On 15:24 10 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <59a8a11103charles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>> In article <59a8973345bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>,
>> > Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others,
>> > > while andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other
>> > > innocent people by passing on their infection.
>
>> > Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
>> > seems likely it makes it more likely.
>
>> Where ever did you dig up that second idea? All the published
>> statistics show a significant reduction in cases after vaccination
>> started
>
> I got the idea from UK doctors who pointed out on graphs that higher
> infection rates follow vaccination waves and not only in this
> country. Apparently this is very noticeable in the 28 days following
> vaccination and it is even thought to involved in our higher summer
> peak than the rest of europe and our lower surge this autumn as
> europe was behind us on vaccination. After the 28 days, infections
> drop back to normal or so they say.

Don't worry Bob it's probably another misunderstanding by your sources.

If you post a link to the data, someone can help you read it correctly.

On 10/01/2022 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
> irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing,
> mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy
> road while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary
> care they incur and should also permit other more responsible people
> to get treatment before them.

You still don't get it.

On a skiing trip in France, I went a little off piste, up-ended myself
and the small of my back came down on a rock, with substantial pain as a
result. I was taken by resort jetski to the local clinic, where I was
x-rayed revealing a fractured sternum. There was no real treatment for
that, so they prescribed me some pain-killers, swiped my CC, and that
was that. It cost a bit, but I was very well treated by a doctor with
good English, and I have no complaints about being charged at all. It
was, after all, my choice to indulge in a thrilling but occasionally
dangerous sport.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23:29 9 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 08/12/2021 13:12, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Here is an interesting publication:
>> h t t p s : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i
>> c a t i o n / 3 5 6 7 5 6 7 1 1 _ L a t e s t _ s t a t i s t i c s
>> _ o n _ E n g l a n d _ m o r t a l i t y _ d a t a _ s u g g e s t
>> _ s y s t e m a t i c _ m i s - c a t e g o r i s a t i o n _ o f _
>> v a c c i n e _ s t a t u s _ a n d _ u n c e r t a i n _ e f f e c
>> t i v e n e s s _ o f _ C o v i d - 1 9 _ v a c c i n a t i o n
>
> The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:
>
> Martin Neil
> Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL � School of Electronic
> Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD
>
> Not an epidemiologist.
>
> Norman Elliott Fenton
> Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL � School of Electronic
> Engineering and Computer Science
> PhD Mathematics (Sheffield University)
>
> Not an epidemiologist.
>
> Scott Mclachlan
> Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL � School of Electronic
> Engineering and Computer Science
> PDRA in Computer and Information Science: Research Fellow in Law
>
> Not an epidemiologist.
>
> Joshua Guetzkow
> Hebrew University of Jerusalem | HUJI � Department of Sociology and
> Anthropology and Institute of Criminology
> Doctor of Philosophy
>
> Not an epidemiologist.
>
> Joel Smalley's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is a blank
> page, because he's best known as a lockdown denialist on Shitter ...
>
> h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / r e a l j o e l s m a l l e
> y
>
> ... whose profile when last looked up used loaded terminology like
> ...
>
> "More important things to do than argue the toss with bedwetters"
>
> ... so clearly a very biased source, and this is born out by the
> fact that he appears to be the same faker who as early as April 2020
> was trying to claim that Democratic-run states were having worse
> outcomes than Republican-run states, but reading the article shows
> so many hidden but bigoted assumptions that his so-called 'study'
> was clearly worthless and irresponsible politicking about the
> catastrophe that was already beginning to unfold in the US, and has
> only got many times worse since then.
>
> Dr Clare Craig's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is also a
> blank page, because she's best known as a lockdown denialist who
> seems to spend more time on Shitter than someone with a full-time
> job should be able, and who is already famous in this ng as having
> had at one time five provable errors in the first page of her
> Shitter feed.
>
> So, of the authors we can identify, we have a bunch of non-experts
> in epidemiology, all known to have a right-wing bias, and therefore
> should be suspicious from the outset, but how much credence should
> be given them can only be determined by looking at the paper itself.
> Here is its abstract:
>
> "The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately
> measured by an all-cause mortality rate comparison of vaccinated
> against unvaccinated, since it not only avoids most confounders
> relating to case definition but also fulfils the WHO/CDC definition
> of �vaccine effectiveness� for mortality. We examine the latest UK
> ONS vaccine mortality surveillance report which provides the
> necessary information to monitor this crucial comparison over time.
> At first glance the ONS data suggest that, in each of the older age
> groups, all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated than the
> unvaccinated. Despite this apparent evidence to support vaccine
> effectiveness - at least for the older age groups - on closer
> inspection of this data, this conclusion is cast into doubt because
> of a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data.
> Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that
> it is both unreliable and misleading. While socio-demographical and
> behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated have
> been proposed as possible explanations, there is no evidence to
> support any of these. By Occam�s razor we believe the most likely
> explanations are systemic miscategorisation of deaths between the
> different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated; delayed or
> non-reporting of vaccinations; systemic underestimation of the
> proportion of unvaccinated; and/or incorrect population selection
> for Covid deaths."
>
> This starts off well enough, by which I mean free from
> value-judgement, except perhaps the word 'arguably' in the first
> sentence, but then they draw upon the WHO to justify that, so we'll
> buy it. The real trouble begins with "Whatever the explanations for
> the observed data [...]" adn goes right to the end, all of which is
> the authors' own value judgements completely unsupported by any
> evidence whatsoever.
>
>> and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
>> hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM):
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = J x k b 2 y h d L i A
>
> 02:05 Interviewer: "You're saying that the vaccines, the
> evidence is indicating a spike in all-cause mortality after
> vaccination?"
>
> Fenton: "Yeah, it occurs shortly after the initial big rollout of
> the vaccination in each of the different age groups. It's crucial
> to separate out the different age groups [...]"
>
> But the graph being discussed on screen doesn't seem to be doing
> that, certainly at least not accurately. Its caption reads
> "Adjusted non-Covid mortality rate in unvaccinated and unvaccinated
> versus % vaccinated for age group 60-69 (weeks 1-38, 2021)" which is
> quite a lot to discuss in itself ...
>
> For a start, what does "unvaccinated and unvaccinated versus %
> vaccinated" actually mean? It would seem to imply that there should
> be two curves on the graph, labelled accordingly, but there are
> four, none of which have the second label! They are:
> Adjusted unvaccinated no-covid mortality rate
> Adjusted vaccinated no-covid mortality rate
> 1 dose
> 2 dose
>
> Secondly, they seem unaware that the the age group 60-69 were not
> done as one group. The UK governments delivery plan is still
> displayed in this government document from Spring 2021 ...
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/
> system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-
> _Spring_2021.pdf
>
> ... and the relevant section, p156, Table 2, & later para 41, reads
> ...
>
> 5 All those 65-69 years of age 2.9M
>
> 6 All those aged 16 years to 64 years
> with underlying health conditions 7.3M
>
> 7 all those aged 60-64 years of age 1.8M
>
> ... so how come their figures have apparently combined these three
> groups into one?
>
> Thirdly, the spikes in the graphs of each dose don't coincide with
> "shortly after the initial big rollout of the vaccination" for this
> age group, as claimed in the video, as I well know because I
> happened to be in it at the time. The spike in the '1 dose' curve
> is about week 6-7, about half way through February, but I didn't
> have my first dose until the second week in March, and I am not
> alone, because from the para in the above document we have:
>
> "The Government�s ambition to offer everyone in JCVI cohorts 1 to 4
> at least one dose of the vaccine by 15 February was met two days
> early."
>
> So the 70+ age range had just been been completed at the peak of the
> spike, and 65-70 year olds were just beginning to be done, so the
> maximum of this spike for the 60-69 age range, and therefore
> probably the rest of it, can have *NOTHING* to do with their just
> having been vaccinated, indeed *NOTHING* to do with their
> vaccination status at all.
>
> Similarly the spike in the '2 dose' curve is about week 18, first
> week in May, which again is not "shortly after the initial big
> rollout of the vaccination", this time the second dose, for this age
> group. I didn't receive mine until a week later, add another week
> or two for me to get complications from it and ultimately die from
> them, and again the peak is much too early.
>
> So their analysis is riddled with mistakes, as might be expected
> from the fact that it was it was done by a group of people whose
> political motivations are already well known to override their
> scientific impartiality.
>
> No need to watch further!
>
>> In a nutshell:
>
> It's crap, like everything else you post.

In article <59a8937c39bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Guardian: End Mass Jabs
> The Times: End Free Tests.
> Daily Mail: Scotland Against Lockdown.
> Telegraph: Dodgy Covid Data
> Evening Standard: Covid is Endemic.
> and wait for it .....
> BBC: Cut Self Isolation Period.

> One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Oh and now GBNew's Mark Dolan really goes for it. the left would have
an apoplexy if they had the nerve to watch it, which they won't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJmSNxleEM

The narrative is changing folks, history about to be re-written..

Bob.

On 10/01/2022 17:04, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Oh and now GBNew's Mark Dolan really goes for it. the left would have
> an apoplexy if they had the nerve to watch it, which they won't.
>
> h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = n i J m S N x l e E M

All bigoted opinion, got half-way through the crap without a discernible
checkable fact in sight.

> The narrative is changing folks, history about to be re-written..

Looks to me just like the same old right-wing propaganda that we've been
debunking for over two years now.

WTF has any of this to do with uk.tech.digital-tv???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
> Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
> seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
> passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the NHS
> load argument, it has slightly more weight.

You do not have a source for that assertion.

That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I also note your wife's misfortune. A few weeks back someone told be
that because of the reports on the yellow card scheme he hadn't been
jabbed. I didn't have the numbers to hand; now I do.

Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.

That's the downside.

Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised: 140,000.

I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.

(By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they became
infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing conditions,
usually low platelet count)

Andy

In article <59a8973345bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <srh5r3$blv$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> > Because those people cannot pass their misfortune on to others, while
> > andi-vaxxers can (and sometimes do) cause harm to other innocent
> > people by passing on their infection.

> Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it seems
> likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you passing it
> to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the NHS load
> argument, it has slightly more weight.

Depends on the individual circumstances and who "you" may be. Typical error
on your part in the wording of your first assertion.

Some people will not be infected as a result of a given level of exposure
due to vaccination when others will be infected. Matter of individial
variation in people. Similarly, vaccination may increase one person's
ability to resist a given exposure but not a much higher exposure.
Similarly, as other factors vary, a particular person may be infected by a
given exposure in one situation but not in another, because other things
affect what happens. (Obvious example being correct wearing of a mask.)

Similar error in your use of "doesn't".

As usual, you make over-simplifications that shoot your 'conclusions'
in the foot.

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 Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:02:18 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 21:18:35 +0000, Vir Campestris
><vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 08/01/2022 11:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
>>> Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
>>> jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
>>> didn't need jabbing.
>>
>>He was on BBC radio 4 the other day.
>>
>>His arguments have some merit - he knows:
>>* He's had COVID
>>* He's been tested, and has good antibody levels
>>* He's young and healthy
>>* He works in a hospital where he is exposed to COVID on a daily basis
>>
>>So he's decided that he isn't at risk.
>>
>>They didn't explain why he won't have it, just why he feels he doesn't
>>need it.
>>
>>The problem though is that the anti-vaxxers will use his argument to
>>persuade many people who are not young and healthy to avoid having it.
>>"You shouldn't have the vaccine, this doctor won't".
>>
>>I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that the serious cases that he's
>>treating are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.
>>
>>Andy
>
>Unfortunately, as well as the "antivaxxers" who think that *nobody*
>should have the vaccine, there's another selfrighteous group of
>zealots preaching the gospel that *everyone* should have it, and even
>suggesting sanctions of some sort against those who don't.
>
>They're both wrong of course, because any medical treatment that is
>considered the best option for someone is a matter for that individual
>and their own doctor, and ultimately their own decision. We're all
>different, and our medical needs and risks are different.

Which GP advocates not being vaccinated? How do you apply your criteria to the
vaccination of small children?

>
>The worrying thing is that the latter option, the "gospel of everyone"
>is in danger of being forced upon us by one means or another, and
>those who vehemently resist this are often lumped in with the other
>group by people who don't appear to understand the difference.

In the Netherlands there are 72 people who caught polio when it was very rare in
Europe because their parents thought vaccination was a sin. It's interesting
that the towns where parents fought against polio vaccinations have the highest
vaccination rates in The Netherlands.

I am still suffering from the effects of there being no polio vaccine at the
time I caught it at the age of 2.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:

> > Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
> > seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
> > passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
> > NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.

First off my typo that should have been "argument is NOT a good one",
sorry about that.

> You do not have a source for that assertion.

> That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
> wrong.

I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
link at the time but I didn't. Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.

It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.

> I also note your wife's misfortune.

As far as I know my wife has not had a misfortune. I think you may be
referring to her friend who did. I didn't go into detail with them
about the precise nature of the problem but it was concerning a blood
vessel of some type which appeared very prominently across her chest
within hours of her having AZ Jab1. He GP sent her to a specialist
there and then. It was a very scary time for her and her family, they
held their breath when eventually she got the second shot. I'm not
sure if she's been boosted.

> A few weeks back someone told be that because of the reports on the
> yellow card scheme he hadn't been jabbed.

I don't know of a yellow card scheme.

> I didn't have the numbers to hand; now I do.

> Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
> Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.

> That's the downside.

OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There is
no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
you at that age/health.

On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
much easier.

We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and leave
children alone.

> Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
> 140,000.

> I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.

> (By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
> became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
> conditions, usually low platelet count)

I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.

You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
get when infected.

But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
admitted.

The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.

But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!

I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for
themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
being.

Bob.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:06:31 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>Darwin basic law of nature has no compassion. As he wrote, those who
>fail to adapt to their environment are not fit to survive.

We must be careful not to interpret the phrase "not fit to survive" to
mean "not entitled to survive". It's an easy trap to fall into (or an
easy trick to be wary of?) because "fit" can mean something like
"deserving" or "entitled" in other contexts.

We must also realise that Darwin meant "adapt" in this context to
refer to a species, not any individual creature.

Rod.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:57:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
>> irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing,
>> mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy road
>> while using a phone should be required to pay for the unnecessary care
>> they incur and should also permit other more responsible people to get
>> treatment before them.
>
>> If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
>
>In many countries - e.g. the USA - such decisions *are* taken many times
>per day. if you're injured doing something dangerous and have no insurance
>for it, you can get dumped back on the street. Or the *ambulance* may
>refuse to take you.

This is not the USA, thank goodness.

>And an insurance company may either refuse to insure a
>given risk or demand a price far higher than you can pay. i.e. The cost of
>medical treatment *will* vary upwards if you want to engage in dangerous
>'sports', etc.

It may be a good idea to take out nedical insurance in the UK if you
choose to take part in something dangerous, but I don't think a
hospital or ambulance in this country would ever dump a patient in the
street because they couldn't pay.

Rod.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 13:54:29 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
>> It's not a doctor's job to judge the morality of anyone who ends up
>> needing medical attention, only to provide it.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>None of those activities you mention are contagious and harm other
>members of the public. Nor do accidents inthose activities inherently
>require hospital care when it is most scarse.

They take expensive resources away from other patients who may need
them, so their effect is not zero. Everything we do affects others in
some way, but that's no reason to deprive us of individual freedoms.

Rod.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:41:05 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 10/01/2022 10:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 11:18:10 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,
>>>
>>> Erm, that seems to be to be untrue. Courts hand down a variety of sentences
>>> for 'murders'. Or at least that't my impression from seeing many cases
>>> reported over the years.
>>>
>>>> so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.
>>>
>>> If you say so. However I've thought the 'penalty' depended on the details
>>> of the case. At least that's what the judges seem to think. Are you a
>>> judge?
>>
>> No, but as you suggest, the penalty depends on other details of the
>> case, not any presumed value of the life that has been taken. If a
>> life has been taken according to the legal definition of murder, then
>> it's murder. Whether it is or isn't murder is a binary choice with no
>> other numerical values possible.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>How about "Not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter" possibilities,
>which depend less on the death and more on the quality of the
>prosecutions case?
>
>Jim

It still doesn't depend on the value of the victim's life.

Rod.

In article <59a8a88073bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> I got the idea from UK doctors who pointed out on graphs that higher
> infection rates follow vaccination waves and not only in this country.
> Apparently ...

Example of how you cherry-pick, either using idiotic sources, or
misunderstand them, or take them out of context. Often you combine these.
You also failed to give a reference that others could then check for you.

Then asserted it here as 'fact', because the result is what you want to
believe.

i.e. Just more of your usual non-science, 'apparently'....

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 <59a8b1b9d3bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <59a8937c39bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Guardian: End Mass Jabs The Times: End Free Tests. Daily Mail:
> > Scotland Against Lockdown. Telegraph: Dodgy Covid Data Evening
> > Standard: Covid is Endemic. and wait for it ..... BBC: Cut Self
> > Isolation Period.

> > One swallow doesn't make a summer.

> Oh and now GBNew's Mark Dolan really goes for it. the left would have an
> apoplexy if they had the nerve to watch it, which they won't.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJmSNxleEM

Interesting use of "nerve" to mean they do get bored with chasing up the
ways in which your postings use dribble as fact. Have you not noticed yet
that essentially all the claims you make prove to be dribble when examined?

> The narrative is changing folks, history about to be re-written..

Dream on. But, preferrably without spewing more dribble here.

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 <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:

> > Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
> > seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
> > passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
> > NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.

> You do not have a source for that assertion.

Not quite the same thing I'll grant you but this graph is doing the
rounds this morning.

Captioned "virus of the unvaccinated dead and buried."

Let you all decide what to make of it...

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/israel-ratios.jpg

Note the bubble top right corner.

Wonder if the virtue signalling control freaks will leave people
alone now if they decide to remain unvaxed?

Bob.

In article <dhqqtg5a30l9noqt2ch6mkj2cbh8k0ue05@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:57:40 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> >> You still don't get it. By the same logic you must think the
> >> irresponsible who do anything dangerous like hangliding, skiing,
> >> mountaineering, horse riding, motor racing or walking across a busy
> >> road while using a phone should be required to pay for the
> >> unnecessary care they incur and should also permit other more
> >> responsible people to get treatment before them.
> >
> >> If not, why not? And who decides what activities are "responsible"?
> >
> >In many countries - e.g. the USA - such decisions *are* taken many
> >times per day. if you're injured doing something dangerous and have no
> >insurance for it, you can get dumped back on the street. Or the
> >*ambulance* may refuse to take you.

> This is not the USA, thank goodness.

Agreed. But the realty is that medics around the world apply a variety of
criteria to decide who gets what treatment, when, or not. Including the
costs/facilities required. And indeed, in the UK 'qallies'.

> >And an insurance company may either refuse to insure a given risk or
> >demand a price far higher than you can pay. i.e. The cost of medical
> >treatment *will* vary upwards if you want to engage in dangerous
> >'sports', etc.

> It may be a good idea to take out nedical insurance in the UK if you
> choose to take part in something dangerous,

Yes. Alas, I fear that may make sense anyway for some potential problems
that aren't A&E which you may suspect you'd get. Much as I hated to do so,
even without my doing anything dangerous I ended up having to pay in one
situation to get access to a relevant specialist. Remember that these days
when an NHS GP refers you to a consultant they have to pay out of their
practice budget towards that. Its not 'free' from their POV even if the
patient doesn't have to pay up. As a result the GP may guess, try to treat
you inappropriately, or apply standard response No1: "If it gets any worse,
come back and see me." - i.e. "b88ger off, I'm busy, have no idea what's
wrong, and I'm not going to pay to find out!"

> but I don't think a hospital
> or ambulance in this country would ever dump a patient in the street
> because they couldn't pay.

No, although you may get dumped on a trolly - if any are available - in a
corridor. or have the ambulance fail to arrive because they are all outside
the hospital already and waiting for their patient to be taken. I've been
to A&E often enough to know that decisions get made wrt 'who goes first'
for their proper assessment and treatment. And that's been *pre* covid.
Parts of the hospital also have budgets, targets, etc. And the people who
work there are human.

Jim

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

On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> You do not have a source for that assertion.
>>
>> That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
>> wrong.
>
> I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
> diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
> link at the time but I didn't.

LIAR! It's been your modus operandi established unmistakably for over
two years to post multiple false claims without providing the slightest
evidence for them.

> Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
> sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
> write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
> It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.

Yet you do not hesitate to spew most of them in here. If even you can't
be arsed to follow them up, why do you think anyone here should be
interested?

> It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
> from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
> it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
> UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.

Already debunked, their analysis was riddled with errors:
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/RHLupjpmyM0/m/nsn9_nN6CAAJ

>> Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
>> Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
>>
>> That's the downside.
>
> OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
> vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health.

Nonsense! Vaccines, like all medical procedures, carry a risk of
side-effects, but what matters is whether the risk of side effect is
worse than the risks of not having the procedure. In this case the
stats are beyond question, even at younger age groups, the risk of
severe consequences from the disease are much higher than from the vaccine.

See, for example:

Covid: Vaccine complications dwarfed by virus risks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434

"A major review of vaccines suggests the AstraZeneca jab does raise the
risk of blood clots and another serious condition that can cause bleeding.

But the study found the risk of such problems following a coronavirus
infection was still much higher.

The University of Oxford-led team also found an increased risk of stroke
after the Pfizer jab - but again at a much lower rate than after infection.

The team said it once again showed the "substantial" benefit of
vaccination."

> There is
> no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
> you at that age/health.

But still substantially more likely than the vaccine itself.

> On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
> hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
> much easier.

People who are younger usually have people who are older in their family
and circle of acquaintance, and therefore they need to get themselves
vaccinated to protect not just themselves but also other more vulnerable
people that they know.

> We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised

As long as those choices do not endanger others.

> and leave
> children alone.

Stick to facts, stop trying to use children as emotional blackmail to
mislead others.

>> Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
>> 140,000.
>>
>> I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
>>
>> (By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
>> became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
>> conditions, usually low platelet count)
>
> I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.
>
> You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
> read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
> at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
> get when infected.
>
> But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
> for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
> into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
> in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
> suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
> that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
> admitted.

Nonsense, you only have to compare the UK figures with other similar
countries, like for example Germany whom you keep harping on about in
the entirely mistaken belief that their figures are worse than ours when
they are not, or South Korea, to know that the *MAJORITY* of deaths were
avoidable:

Deaths per 100,000
UK: 224.7
Germany: 137.2
S Korea: 11.7

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105

> The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
> of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
>
> I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for
> themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
> respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
> being.

As long as their decision does not endanger the lives of others, as does
refusing vaccination.

See, for example, the figures given in BBC's debunking of the claims
made by and about the doctor who confronted the Health Secretary:

Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59929638

""The vaccines are reducing transmission only for about eight weeks with
Delta," he said.

"For Omicron, it's probably less."

But that's not exactly what the evidence shows."

See the more complicated stats given there, and particularly that the
two most widely used vaccines in the UK are different in this respect,
and, as most people were given a third jab that differs from their first
two, most people who have had boosters have had both, and thereby
benefit from the most effective of the two in maintaining response, as
well as the "broadening of the response" to help fight omicron, noted by
an expert in the recent Science In Action episode on the omicron variant:

Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t

Note also that the doctor says that he is pro-vaccination, though one
wonders then why as a health professional he considers it ethically
acceptable to give himself a better chance of infecting others.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> You do not have a source for that assertion.
>>>
>>> That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
>>> wrong.
>>
>> I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
>> diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
>> link at the time but I didn't.
>
> LIAR! It's been your modus operandi established unmistakably for over
> two years to post multiple false claims without providing the slightest
> evidence for them.
>
>> Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
>> sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
>> write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
>> It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.
>
> Yet you do not hesitate to spew most of them in here. If even you can't
> be arsed to follow them up, why do you think anyone here should be
> interested?
>
>> It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
>> from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
>> it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
>> UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.
>
> Already debunked, their analysis was riddled with errors:
> https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/RHLupjpmyM0/m/nsn9_nN6CAAJ
>
>>> Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
>>> Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
>>>
>>> That's the downside.
>>
>> OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
>> vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health.
>
> Nonsense! Vaccines, like all medical procedures, carry a risk of
> side-effects, but what matters is whether the risk of side effect is
> worse than the risks of not having the procedure. In this case the
> stats are beyond question, even at younger age groups, the risk of
> severe consequences from the disease are much higher than from the vaccine.
>
> See, for example:
>
> Covid: Vaccine complications dwarfed by virus risks
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434
>
> "A major review of vaccines suggests the AstraZeneca jab does raise the
> risk of blood clots and another serious condition that can cause bleeding.
>
> But the study found the risk of such problems following a coronavirus
> infection was still much higher.
>
> The University of Oxford-led team also found an increased risk of stroke
> after the Pfizer jab - but again at a much lower rate than after infection.
>
> The team said it once again showed the "substantial" benefit of
> vaccination."
>
>> There is
>> no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
>> you at that age/health.
>
> But still substantially more likely than the vaccine itself.
>
>> On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
>> hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
>> much easier.
>
> People who are younger usually have people who are older in their family
> and circle of acquaintance, and therefore they need to get themselves
> vaccinated to protect not just themselves but also other more vulnerable
> people that they know.
>
>> We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised
>
> As long as those choices do not endanger others.
>
>> and leave
>> children alone.
>
> Stick to facts, stop trying to use children as emotional blackmail to
> mislead others.
>
>>> Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
>>> 140,000.
>>>
>>> I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
>>>
>>> (By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
>>> became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
>>> conditions, usually low platelet count)
>>
>> I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.
>>
>> You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
>> read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
>> at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
>> get when infected.
>>
>> But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
>> for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
>> into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
>> in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
>> suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
>> that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
>> admitted.
>
> Nonsense, you only have to compare the UK figures with other similar
> countries, like for example Germany whom you keep harping on about in
> the entirely mistaken belief that their figures are worse than ours when
> they are not, or South Korea, to know that the *MAJORITY* of deaths were
> avoidable:
>
> Deaths per 100,000
> UK: 224.7
> Germany: 137.2
> S Korea: 11.7
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
>
>> The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
>> of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.
>
> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
>
>> But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
>>
>> I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for
>> themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
>> respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
>> being.
>
> As long as their decision does not endanger the lives of others, as does
> refusing vaccination.
>
> See, for example, the figures given in BBC's debunking of the claims
> made by and about the doctor who confronted the Health Secretary:
>
> Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59929638
>
> ""The vaccines are reducing transmission only for about eight weeks with
> Delta," he said.
>
> "For Omicron, it's probably less."
>
> But that's not exactly what the evidence shows."
>
> See the more complicated stats given there, and particularly that the
> two most widely used vaccines in the UK are different in this respect,
> and, as most people were given a third jab that differs from their first
> two, most people who have had boosters have had both, and thereby
> benefit from the most effective of the two in maintaining response, as
> well as the "broadening of the response" to help fight omicron, noted by
> an expert in the recent Science In Action episode on the omicron variant:
>
> Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t
>
> Note also that the doctor says that he is pro-vaccination, though one
> wonders then why as a health professional he considers it ethically
> acceptable to give himself a better chance of infecting others.
>

Has it occurred to you that you are part of the problem? If you and others
stopped engaging over this issue he’d get bored and go away. I know you’ve
tried rational argument and eduction, but by now that has proven to be
fruitless.

On 11/01/2022 12:07, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>>> Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
>>> seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
>>> passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
>>> NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.
>>
>> You do not have a source for that assertion.
>
> Not quite the same thing I'll grant you but this graph is doing the
> rounds this morning.

No, it's not the same thing, so again where is your *EVIDENCE* for your
claims?

> Captioned "virus of the unvaccinated dead and buried."

FALSE! WTF further can be said about an idiot that can't even read
correctly the graph that he's posting???!!! See below ...

> Let you all decide what to make of it...
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/israel-ratios.jpg

Yet another breach of someone else's copyright thus depriving readers
here to assess its proper scientific or otherwise context.

Actually, it's captioned thus ...

"Israel: Percent of Cases by Vaccination Status (Age 20+)"

.... and there's a link to the original data page ...

https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/9b623a64-f7df-4d0c-9f57-09bd99a88880

.... but which unfortunately:

- Is in Hebrew, and ...

https://data-gov-il.translate.goog/dataset/covid-19/resource/9b623a64-f7df-4d0c-9f57-09bd99a88880?_x_tr_sl=iw&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB

.... couldn't translate it, probably because ...

- A second attempt to access the page gave this ...

<Error><Code>AccessDenied</Code><Message>Access
Denied</Message><RequestId>911ZWFY8XRQ8WTRQ</RequestId><HostId>bl7BzkjsDyexH73uN9HvSNCgIpwcNJqGyu/Ado0MN7w4V9NkRrhMn3HovTL4Usrec5Ok0sCOUXQ=</HostId></Error>

and the Wayback Machine hasn't archived it either.

However, on first viewing I did see that the sample size was just 4xx
patients, which is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/01/2022 13:40, Tweed wrote:
>
> Has it occurred to you that you are part of the problem? If you and others
> stopped engaging over this issue he’d get bored and go away. I know you’ve
> tried rational argument and eduction, but by now that has proven to be
> fruitless.

I don't willingly do this, but unfortunately, what you suggest is
exactly how people like this work - they hope to bore all opposition
into silence, and then any shit they post goes unanswered, so
accumulates to become widely prevalent and thus acquires the status of
'fact'.

At least this way, anyone coming along later has a virtual boot-scrapper
to clean off his shit.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/01/2022 13:40, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that you are part of the problem? If you and others
>> stopped engaging over this issue he’d get bored and go away. I know you’ve
>> tried rational argument and eduction, but by now that has proven to be
>> fruitless.
>
> I don't willingly do this, but unfortunately, what you suggest is
> exactly how people like this work - they hope to bore all opposition
> into silence, and then any shit they post goes unanswered, so
> accumulates to become widely prevalent and thus acquires the status of
> 'fact'.
>
> At least this way, anyone coming along later has a virtual boot-scrapper
> to clean off his shit.
>

I think your boot scraper has left enough of an imprint by now. Leaving it
unanswered is now the response it fully deserves.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:16:55 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> but I don't think a hospital
>> or ambulance in this country would ever dump a patient in the street
>> because they couldn't pay.
>
>No, although you may get dumped on a trolly - if any are available - in a
>corridor. or have the ambulance fail to arrive because they are all outside
>the hospital already and waiting for their patient to be taken.

That's to do with availability of resources, not a decision about the
patient's entitlement to treatment based on what they were presumed to
be doing that landed them in hospital.

Rod.

In article <o7sqtgd0b0d171c0c89sfjrp4t8lhtp6lo@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> It still doesn't depend on the value of the victim's life.

Depends on what you may regard as "value". Do you recall the recent
apalling cases of child torture and murder where the sentences may well be
*extended* because legal authorities feel they may be to 'lenient'? Not all
cases are equal.

The jury decides if the accused committed 'murder' or not. Essentially
binary. But the Judge, and any futher appeal judges, etc, decide on the
"value" when handing down the sentance. That may presume a higher life
'value' when the victim is a child, for example. Those judging will form
their own views on this.

Jim

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

On 11:28 11 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:06:31 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Darwin basic law of nature has no compassion. As he wrote, those who
>>fail to adapt to their environment are not fit to survive.
>
> We must be careful not to interpret the phrase "not fit to survive" to
> mean "not entitled to survive". It's an easy trap to fall into (or an
> easy trick to be wary of?) because "fit" can mean something like
> "deserving" or "entitled" in other contexts.
>
> We must also realise that Darwin meant "adapt" in this context to
> refer to a species, not any individual creature.
>
> Rod.

Agreed.