On 13:10 11 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> 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.
>
> [detailed refutation removed]
>

Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
writes this:

"UKHSA released England's Covid data for the last 4 weeks of
2021. In every age group 18 and above, the infection rates for
the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated. Overall, you
are about 2� times more likely to get Covid if you are
vaccinated."

https://twitter.com/10P8TRIOT/status/1479224749129887747

==============

However if you go to the UK government source of that data, the
compilers issue some clear and detailed caveats about how to use
this data which 10P8TRIOT mysteriously omitted. Here they are
quoted below. The capitals are mine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-
surveillance-reports (6th Jan 2022 report, page 42)

COMPARING CASE RATES AMONG VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
POPULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTIMATE VACCINE
EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST COVID-19 INFECTION.

Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number
of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 17 in this
report.

The rates are calculated per 100,000 in people who have
received either 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or in people who
have not received a COVID-19 vaccine.

These figures are updated each week as the number of
unvaccinated individuals and individuals vaccinated with 2
doses in the population changes.

THE CASE RATES IN THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED POPULATIONS
ARE UNADJUSTED CRUDE RATES THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
UNDERLYING STATISTICAL BIASES IN THE DATA AND THERE ARE LIKELY
TO BE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE 2 POPULATION GROUPS.
For example:

� people who are fully vaccinated may be MORE HEALTH CONSCIOUS
and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so
more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data
provided by the NHS Test and Trace)

� many of those who were at the HEAD OF THE QUEUE FOR
VACCINATION ARE THOSE AT HIGHER RISK FROM COVID-19 due to their
age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of
underlying health issues

� people who are fully vaccinated and people who are
unvaccinated may BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD
TO SOCIAL INTERACTIONS and therefore may have differing levels
of exposure to COVID-19

� people who have never been vaccinated are MORE LIKELY TO HAVE
CAUGHT COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the
cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural
immunity to the virus for a few months which may have
contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks

In article <XnsAE1CB99F138AE37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
> writes this:

Okay, thanks for that.

At least with this accusation I'm not accused of lying.

> "UKHSA released England's Covid data for the last 4 weeks of
> 2021. In every age group 18 and above, the infection rates for
> the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated. Overall, you
> are about 2¼ times more likely to get Covid if you are
> vaccinated."
>
> https://twitter.com/10P8TRIOT/status/1479224749129887747

> However if you go to the UK government source of that data, the
> compilers issue some clear and detailed caveats about how to use
> this data which 10P8TRIOT mysteriously omitted. Here they are
> quoted below. The capitals are mine.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-
> surveillance-reports (6th Jan 2022 report, page 42)
>
> COMPARING CASE RATES AMONG VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
> POPULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTIMATE VACCINE
> EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST COVID-19 INFECTION.

> Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number
> of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 17 in this
> report.

> The rates are calculated per 100,000 in people who have
> received either 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or in people who
> have not received a COVID-19 vaccine.

> These figures are updated each week as the number of
> unvaccinated individuals and individuals vaccinated with 2
> doses in the population changes.

> THE CASE RATES IN THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED POPULATIONS
> ARE UNADJUSTED CRUDE RATES THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
> UNDERLYING STATISTICAL BIASES IN THE DATA AND THERE ARE LIKELY
> TO BE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE 2 POPULATION GROUPS.
> For example:
>
> • people who are fully vaccinated may be MORE HEALTH CONSCIOUS
> and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so
> more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data
> provided by the NHS Test and Trace)
>
> • many of those who were at the HEAD OF THE QUEUE FOR
> VACCINATION ARE THOSE AT HIGHER RISK FROM COVID-19 due to their
> age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of
> underlying health issues
>
> • people who are fully vaccinated and people who are
> unvaccinated may BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD
> TO SOCIAL INTERACTIONS and therefore may have differing levels
> of exposure to COVID-19
>
> • people who have never been vaccinated are MORE LIKELY TO HAVE
> CAUGHT COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the
> cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural
> immunity to the virus for a few months which may have
> contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks

In honesty, what I was looking at was a post full of graphs showing
how infections went up following vaccination waves, not sure it's the
same source as you found. If I find time I'll have a look back, I do
have an idea who it might have been.

Some of those caveats seem a bit desperate to me. Just because it
comes from the government doesn't mean it's true.

Anyway, Scotland backing down on covid restrictions after they got it
wrong and absurdly saying what they did had an effect - yes BJ
laughing. Don't assume I'm a BJ fan, I'm not.

Bob.

On 18:58 11 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE1CB99F138AE37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
>> writes this:
>
> Okay, thanks for that.
>
> At least with this accusation I'm not accused of lying.
>
>> "UKHSA released England's Covid data for the last 4 weeks of
>> 2021. In every age group 18 and above, the infection rates
>> for the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated.
>> Overall, you are about 2� times more likely to get Covid if
>> you are vaccinated."
>>
>> https://twitter.com/10P8TRIOT/status/1479224749129887747
>
>> However if you go to the UK government source of that data, the
>> compilers issue some clear and detailed caveats about how to
>> use this data which 10P8TRIOT mysteriously omitted. Here they
>> are quoted below. The capitals are mine.
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-
>> weekly-surveillance-reports (6th Jan 2022 report, page 42)
>>
>> COMPARING CASE RATES AMONG VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
>> POPULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ESTIMATE VACCINE
>> EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST COVID-19 INFECTION.
>
>> Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a
>> number of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to
>> 17 in this report.
>
>> The rates are calculated per 100,000 in people who have
>> received either 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or in people
>> who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine.
>
>> These figures are updated each week as the number of
>> unvaccinated individuals and individuals vaccinated with 2
>> doses in the population changes.
>
>> THE CASE RATES IN THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED
>> POPULATIONS ARE UNADJUSTED CRUDE RATES THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO
>> ACCOUNT UNDERLYING STATISTICAL BIASES IN THE DATA AND THERE
>> ARE LIKELY TO BE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE 2
>> POPULATION GROUPS. For example:
>>
>> � people who are fully vaccinated may be MORE HEALTH
>> CONSCIOUS and therefore more likely to get tested for
>> COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case
>> (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace)
>>
>> � many of those who were at the HEAD OF THE QUEUE FOR
>> VACCINATION ARE THOSE AT HIGHER RISK FROM COVID-19 due to
>> their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or
>> because of underlying health issues
>>
>> � people who are fully vaccinated and people who are
>> unvaccinated may BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY, PARTICULARLY WITH
>> REGARD TO SOCIAL INTERACTIONS and therefore may have
>> differing levels of exposure to COVID-19
>>
>> � people who have never been vaccinated are MORE LIKELY TO
>> HAVE CAUGHT COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the
>> period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them
>> some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which
>> may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few
>> weeks
>
>
> In honesty, what I was looking at was a post full of graphs
> showing how infections went up following vaccination waves, not
> sure it's the same source as you found. If I find time I'll have
> a look back, I do have an idea who it might have been.
>
> Some of those caveats seem a bit desperate to me. Just because
> it comes from the government doesn't mean it's true.
>
> Anyway, Scotland backing down on covid restrictions after they
> got it wrong and absurdly saying what they did had an effect -
> yes BJ laughing. Don't assume I'm a BJ fan, I'm not.
>
>
> Bob.

Do you know how bonkers that sounds? -- "Just because it comes
from the government doesn't mean it's true." The notes are by the
government statistician who compiled the data in the table your
source quote. Of course he knows the limitations of his own work.

Your fear of conspiracy denies even the person who assembled the
data the authority to comment on his own work.

On 11/01/2022 18:58, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> At least with this accusation I'm not accused of lying.

Except that you did lie in that post where I claimed you did, in at
least two ways:

1) In it you wrote ...

On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
> link at the time but I didn't.

.... which seems to imply that this was a one-off oversight, but in fact
you never do give links to sources from places such as Shitter,
presumably because you know that automatically they'll carry less weight.

2) Similarly, you claimed ...

On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> 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.

.... and didn't link at a source for that either, which given the
meaningless expression of 'regret' above, is effectively another piece
of dishonesty, another lie.

> Some of those caveats seem a bit desperate to me.

IOW, they're all perfectly valid reasons that results get skewed, but
you can't handle being proven wrong.

> Just because it
> comes from the government doesn't mean it's true.

But it usually does, whereas when it comes from any of your sources it
nearly always means that it's absolutely *NOT* true.

> Anyway, Scotland backing down on covid restrictions after they got it
> wrong and absurdly saying what they did had an effect - yes BJ
> laughing. Don't assume I'm a BJ fan, I'm not.

Which IMV, with Scottish daily case rates higher than they've ever been,
or at least known to have been, and UK death rates beginning to rise
quite sharply again, is probably going to be turn out to be a bad
decision, but we'll have to see what happens. At least fewer people are
dying now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <plertgtn69fchai9ootprghol9jhek34le@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Bot how long you - rather than someone else - stays on the trolly is a
decision about who the medics choose to treat first. Which relies on what
they judge as the merits of each candidate on initial presentation. And on
Friday/Saturday nights what the candidate has been doing can be recognised
from a fair distance in many cases.

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 <59a93ff89ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> If I find time I'll have a look back, I do have an idea who it
> might have been.

I spent a couple of hours last night looking back at the posts from
the person I suspected published the graphs. I got as far back as
boxing day - (lots of posts) I didn't find the graphs but did see
tables which the caption said showed the correlation between being
vaccinated and then going down with covid and other viruses. Again in
honesty, (I never lie though I may be mistaken), I couldn't get my
head around the tables but it was late.

This morning though we have this in the Telegraph...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/

Everyone is now pretty sure it came from the lab it's only communist
apologists who still claim otherwise, well they would wouldn't they.

The we have the Pfizer boss telling us in video that two doses of its
current Covid-10 vaccine offer "very limited protection if any"
against infection from Omicron. But the good news is that they will
have an Omicron vaccine ready in March. Horse and stable door come to
mind.

Remind me again how vaccine passports reduce the spread of covid.
They don't stop you getting infected or spreading it and the majority
of people currently infected with covid ARE VACCINATED.
Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands of
doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way behind
with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped then the
lunatics really have taken over.

Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
Tweets this morning...
So many lies being exposed now.
Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.

Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
these things.

Then we now have Imperial College London (of all people) now saying
T-cells from common colds can protect against coronavirus infection,
study finds. So prof Sunetra Gupta and others were correct all along
then. I'm shocked - not.
Now what was it JJ said about this back then?

I thought T-cells was an item only mentioned by right wingers?

Anyone asked where the 6000 deaths a day Sage predicted are ?
If anyone in any other line of work made this scale of error they
would be out of a job sage have done it Again and Again. Computer
models - always FOS.

The EU has made a health statement about not continuing with banging
more vaccines into people, there will be a health consequence.

Then this makes interesting reading.
https://swprs.org/professor-ehud-qimron-ministry-of-health-its-time-to-admit-failure/

Finally on CNN yesterday, (it's all over twitter) CNN admitting masks
are no good against covid. - honestly I'm not making it up and it's
CNN, they're just as narrative minded and ideological as the BBC.

Bob.

On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
> VACCINATED.

You're comparing two completely different population sizes. Ten
times as many people are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.

> Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands
> of doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way
> behind with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped
> then the lunatics really have taken over.

Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated. The
health service would function better if these idiots weren't using up
valuable NHS resources.

On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
> Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
> Tweets this morning...
> So many lies being exposed now.
> Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
> Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
> Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
> Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.
>
> Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
> asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
> happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
> But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
> these things.

I too hope Allison Pearson explains her allegations. Most
responses to her on Twitter challenge her lunacy, although you
didn't post the link. Here it is:

https://twitter.com/AllisonPearson/status/1481177692972138496

Some of Allison's misplaced notions are discussed on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Pearson#Views

On 12/01/2022 12:31, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <59a93ff89ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> If I find time I'll have a look back, I do have an idea who it
>> might have been.
>
> I spent a couple of hours last night looking back at the posts from
> the person I suspected published the graphs. I got as far back as
> boxing day - (lots of posts) I didn't find the graphs but did see
> tables which the caption said showed the correlation between being
> vaccinated and then going down with covid and other viruses. Again in
> honesty, (I never lie though I may be mistaken), I couldn't get my
> head around the tables but it was late.

And yet again you don't give us the *EVIDENCE*, so we'll just assume
it's the usual lying and/or innumerate bollocks.

> This morning though we have this in the Telegraph...
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/

Another article by Sarah Crapton, already notorious here for her
infamous misreporting of SAGE documents. It seems that very early on in
the pandemic, when, as we know because it's reported in the SAGE
documents, there was no actual information or data, a small number of
scientists did think a lab-leak origin was a possibility, if only
because it had happened before with SARS, but since then, and as a
so-called 'science reporter' she should know this, zilch actual
*SCIENTIFIC* evidence has come to light to support that suggestion, and
on the contrary there is quite strong *SCIENTIFIC* evidence supporting a
natural origin. But, of course, this conspiracy theory is a right-wing
hobby-horse, so they're going to just keeping raking it up, and in doing
so make it less and less likely that the required internation
co-operation to explore the origins further and hopefully establish them
beyond reasonable doubt, will ever be forthcoming.

> Everyone is now pretty sure it came from the lab it's only communist
> apologists who still claim otherwise, well they would wouldn't they.

LIAR! Yet another article from the most unreliable so-called 'science
reporter' in main stream media IS NOT 'EVERYONE'!

> The we have the Pfizer boss telling us in video that two doses of its
> current Covid-10 vaccine offer "very limited protection if any"
> against infection from Omicron. But the good news is that they will
> have an Omicron vaccine ready in March. Horse and stable door come to
> mind.

As has been explained at least three times recently in this very thread,
at least once in reply to you, there is less protection from different
strains of SARS-CoV-2 from a single type of vaccine alone, but
significantly and usefully more from having more than one type of
vaccine, which is why, in this country at least, the booster jabs appear
to be working against omicron, because most of us were given a third
shot that was different from the first two. Here, for at least the 2nd
time, is the link where this is explained:

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

> Remind me again how vaccine passports reduce the spread of covid.
> They don't stop you getting infected or spreading it and the majority
> of people currently infected with covid ARE VACCINATED.
> Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands of
> doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way behind
> with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped then the
> lunatics really have taken over.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for anything at all in the above paranoid
diarrhoea???!!!

> Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
> Tweets this morning...
> So many lies being exposed now.
> Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
> Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
> Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
> Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.

As I can tell without need to read any further or research her, Allison
Pearson - total rubbish.

> Then we now have Imperial College London (of all people) now saying
> T-cells from common colds can protect against coronavirus infection,
> study finds. So prof Sunetra Gupta and others were correct all along
> then. I'm shocked - not.
> Now what was it JJ said about this back then?

I said EXACTLY THE SAME THING, as in:

On 24/10/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>
> therefore most people have only very limited if any pre-existing
> anti-body and T-cell defences against it, though I believe there is
> some suggestion of some immunity in some people from similarity to a
> common cold virus.

> I thought T-cells was an item only mentioned by right wingers?

No, they've been discussed by everyone everywhere, it's just that you've
only read the right-wing fake news, so you're completely unaware of the
what's in the real news on main stream media.

> Anyone asked where the 6000 deaths a day Sage predicted are ?
> If anyone in any other line of work made this scale of error they
> would be out of a job sage have done it Again and Again. Computer
> models - always FOS.

As has been explained to you more than once, the purpose of such
computer modelling is to provide the evidence to ensure that their worst
predictions won't come true.

> The EU has made a health statement about not continuing with banging
> more vaccines into people, there will be a health consequence.

Obviously there will be consequences for endless injecting people, any
drug addict will tell you that, but it depends on which is more
dangerous, the disease or the vaccine.

> Then this makes interesting reading.
> https://swprs.org/professor-ehud-qimron-ministry-of-health-its-time-to-admit-failure/

FAKE NEWS REPEATED:

S w i s s P o l i c y R e s e a r c h
s w p r s . o r g

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

"CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

[explanation of the rating]

Overall, we rate S w i s s P o l i c y R e s e a r c h (S P R) a
Moderate Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven claims.
We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor
sources and complete lack of transparency."

In other words, they're just another right-wing pressure group telling
lies - the first time they featured in this ng, they were the source
of a totally faked graph.

> Finally on CNN yesterday, (it's all over twitter) CNN admitting masks
> are no good against covid. - honestly I'm not making it up and it's
> CNN, they're just as narrative minded and ideological as the BBC.

On the contrary, like The Telegraph, some of their scientific reporting
is shite. However, as you don't provide a link, we have to search, and
instead of finding what you suggest, not even a link to a Shitter fart,
we find instead news within the past 24 hours like this ...

"CDC may change guidance again. Dr. Gupta weighs in

The CDC is expected to change guidance again, by recommending better
masks . CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports"

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2022/01/11/dr-sanjay-gupta-cdc-new-mask-guidance-newday-vpx.cnn

.... and this ...

New Orleans reinstates indoor mask mandate as Carnival season begins
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/new-orleans-mask-mandate-carnival-season-2022/index.html

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
> [trim to context]
>
> Then we now have Imperial College London (of all people) now
> saying T-cells from common colds can protect against coronavirus
> infection, study finds. So prof Sunetra Gupta and others were
> correct all along then. I'm shocked - not.
>
> Now what was it JJ said about this back then?
>
> I thought T-cells was an item only mentioned by right wingers?

The implication of your comment is that we should continually have a
cold in order to protect against Covid. Which is silly.

T-cells have always worked against Covid (especially Omicron) just as
they work against other viruses. The mRNA jab, such as Pfizer,
increases the number of T-cells and this is one of its modes of
protection.

What is your point, exactly?

In article <XnsAE1D899E6596437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
> >
> > the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
> > VACCINATED.

> You're comparing two completely different population sizes.

No, it was a simple statement of fact I wasn't comparing anything.

> Ten times as many people are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.

Yes that is absolutely true, I fully agree, never said or suggested
otherwise.

Never the less, it makes a complete mockery of the idea that vaccine
passports are in any way effective or rational, they're an utter
nonsense.

> > Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands
> > of doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way
> > behind with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped
> > then the lunatics really have taken over.

> Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.

So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point and in
fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as I'm fully
vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.

> The health service would function better if these idiots weren't
> using up valuable NHS resources.

I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
statements like that are usually wrong.

We don't even know if the reason they went into hospital was covid or
some other problem and indeed we don't know why they're still in
there. Don't think the propaganda fear mongers wouldn't allow you to
assume the wrong thing.

Bob.

In article <XnsAE1CC81AB2C7E37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you know how bonkers that sounds? -- "Just because it comes from the
> government doesn't mean it's true." The notes are by the government
> statistician who compiled the data in the table your source quote. Of
> course he knows the limitations of his own work.

> Your fear of conspiracy denies even the person who assembled the data
> the authority to comment on his own work.

Bob's MO again. Everything has to be cherry-picked or 'interpreted' to end
up supporting his beliefs. i.e. he starts from his belief and then
processes any evidence to fit that.

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 <srkstp$7ev$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Which IMV, with Scottish daily case rates higher than they've ever been,
> or at least known to have been, and UK death rates beginning to rise
> quite sharply again, is probably going to be turn out to be a bad
> decision, but we'll have to see what happens. At least fewer people are
> dying now.

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

The hope is, indeed, that vaccination means a lower percentage of those
infected will die. But the rise in cases means that's a lower percentage of
a higher base value. And the demands placed on the NHS - inc the effects of
staff 'off sick' because of a +ve test - mean more 'excess deaths' will
occur for other reasons - down to delayed appointments, etc about many
other conditions.

We won't know the real toll for some time.

The town where I live now has its highest ever case rates according to the
local news site. It is still a small fraction of the population, but the
numbers have continued to rise rapidly. Hiopefully, that trend may
reverse now/soon! But excess deaths indirectly caused may continue to
occur for longer.

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 <59a9a05d02bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> (it's all over twitter)

Gosh! It *must* be true!

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 <59a9a05d02bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
> Tweets this morning...
> So many lies being exposed now.
> Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
> Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
> Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
> Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.

> Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
> asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
> happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
> But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
> these things.

It *looks* like her source is CDC.

Here's the tweet about CDC...

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/game-over.jpg

Also Dean Kelly responds to Allison about CDC's position on masks and
common cold protection.

Then Doctor Clare Craig on Allison's post said...

"Agree with this.
Except not everyone will get it. Only a minority will."

Definitely a narrative shift at the moment.

Bob.

On 14:13 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsAE1D899E6596437B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
>> > VACCINATED.
>
>> You're comparing two completely different population sizes.
>
> No, it was a simple statement of fact I wasn't comparing
> anything.

That comment is like me saying there are more people unvaccinated
in America than vaccinated in the UK and America has had 690,000
more deaths than the UK.

>> > Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking
>> > thousands of doctors and nurses at the time when the health
>> > service is way behind with everything. If this stupidity
>> > doesn't get stopped then the lunatics really have taken over.
>>
>> Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
>
> So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
> and in fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as
> I'm fully vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.

That the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated is an
official statistic. You should also look at official statistics
rather than rely on Twitter as your only source of data.

>> The health service would function better if these idiots
>> weren't using up valuable NHS resources.
>
> I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
> before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
> statements like that are usually wrong.
>
> We don't even know if the reason they went into hospital was
> covid or some other problem and indeed we don't know why they're
> still in there. Don't think the propaganda fear mongers wouldn't
> allow you to assume the wrong thing.

Statistician David Spiegelhalter explained recently that many
people went into hospital with another condition than Covid but
contracted it there and, weakened from their original illness,
ended up in ICU.

Don't let Covidiot fear mongers frighten you into overlooking
effective precautions.

On 10:06 12 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <XnsAE1CC81AB2C7E37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you know how bonkers that sounds? -- "Just because it comes
>> from the government doesn't mean it's true." The notes are by
>> the government statistician who compiled the data in the table
>> your source quote. Of course he knows the limitations of his
>> own work.
>
>> Your fear of conspiracy denies even the person who assembled
>> the data the authority to comment on his own work.
>
> Bob's MO again. Everything has to be cherry-picked or
> 'interpreted' to end up supporting his beliefs. i.e. he starts
> from his belief and then processes any evidence to fit that.
>
> Jim

Bob has moved on silently. He receives a lot of corrections but never
says thank you.

On 12/01/2022 14:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <XnsAE1D899E6596437B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12:31 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>>>
>>> the majority of people currently infected with covid ARE
>>> VACCINATED.
>
>> You're comparing two completely different population sizes.
>
> No, it was a simple statement of fact I wasn't comparing anything.

As has now been explained to you multiple times before, and again above,
it was a simple statement of fact that you were comparing two different
population sizes. As of yesterday's figures ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

.... of people aged over 12 in the UK, 90% have received at least one
dose, 83% two, and 62% three. Therefore, on a random basis, you'd
expect approximately 90% of these people coming into contact with covid
to have had at least one vaccination, and only 10% not, which is
obviously going to skew the results unless this is allowed for. You
allow for it by looking at what *PROPORTION* or *PERCENTAGE* of each of
the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are going down with it when they
come into contact with it. We can tell that a much higher proportion of
those who are unvaccinated are going down with it, because
*PROPORTIONATELY* more of them end up in hospital. That proves that the
vaccines are working to reduce the probability of being infected by
others, and, should one become infected, both infecting others and
suffering badly with the disease.

>> Ten times as many people are vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.
>
> Yes that is absolutely true, I fully agree, never said or suggested
> otherwise.
>
> Never the less, it makes a complete mockery of the idea that vaccine
> passports are in any way effective or rational, they're an utter
> nonsense.

They show that the person being admitted to a close-quarters venue have
taken reasonable precautions to ensure that they are not infectious with
this disease.

>>> Then we have the now obvious pure insanity of sacking thousands
>>> of doctors and nurses at the time when the health service is way
>>> behind with everything. If this stupidity doesn't get stopped
>>> then the lunatics really have taken over.
>
>> Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
>
> So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point

So why the expression of doubt in "So we're told"? It's another of
those inconvenient facts that demolish your arguments, therefore, as you
have no real reply to it, you attempt to cast doubt on it instead. IT'S
A FACT, AND IT PROVES YOU WRONG! Get used to it an move on.

"The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), which
has been monitoring activity throughout the pandemic, provides
information on admissions to intensive care.3 Its latest report,
published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients
admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who
were unvaccinated was 61%. This proportion had previously fallen from
75% in May 2021 to 47% in October 2021—consistent with the decreasing
proportion of the general population who were unvaccinated—before rising
again in December 2021."

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

"Separate data from November 1 on the same report from Public Health
Wales suggests you are around three times more likely to need hospital
treatment if you haven't had a Covid jab than if you have.

On that date there were 244 vaccinated 18-60-year-olds in hospital out
of 1.4m in Wales who've had a jab. That's a rate of 17 in every 100k
people. In comparison there were 155 unvaccinated people in hospital
with Covid out of 308,000 who haven't had a jab. That's a rate of 50 in
every 100k people - three times higher."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/number-vaccinated-unvaccinated-people-hospital-22564491

"Vaccination reduced the risk of infection during both the Alpha and
Delta period. Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca
vaccine were more effective than one dose at preventing symptomatic
infection. The booster vaccine provided over 90% protection against
symptomatic infection in adults aged 50 years and over.

Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were
estimated to be 96% and 92% effective against hospitalisation with the
Delta variant, respectively."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/vaccines

"Vaccine effectiveness

Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK
which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective
at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant,
with higher levels of protection against severe disease including
hospitalisation and death."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf

"‘Help us to help you’: doctors in England make pleas to unvaccinated

Frontline staff report that all or nearly all admissions at their
hospitals have not been jabbed

Frontline doctors have issued desperate pleas for more people to get
vaccinated after reporting that in some hospitals all new intensive care
Covid patients have not had jabs.

An estimated 5 million people, or 10% of the eligible population, have
not had been inoculated, and it is this group who are seemingly draining
the most resources from overstretched hospitals, experts say.

The problem is worst in parts of London, but Cambridge’s Royal Papworth
hospital said more than 80% of its Covid patients requiring the most
care were unjabbed."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/22/help-us-to-help-you-doctors-in-england-make-pleas-to-unvaccinated

>> The health service would function better if these idiots weren't
>> using up valuable NHS resources.
>
> I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
> before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
> statements like that are usually wrong.

Then why do you keep making so many blanket statements which, in your
case, are indeed usually wrong???!!!

Pamela's, however, is correct, see the links above.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> That comment is like me saying there are more people unvaccinated
> in America than vaccinated in the UK and America has had 690,000
> more deaths than the UK.

What are you on about?

Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is no
secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)

It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big yes.

My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not improved
by only meeting vaccinated people.

> >> Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
> >
> > So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
> > and in fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as
> > I'm fully vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.

> That the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated is an
> official statistic.

Yes it is and it's seems reasonable that that is the case and until I
hear it questioned I'm happy with it.

> You should also look at official statistics rather than rely on
> Twitter as your only source of data.

I do, I have little choice, it's thrown at me. I use them as a guide
and not gospel, I know they're not trying to educate with the truth,
they're trying to manipulate opinion. hence the absurd predictions
and crazy modelling.

> >> The health service would function better if these idiots
> >> weren't using up valuable NHS resources.
> >
> > I would need to know a lot more about these people individually
> > before I could get anywhere near calling them idiots. Blanket
> > statements like that are usually wrong.
> >
> > We don't even know if the reason they went into hospital was
> > covid or some other problem and indeed we don't know why they're
> > still in there. Don't think the propaganda fear mongers wouldn't
> > allow you to assume the wrong thing.

> Statistician David Spiegelhalter explained recently that many
> people went into hospital with another condition than Covid but
> contracted it there and, weakened from their original illness,
> ended up in ICU.

Yes, again that sounds very reasonable.

> Don't let Covidiot fear mongers

You talk of fear mongers, oh the irony. :-)

> frighten you into overlooking effective precautions.

Like what?

My wife and I are triple jabbed and we aren't dining out at the
moment whilst the infection rate is high. We do have friends and
family in the house but in reduced numbers and frequency.

When forced to wear masks by the law, I'm very confident cloth masks
are useless and even the Germans don't allow them so we wear N95
masks. If I've got to wear the damn thing I might as well wear a
better one.

We stay away from crowded places when we have a choice.

Bob.

On 12/01/2022 14:39, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <59a9a05d02bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Allison Pearson (Telegraph writer)
>> Tweets this morning...
>> So many lies being exposed now.
>> Asymptomatic transmission - total rubbish.
>> Vaccines stop the spread of the virus - rubbish
>> Lockdown stops the spread of the virus - rubbish
>> Almost all restrictions foisted on the public - rubbish.
>>
>> Wow She really went for it too. I wouldn't go that far on
>> asymptomatic transmission, I think the evidence suggests it can
>> happen but numerically it's not significant in the overall spread.
>> But a strong post from Allison, I hope she tells us why she thinks
>> these things.

As I have said before, you only have to read your summary above with an
open mind to conclude: Allison Pearson - total rubbish!

It's astonishing how quickly you 'forget' that she was soundly debunked
only this afternoon by Pamela:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Pearson

"Pearson said during the COVID-19 pandemic that she would not wear a
protective face mask because she considered it demeaning.[23] In
September 2020, Pearson suggested purposely infecting young people with
COVID-19 to create herd immunity within the population.[24] In January
2021, Pearson drew criticism[by whom?] after outing a critic's employer
on Twitter, after claiming that the National Health Service (NHS) bed
occupancy during the pandemic was lower than suggested.[25]

According to The Guardian, Pearson has made misleading claims about
COVID-19.[23] In December 2020 she wrote in her Telegraph column that
"Last week, Sir Patrick Vallance and Prof Chris Whitty presented another
of their Graphs of Doom; this one cherry-picked several hospitals on
course to run out of beds." However, this was false, and no such data
was presented in the period stated.[26] In July 2021 she misleadingly
tweeted that hospitalisations were 0.5% of Covid-19 cases when the
actual figure based on the data she highlighted would be 1.67%, and this
was also based on misleading use of the data.[27]"

> It *looks* like her source is CDC.
>
> Here's the tweet about CDC...
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/game-over.jpg

She retweeted A d a m B r o o k s whose profile page says ...

Publican…..NOT famous, NOT qualified in anything & NOT scared to say it
how it is, whoever you are."

.... so a typical bullshitter, and also so, unsurprisingly, following his
links leads nowhere:

https://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/national/cdc-director-says-vaccines-are-not-preventing-transmission

"This site isn't currently available in the EU"!

So that site is really bang up-to-date with the latest facts and
figures, er not!

Meanwhile, back on the CNN site where all this is supposed to have been
reported, we find, er, nothing.

> Also Dean Kelly responds to Allison about CDC's position on masks and
> common cold protection.
>
> Then Doctor Clare Craig on Allison's post said...
>
> "Agree with this.
> Except not everyone will get it. Only a minority will."

Dr Clare Craig is already infamous here for having had at one time five
false statements on the first page of her Shitter feed.

> Definitely a narrative shift at the moment.

Nope, just the same old bullshitters shitting the same old bullshit, and
insanitary you still loving wallowing in it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12/01/2022 17:07, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That comment is like me saying there are more people unvaccinated
>> in America than vaccinated in the UK and America has had 690,000
>> more deaths than the UK.
>
> What are you on about?
>
> Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
> majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is no
> secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)

How many times must you be told that what matters is the *PROPORTION* of
each cohort that's being infected. As already stated in another reply,
an unvaccinated person is many times more likely to end up in hospital
than a vaccinated person, and, however you want to try and bullshit over
the matter, THAT'S WHAT COUNTS!

> My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
> coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not improved
> by only meeting vaccinated people.

As has been explained to you multiple times in this thread, having the
vaccination makes it less likely that you will catch the virus, and that
if you do, both less likely you will give it to others and less likely
you will end up in hospital.

>>>> Predictably, the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated.
>>>
>>> So we're told, I've not seen any arguments against that point
>>> and in fact on a personal level I sort of hope it's correct as
>>> I'm fully vaxed and would prefer not to be very ill with covid.
>>
>> That the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated is an
>> official statistic.
>
> Yes it is and it's seems reasonable that that is the case and until I
> hear it questioned I'm happy with it.

So why, unless you are a dishonest shit, which everyone here knows you
are, would you write "So we're told" as if to doubt it???!!!

>> You should also look at official statistics rather than rely on
>> Twitter as your only source of data.
>
> I do, I have little choice, it's thrown at me. I use them as a guide
> and not gospel, I know they're not trying to educate with the truth,
> they're trying to manipulate opinion. hence the absurd predictions
> and crazy modelling.

You're confusing official government statistics from civil servants with
political statements made by politicians. Statistics are just
statistics, as value-free as statisticians can make them. Start here:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

> My wife and I are triple jabbed and we aren't dining out at the
> moment whilst the infection rate is high. We do have friends and
> family in the house but in reduced numbers and frequency.
>
> When forced to wear masks by the law, I'm very confident cloth masks
> are useless and even the Germans don't allow them so we wear N95
> masks. If I've got to wear the damn thing I might as well wear a
> better one.
>
> We stay away from crowded places when we have a choice.

The above is creditable, if true, but you lie so often that no-one is
much inclined to believe anything you claim just based on your claiming
it, and also it contradicts almost every post you've made here since the
pandemic began, so even if it is true, and I hope it is, it still shows
you to be a miserable and dishonest hypocrite, but again, we knew that
already.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That comment is like me saying there are more people
>> unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and America
>> has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
>
> What are you on about?
>
> Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
> majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is
> no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
>
> It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
> yes.
>
> My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
> coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not
> improved by only meeting vaccinated people.

If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
inference is untrue.

I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
Covidiots.

An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching Covid
and also has a higher viral load when infected.

That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated, yet the
they form lss than a tenth of the population.

In article <XnsAE1DBA75BEDF437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> > In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> > Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That comment is like me saying there are more people
> >> unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and America
> >> has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
> >
> > What are you on about?
> >
> > Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
> > majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is
> > no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
> >
> > It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
> > yes.
> >
> > My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
> > coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not
> > improved by only meeting vaccinated people.

> If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
> inference is untrue.

That would be true if the number of people infected both vaxed and
unvaxed were the same but I'm very sure they're not. Look at all the
arguments you yourself passed to me yesterday about vaxed people
changing behaviour etc. There's also vastly more vaxed people.

> I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
> Covidiots.

Ok, if you wish to get a response from me you'll need to drop the
silly insults like Covididiots. What is it with the left, you'll be
giving me 'Brexshit' next like your mate, so childish.

> An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching Covid

"Not much if at all" said the head of Pfizer yesterday. They will
have a vaccine out by March that will protect against infection by
this variant. I quoted his exact words earlier today.

> and also has a higher viral load when infected.

> That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated, yet
> the they form lss than a tenth of the population.

I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more
likely to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source than a
vaxed one. That's a reach that is.

We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and clearly
with current circumstances they're a nonsense. In addition any form
of apartheid and that's what it would be, is a marker of tyranny and
is a weapon of nasty governments.

To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid when
we're in such a none covid health crisis. Especially when we remember
that 20 months ago we were all outside clapping NHS doctors and
nurses trying to save lives without any jabs and precious little PPE.
And now we have lunatics planning to sack those people? Fair and
decent? I don't think so.

Bob.

On 12/01/2022 19:44, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE1DBA75BEDF437B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>>>
>>> In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That comment is like me saying there are more people
>>>> unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and America
>>>> has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
>>>
>>> What are you on about?
>>>
>>> Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
>>> majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There is
>>> no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
>>>
>>> It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
>>> yes.
>>>
>>> My only point on that statistic is that your chances of avoiding
>>> coming into contact with someone infected with covid are not
>>> improved by only meeting vaccinated people.
>>
>> If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
>> inference is untrue.
>
> That would be true if the number of people infected both vaxed and
> unvaxed were the same but I'm very sure they're not. Look at all the
> arguments you yourself passed to me yesterday about vaxed people
> changing behaviour etc. There's also vastly more vaxed people.
>
>> I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
>> Covidiots.
>
> Ok, if you wish to get a response from me

What makes you think that *ANYONE* here actually *WANTS* a response from
you? What *EVERYONE* here actually wants from you is to shut the fuck
up with your propagandising of fake news and right-wing political dogma.

> you'll need to drop the
> silly insults like Covididiots. What is it with the left, you'll be
> giving me 'Brexshit' next like your mate, so childish.

Whereas you refuse to drop the silly insulting behaviour to people like
Jim and me in calling us 'lefties', 'woke', 'greenies', etc, because you
just can't stand the fact that every time you spout bollocks here, which
is virtually every post you make, we rip it to shreds.

>> An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching Covid
>
> "Not much if at all" said the head of Pfizer yesterday. They will
> have a vaccine out by March that will protect against infection by
> this variant. I quoted his exact words earlier today.

And both he and you failed to note that almost everyone who has been
vaccinated in this country has had more than one type of vaccine, which
makes his comments rather irrelevant because having vaccines of
different types has been shown to give good protection even against
omicron. Hence the current emphasis on boosters, because they will be
of a different type to the first two jabs.

>> and also has a higher viral load when infected.
>>
>> That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated, yet
>> the they form lss than a tenth of the population.
>
> I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more
> likely to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source than a
> vaxed one. That's a reach that is.

That's because you refuse to read reliable mainstream media, and insist
in wallowing in cesspits like Shitter. Here again is the evidence I
posted this afternoon, for you to ignore again, and then lie claiming
that you've never seen anyone say it:

"The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), which
has been monitoring activity throughout the pandemic, provides
information on admissions to intensive care.3 Its latest report,
published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients
admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who
were unvaccinated was 61%. This proportion had previously fallen from
75% in May 2021 to 47% in October 2021—consistent with the decreasing
proportion of the general population who were unvaccinated—before rising
again in December 2021."

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

"Separate data from November 1 on the same report from Public Health
Wales suggests you are around three times more likely to need hospital
treatment if you haven't had a Covid jab than if you have.

On that date there were 244 vaccinated 18-60-year-olds in hospital out
of 1.4m in Wales who've had a jab. That's a rate of 17 in every 100k
people. In comparison there were 155 unvaccinated people in hospital
with Covid out of 308,000 who haven't had a jab. That's a rate of 50 in
every 100k people - three times higher."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/number-vaccinated-unvaccinated-people-hospital-22564491

"Vaccination reduced the risk of infection during both the Alpha and
Delta period. Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca
vaccine were more effective than one dose at preventing symptomatic
infection. The booster vaccine provided over 90% protection against
symptomatic infection in adults aged 50 years and over.

Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were
estimated to be 96% and 92% effective against hospitalisation with the
Delta variant, respectively."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/vaccines

"Vaccine effectiveness

Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK
which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective
at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant,
with higher levels of protection against severe disease including
hospitalisation and death."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf

"‘Help us to help you’: doctors in England make pleas to unvaccinated

Frontline staff report that all or nearly all admissions at their
hospitals have not been jabbed

Frontline doctors have issued desperate pleas for more people to get
vaccinated after reporting that in some hospitals all new intensive care
Covid patients have not had jabs.

An estimated 5 million people, or 10% of the eligible population, have
not had been inoculated, and it is this group who are seemingly draining
the most resources from overstretched hospitals, experts say.

The problem is worst in parts of London, but Cambridge’s Royal Papworth
hospital said more than 80% of its Covid patients requiring the most
care were unjabbed."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/22/help-us-to-help-you-doctors-in-england-make-pleas-to-unvaccinated

> We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and clearly
> with current circumstances they're a nonsense. In addition any form
> of apartheid and that's what it would be, is a marker of tyranny and
> is a weapon of nasty governments.

Use of emotional blackmail without *EVIDENCE* noted.

> To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid when
> we're in such a none covid health crisis. Especially when we remember
> that 20 months ago we were all outside clapping NHS doctors and
> nurses trying to save lives without any jabs and precious little PPE.
> And now we have lunatics planning to sack those people? Fair and
> decent? I don't think so.

NHS staff have an ethical duty to protect the interests of those whom
they treat, and there is now sufficient *EVIDENCE* as detailed again
above that that is best done by getting themselves vaccinated.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <59a9c7fa4bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and clearly
> with current circumstances they're a nonsense.

> To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid when
> we're in such a none covid health crisis.

One by one .. bit by bit .... the truth slowly comes out.

In the Telegraph this morning.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/13/lord-frost-covid-lockdowns-serious-mistake-government-needs/

Article by Lord Frost.

In which he says...

”I think, honestly, people are going to look back at the last couple
of years globally and see lockdown as a pretty serious public policy
mistake,• he said.

”I would like to see the Government ruling out lockdowns for the
future; repealing the legislation; ending them. We can‘t afford it
[and] it doesn‘t work. Stop doing Covid theatre — vaccine passports,
masks, stuff that doesn‘t work — and focus on stuff that does work so
that we‘re ready if the next one is worse.

”Stuff like ventilation, antivirals, proper hospital capacity,
managing it properly — that‘s what we need to be focusing on.•

---------------------

Well well, who knew?

As a comedian said the other night, this is going to be the biggest
"I told you so" in history.

"Masks: covid theatre that doesn't work."

Obvious to anyone who looks at graphs and isn't blinded by main
stream media propaganda. Even the government knew it was BS.

Now watch the left rubbish Lord Frost, it's their way. They should be
rubbishing Sage and the likes of 'always wrong' Neil Ferguson and of
course the agenda media who will never admit they got it wrong.

Bob.