about publishing this sort of data in the USA
than in the UK but MHRA will also have examined the results of those
clinical trials as will EMA. Documents presented to them may be
available somewhere but I would expect them to be reporting the same
trials.

On 21:45 11 Nov 2021, Owen Rees said:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:37:50 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in
> <XnsADDFB3596EC0B37B93@144.76.35.252>:
>
>>On 12:35 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>>
>>> In article <XnsADDF7963E5E0B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10:16 11 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>>>
>>>> > In article <5989a22c89bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>>>> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> It claimed that of 5000 people who were given the jab in the
>>>> >> trial only 5 ever developed CV19.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've realised that logically, if you believe that claim then
>>>> > the only concrete fact in it is that the vaccine doesn't
>>>> > prevent you getting the virus.
>>>> >
>>>> > Bob.
>>>> >
>>>
>>>> Are you disputing the lab results stated by Pfizer that only 5
>>>> out of 5000 developed Covid in their trial?
>
> I am. The 5000 number does not come from Pfizer or any other source
> I have been able to find.

I am using Bob's figure of 5,000 from where he says:

"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."

>>> No I'm not. I'm saying the statement is meaningless simply because
>>> it does not state how many people were exposed to the virus and it
>>> may well be that only 5 were.
>>
>>I have never heard such nonsense. Have you read the trial protocol?
>>If so then how did Pfizer manage to absolutely prevent a single one
>>of 4,995 participants from catching Covid while living in the
>>community?
>>
>
> The Pfizer presentation to FDA dated December 10 2020 is available
> online: https://www.fda.gov/media/144325/download
>
> See CC-41 in particular. In the trial 18,198 people received the
> vaccine of whom 8 became infected more that 7 days after dose 2,
> 18,325 received a placebo of whom 162 became infected more than 7
> days after dose 2. The figures broken down by age, sex, race,
> ethnicity and country are on that page.
>
> The following pages have breakdowns by other categories.
>
> There is a lot more data in the rest of the presentation.

The closest Pfizer study to 5,000 participants I could find was the
recent 4,500 person study:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-a
nd-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results (September 2021)

>>>> Pfizer hasn't claimed the Pfizer jab gives "99.9% protection".
>>>> No nummerical claim about protection is mentioned in their press
>>>> release:
>>>
>>> I didn't claim they had said that.
>>>
>>> But the article raises the 5 in 5000 figure clearly intending
>>> people to drawe the 99.9% protection conclusion when it offers no
>>> information at all about protection from infection except it isn't
>>> 100%. Very, very simple logic.
>
> Which article? No source has been given.

Maybe Bob can answer that, as he didn't give a link to his source.

>>So let me get this right .... Pfizer never made a statement about
>>the degree of protection but you made am unwarranted inference about
>>it
>>
>>Then you blamed Pfizer for permitting yourself to draw that
>>inference (which went beyond what Pfizer actually said).
>>
>>That requires a lot of dodgy logic about cause and effect.
>
> The whole argument seems to be based on an unspecified article from
> an unspecified source using numbers that are nothing like the
> numbers produced by Pfizer from their clinical trials and presented
> to FDA.
>
> They tend to be more open about publishing this sort of data in the
> USA than in the UK but MHRA will also have examined the results of
> those clinical trials as will EMA. Documents presented to them may
> be available somewhere but I would expect them to be reporting the
> same trials.

Bob, if you are reading, can you kindly post a link to the Pfizer
study you're referring to?

On 21:27 11 Nov 2021, Indy Jess John said:

> On 11/11/2021 19:53, Bob Latham wrote:
>> She also said I probably had the sore throat virus but Judi didn't
>> have a sore throat and sore throat is now well on the symptoms list
>> 50% apparently, which sits nicely. It was very, very sore. I tried
>> all available treatments but all had zero effect. What did work,
>> all be if briefly, was Heinz tomato soup which I found myself
>> heating up another tin twice during each night. Strange times.
>>
>
> The trouble with those symptoms are that they are very similar to
> how I felt in 1976 (so far too early to be Covid). My doctor didn't
> know exactly what it was - until afterwards. I spent 3 weeks just
> taking pain killers and the only food I could get down my sore
> throat for most of that time was a raw egg in a room temperature
> glass of milk.
>
> After I was over it and had a doctor's appointment to sign me fit
> for work again I had a blood test, and that showed that I had
> suffered from Glandular Fever. It apparently leaves a trace of
> something characteristic in the blood once the virus is killed off
> by the body's immune system.
>
> I am not saying you didn't have Covid, just that there are other
> things that might have provided similar symptoms. That is the
> problem that your cousin was faced with when you asked.
>
> Jim

This week a spokesman for the ZOE study said they found the most
common symptoms of Covid are different to those the government says to
look out for.

It seems the types of symptom have shifted from the earlier days. He
advised an interviewer that government advice was badly in need of
updating as it is misleading.

In article <smjdrj$3a9$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Thats far too binary a view. Any measure that reduces infection rates
> > can help. In particular: if they combine and can keep 'R' below unity
> > then the case rate - and also chances of mutations of serious concern
> > - reduce. This is a long war, not a short battle.
> >
> Not really, as with global warming we are at the mercy of the rest of
> the planet. The delta variant didn't start in the UK.

For the UK it may not matter where a variant arises if the jags + other
measures can still maintain in the UK an 'R' below unity when it comes
here. Obviously desirably to expand that ability across the globe, though.
i.e. it helps us to help others.

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 <5989dafe2cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Oh, I was puzzled by that, thanks. I thought a jag was a car.

I've had three jags for covid. But only ever had one car (briefly). And
that certainly wasn't a 'jag'. It was more like a 'lemon'. :-)

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 Thu, 11 Nov 2021 23:50:48 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in
<XnsADDFF294DB75337B93@144.76.35.252>:

>I am using Bob's figure of 5,000 from where he says:
>
> "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."

I have no confidence in Bob's ability to find reliable sources and
report what they say accurately. I always prefer to go to the source
documents if I can.

>The closest Pfizer study to 5,000 participants I could find was the
>recent 4,500 person study:
>
>https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-a
>nd-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results (September 2021)

"The Phase 1/2/3 trial initially enrolled up to 4,500 children ages 6
months to 11 years of age in the United States, Finland, Poland, and
Spain from more than 90 clinical trial sites."

The press release says that the study measured the antibody response of
the participants - I saw nothing about any participants becoming ill
with Covid-19.

Although the number is fairly close, this study does not match Bob's
example in other respects.

We shall have to wait and see if he can produce a link to his source, or
some other citation that can be followed to determine who said what.

On 15:24 12 Nov 2021, Owen Rees said:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 23:50:48 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in
> <XnsADDFF294DB75337B93@144.76.35.252>:
>
>>I am using Bob's figure of 5,000 from where he says:
>>
>> "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."
>
> I have no confidence in Bob's ability to find reliable sources and
> report what they say accurately. I always prefer to go to the source
> documents if I can.
>
>>The closest Pfizer study to 5,000 participants I could find was the
>>recent 4,500 person study:
>>
>>https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-
>>detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results
>>(September 2021)
>
> "The Phase 1/2/3 trial initially enrolled up to 4,500 children ages
> 6 months to 11 years of age in the United States, Finland, Poland,
> and Spain from more than 90 clinical trial sites."
>
> The press release says that the study measured the antibody response
> of the participants - I saw nothing about any participants becoming
> ill with Covid-19.
>
> Although the number is fairly close, this study does not match Bob's
> example in other respects.
>
> We shall have to wait and see if he can produce a link to his
> source, or some other citation that can be followed to determine who
> said what.

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.

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/

Bob.