On 09/01/2022 13:11, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article<59a8157a81bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article<XnsAE1A7DA43C3F237B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
>>> changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
>>> every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
>
>>> For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than
>>> each time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers,
>>> conspiracy theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents,
>>> misfits, law breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated,
>>> narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult members,
>>> self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?
>
>
>> It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
>> disturbing.
>
> I'm fearful to ask, do you have a "final solution" to deal with
> members of your hate list?
>
> Bob.
>

Darwin has. A large proportion of covidiots die after regretting their
stupidity, unfortunately having wasted NHS resources in the process.

Jim

On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 10:38:39 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> Compare their numbers instead with the number of people protesting in
>> the streets *in favour* of Boris and his lockdowns, restrictions, covid
>> passes and vaccinations without consent, and you get a completely
>> different picture.
>
>Maybe you haven't noticed that people tend not to organise protests in
>order to say that they are happy with what is being done.

Fair enough. Perhaps it's more valid to compare them with the numbers
who typically take to the streets to protest about other things. I
think this is what I originally did, in comparing them with the
handful of people who were recently blocking motorways. Compared with
these, just by looking at the video material, the numbers appear vast,
and the protests appear to have been taking place in many major cities
throughout the world.

Rod.

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.

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.

Rod.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 21:37:55 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus is
>> said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll never
>> achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we live
>> with things like the flu and the common cold. All the isolation,
>> quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial distancing) could
>> ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a vaccine in the hope
>> that fewer people would die while we were developing it. Well, now we
>> have, so those who think they can benefit from it can have it, and
>> probably should (though I'm not a doctor, so if in doubt ask your own
>> doctor's advice) but as with any medical treatment, it's ultimately
>> their own decision.
>>
>On this part I can agree. I think COVID will keep coming back, and it
>will in the end get rolled into the annual 'flu jab.

As long as we can return to living our normal lives for the rest of
the time, I'm perfectly fine with this. I've accepted all the vaccines
my surgery has offered, as I usually do, because I assume doctors know
what's best for their own patients. That's three for covid so far this
winter, one for flu and another for shingles. I feel as though I've
had more pricks than a pincushion, but given my age I think the
benefits probably outweigh any risks for me, but I wouldn't expect
everyone else to do the same. What other people choose to do to their
own bodies is none of my business, as my choice is none of theirs.

Rod.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:21:03 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 23:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
>>>and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
>>>need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
>>>for the unnecessary costs incurred.
>>
>> Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
>> This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
>> insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a changing
>picture because, for example, many of those who opposed every requirement
>to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
>
>For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than each time
>list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers, conspiracy theorists,
>vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents, misfits, law breakers, poorly
>informed, poorly educated, narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult
>members, self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?

The danger of lumping together everything you don't like into a single
word insult is that you end up accusing people of things that simply
don't apply. How am I supposed to know which kind of deviant or misfit
you think I am if I only disagree with you on one point?

Rod.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:14:29 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
>The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but
>responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
>then acquire a serious Covid infection) 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. 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"?

It's not a doctor's job to judge the morality of anyone who ends up
needing medical attention, only to provide it.

Rod.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 10:49:06 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>In article <dqdltgtq5vg4572g20pj3l9a4jroaqpvi0@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> >On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> >> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
>> >
>> >If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
>> >the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
>> >Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
>> >death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
>> >the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
>> >from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
>> >secret identity.
>> >
>> >Jim
>
>> The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
>> I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
>> regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
>> doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel
>> prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
>> all human lives are of equal value.
>
>However, there are now proposals to make murder of a Police Officer or
>Emergency Worker a more serious crime.

As long as this only applies to a police officer *while carrying out
their duty* which I think is what is being proposed, I can see the
logic behind it - greater protection for greater risk. While on duty,
the police (when they're not simply chasing the users of mean words on
Twitter or Facebook) are subject to greater risks than most of us, and
so it's reasonable to give them greater legal protections. Otherwise
they're just human beings like the rest of us.

Rod.

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.

In article <srfjfb$hke$1@dont-email.me>,
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".

The trouble is as seen yesterday, people get grouped together very
unfairly buy zealots. For me, there is a huge gap between someone who
is hesitant or has decided that they don't think THIS vaccine is in
their interest or a parent who very reasonably thinks no way for
their child. Noone knows what the long term health effects of the
jabs are on children still developing but we do know that there is
very little chance of a child being seriously ill with covid. It
takes us right to the edge of reason and civilisation to vaccinate
children.

What about people who had a bad reaction to vaccine 1? A friend of my
wife was frightened to death by what happened to her and she was
seeing specialists for months as a result, very, very scary.
Eventually she did get her second does but she was very afraid.

These rational normal people are grouped together with people who try
to disrupt vaccination offices and don't do vaccines at all. Very
different situations, it's so sad that closed minds can't see the
distinction.

Personally, my wife and I have had all 3 shots, we decided as best we
could that for us it was the better option at the time.

The difficulty we had in making that decision is that we know main
stream media filter and twist the news continuously as they follow
the agenda, "the science", the narrative. The moment they show you a
projected graph or a model, you know without doubt it's propaganda.
That makes getting some truth on which to base a decision difficult
to say the least.

For anyone with a sense of history, humanity and decency the most
important point is that individuals should be able to decide what
medical treatment they receive if we are to continue calling
ourselves civilised. People should be presented with *facts* not
propaganda and allowed to make their own decision which should be
respected by all. Not bullied, coerced and ostracised by a bunch of
morons behaving like Nazis.

I have a half friend, for want of a better description. We're not
close but we worked together for a number of years, got on well
together and still have a common interest in F1. He's black and
unvaccinated. I also know *of* a family (white) who live next door to
mates of mine who are unvaccinated. Everyone else I know of in my
circle, is vaccinated.

As we all know, the vaccine program is designed to raise the
anti-bodies in the blood to help them tackle a covid invasion. It's
worrying that T-cells are still not valued in that by MSM/agenda but
they are I'm sure wrong in that like so many other things.

But anti-bodies do not stop you getting infected, they only kick in
when you get infected and I'm not for one second suggesting that that
isn't very worth having.

However, I reiterate, it doesn't stop you getting infected or passing
it on and so why vaccine passports? In an attempt to get out of that
obvious logical checkmate, the left (yes it's always them) argue that
this puts people at more risk of being ill and therefore a burden to
the NHS. Well yes to some extent that may be true especially in
London or other areas of high immigrant population. But overall, I
doubt it's that significant due to the vaccinated ratio. Besides,
bullying and coercing people not being vaxed really is racism
according to the figures.

Against all of this I've been reading more and more about the damage
being done to our immune system's ability to prevent any invasion
(not just covid) before anti-bodies do their stuff. It seems people
who are vaccinated are more likely to get infected but again that
doesn't mean the vaccine isn't able to help you fight it but we do
have to face the truth.

> I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that the serious cases that
> he's treating are overwhelmingly unvaccinated.

It may be just wording but I'm less convinced of that. I'll state
again, yes it does appear that the vaccinated are less likely to
become seriously ill BUT they are more likely to get infected. Sorry
but that does appear to be the case. The vast majority of people
infected with covid in the UK at this moment are vaccinated. It is
therefore statistically likely that there are significant people
really ill who are vaccinated. The media/government is never going to
be honest on this, the narrative must be maintained.

Talking of the narrative...
I mentioned last week there were signs of journalists and some
politicians distancing themselves, well there has been some more.

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.

Bob.

On 10/01/2022 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:14:29 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but
>> responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
>> then acquire a serious Covid infection) 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. 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"?

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.

Jim

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

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.

Bob.

In article <3j2otg53p4kqrvcbd3tsqp212lghve751c@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.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. 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.

So 'doctors' - or those who employ them *do* make such decisions. Does that
make the USA immoral? That said, I *much* prefer the NHS ideal - which is
why I hate the way this is being eroded by stealth over the years. Private
medicine is growing in the UK on the back of the limited provision by the
NHS due to their resources and requirements being controlled by Government.

> It's not a doctor's job to judge the morality of anyone who ends up
> needing medical attention, only to provide it.

But they do have to decide the order in which arrivals will be treated, and
how to treat them, considering the cases on their relative merits.

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 10:38 10 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:14:29 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but
>>responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
>>then acquire a serious Covid infection) 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. 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"?
>
> 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.

My suggestion does not involve doctors beyond the initial diagnosis.
After that it's up to those who determine public health as to what
weighting to apply to the patient's urgency scoring. Payment for hospital
services can be collected by hospital admin staff. Dcotors can get on
with treating other sick patients.

I'm pleased to see Ikea announce a broadly similar scheme in the
workplace. Ikea requires staff to take responsible precautions or to
forfeit income. If an Ikea employee has to stay off work to isolate
because they did not have the jab, then Ikea will pay only statutory sick
pay and not the employee's full wage. Sounds fair.

On 12:15 10 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> 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.
>
> Bob.

The ONS report whose figures were used to ilustrate "more infection
amongst the vaccinated" contained a clear footnote saying it was
invalid to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations using the
data given. It was impossible to miss but that didn't stop Covidiots
spreading their false interpretation.

Vaccination greatly reduces the chance of becoming infected and hence
being infectious.

I wonder why the majority of patients in ICU in England don't have the
jab when they are less than 10% of the population.

I also wonder why almost every single pregnant mother in ICU with Covid
has not had the jab.

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

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

Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is likely
to be far less severe, as in my case.

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

On 10:27 10 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:21:03 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 23:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the
>>>>vaccine and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority
>>>>when they need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should
>>>>later be charged for the unnecessary costs incurred.
>>>
>>> Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence
>>> now. This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad
>>> hominem insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for
>>> better.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>
>>There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
>>changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
>>every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.
>>
>>For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than each
>>time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers, conspiracy
>>theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents, misfits, law
>>breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated, narcissistic, selfish,
>>insecure, fearful, cult members, self-appointed researchers, etc.
>>Have I forgotten any?
>
> The danger of lumping together everything you don't like into a
> single word insult is that you end up accusing people of things that
> simply don't apply. How am I supposed to know which kind of deviant
> or misfit you think I am if I only disagree with you on one point?
>
> Rod.

I am not seeking to categorise idiots into a precise and complex
taxonomy. They remain Covidiots whatever form their idiocy takes.

On 14:02 10 Jan 2022, charles said:

> 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
>
> Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is
> likely to be far less severe, as in my case.

There's also a broader consideration.

A far larger proportion of the unvaccinated contract Covid. Comparing an
infected vaccinated person with an infected unvaccinated person overlooks
the significance of this.

Antivax scrotes are not the best-educated in society and their
understanding of statistics is minimal.

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

There is a short period after receiving the vaccination where people are
likely to test positive for the virus, but that is a short term position
while the vaccination does its work. It doesn't prove that the positive
test confirms an infection, but it can't be assumed that it doesn't
either. After 2 weeks that situation no longer exists.

Being vaccinated does reduce the viral load of those infected, so the
likelihood of passing it on is much reduced. It also reduces the
probability that having been exposed to the virus, the virus takes hold.
Thus it is not foolproof, but it is far better than remaining
unvaccinated, particularly when those unvaccinated are far more likely
to need intensive care if infected. The vast majority in intensive care
are unvaccinated; Gloucester Hospital recently estimated the
unvaccinated were 90% of those in intensive care.

The fact that it remains possible to become infected despite being
vaccinated doesn't make the risk to others the same for vaccinated or
unvaccinated. It is not a binary choice of options.

Jim

On 10/01/2022 09:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> Fair enough. Perhaps it's more valid to compare them with the numbers
> who typically take to the streets to protest about other things. I
> think this is what I originally did, in comparing them with the
> handful of people who were recently blocking motorways. Compared with
> these, just by looking at the video material, the numbers appear vast,
> and the protests appear to have been taking place in many major cities
> throughout the world.

NO THEY DON'T!!! I've already proved to you that they cover just 7
demos in only 4 European countries, all of whom have in common a
right-wing that is pushing EXACTLY this sort of crappy disinformation!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/01/2022 10:02, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

As has already been explained to you, the more the few pose a danger to
the many, the greater the need to compel them not to do so.

--

Fake news kills!

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

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.

> Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is
> likely to be far less severe, as in my case.

I have no problem with that at all, hope it does the same for us
should we get it.

Bob.

On 10/01/2022 11:34, Bob Latham wrote:

Fake news that has been reported to:
n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

> I'll state
> again, yes it does appear that the vaccinated are less likely to
> become seriously ill BUT they are more likely to get infected.

NONSENSE! As has been explained to you multiple times before, this is
an example of Simpson's paradox, look it up.

The *NUMBER* of people who are vaccinated and who are getting infected
is greater than the *NUMBER* of people who are not vaccinated and
getting infected, simply because the majority of people in the country
have been vaccinated, but the *PROPORTION* of people who are vaccinated
and who are getting infected is smaller than the *PROPORTION* of people
who are not vaccinated, as can be measured by the fact that a smaller
*PROPORTION* of them end up in hospital!

Just how many times must this be explained to you???!!!

[Snip illogical deductions made from false assumptions]

> Talking of

.... your fake ...

> narrative...
> I mentioned last week there were signs of journalists and some
> politicians distancing themselves, well there has been some more.
>
> Guardian: End Mass Jabs

Factual reporting of one man's opinion, no hint of The Guardian
'distancing' itself from anything:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/08/end-mass-jabs-and-live-with-covid-says-ex-head-of-vaccine-taskforce

> The Times: End Free Tests.

Factual reporting of possible change in government policy, no hint of
The Times 'distancing' itself from anything:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/end-of-free-lateral-flow-tests-as-country-told-to-live-with-covid-3bpz8lnqf

> Daily Mail: Scotland Against Lockdown.

Exactly the sort of bigoted and misleading reporting to be expected from
the Fail Online, this time concerning a denialist protest in Glasgow.
To take just one example:

"Official data showed Covid cases in Wales and Scotland are increasing
faster than in England despite the nations' harsher restrictions."

But the latest available government statistics actually tell a different
story:

"Official reported estimates of the percentage of the population testing
positive for COVID-19, UK countries
Estimated percentage of the population testing positive for coronavirus
(COVID-19) on nose and throat swabs, UK, 25 to 31 December 2021

England 6.00
Wales 5.20
NI 3.97
Scotland 4.52"

So the latest wave of infections in Scotland started from a lower
percentage point than any of the other nations, and consequently,
despite recent omicron-related increases, it may still be at a lower
rate than the other nations. We won't actually know until the next
national statistics in this series is released:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/7january2022#percentage-of-people-who-had-covid-19-in-england-wales-northern-ireland-and-scotland

h t t p s : / / w w w . d a i l y m a i l . c o . u k / n e w s / a r t
i c l e - 1 0 3 8 1 9 1 3 / A n t i - l o c k d o w n - p r o t e s t -
k i c k s - G l a s g o w - a n g e r - N i c o l a - S t u r g e o n s
- C o v i d - c u r b s - b o i l s - o v e r . h t m l

> Telegraph: Dodgy Covid Data

Although The Telegraph is obviously trying to target the UKHSA, the real
culprit seems to be a government minister misquoting figures. However,
again no hint of The Telegraph trying to 'distance' itself from anything:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/new-dodgy-data-row-ukhsa-warned-implausible-covid-statistics/

> Evening Standard: Covid is Endemic.

Factual reporting of one man's opinion, no hint of The Evening Standard
'distancing' itself from anything:

"Dr Mike Tildesley, from the University of Warwick, said the Omicron
variant could make Covid endemic."

Note also the difference between "could make" and Bob's misleading claim
above that implies it is already endemic.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/omicron-covid-pandemic-hope-milder-london-cases-b975618.html

> and wait for it .....
> BBC: Cut Self Isolation Period.

Factual reporting of a government minister's pronouncement, no hint of
The BBC 'distancing' itself from anything:

"Covid-19: Cutting self-isolation to five days would be helpful, Nadhim
Zahawi says"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59925702

> One swallow doesn't make a summer.

And multiple attempts to spin real news doesn't make it support your
bigoted and entrenched views.

--

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:

Fake news that has been reported to:
n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10/01/2022 15:24, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <59a8a11103charles@candehope.me.uk>,
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

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

> 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.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

>> Yes, we know it doesn't stop you getting Covid, but the 'attack' is
>> likely to be far less severe, as in my case.
>
> I have no problem with that at all, hope it does the same for us
> should we get it.

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

--

Fake news kills!

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