On 17/01/2022 13:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
>>>>> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
>>>>> upwards - extreme transmission.
>>>
>>>> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
>>>
>>> Yes, thankfully that's true.
>>>
>>> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
>>> moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
>>> lower health risk than the current vaccines.
>
> Just on the off chance I thought I'd see what Mr. Nasty is saying
> this morning.

Says Mr. Nastier

>> Again an absurd claim made without provenance.
>> There is no way that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by
>> your behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.
>
> I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.

I never said that you claimed it, I said it was an absurd claim (whoever
made it). Further, repeating here a claim from elsewhere, without
bothering to check its provenance before repeating it, is in effect
restating the claim here, so your attempt to pass the blame for the
absurdity of it onto others is just yet another example of your chronic
dishonesty. *YOU* repeated it here despite its obvious untruth,
therefore it's *YOUR* trolling of this ng with it and countless other
like absurdities that is the problem here.

> Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
> Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
>
> Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
> vaccines, there have been others ...
>
> Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
>
> h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 S u 8 7 8 h S _ w g

Dr. Chris Martenson is an economic researcher, not an epidemiologist, no
more need be said.

>>> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
>>> it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
>>> /sage models but most things are.
>>
>> False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
>
> There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.

There is, as I have proved above.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <ss1i1g$893$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 16/01/2022 14:44, Pamela wrote:
> >
> > On 10:54 16 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
> >>

> However, while it's easy to dismiss sciencepublishinggroup.com, it's
> important to understand that such commercial organisations and modus
> operandi are part of problems in the wider science publishing
> environment:

> Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4

> > As you probably know, this became so troublesome in medicine that the
> > Cochrane group was created to perform independant meta-analyses.
> > Their reject rate of low quality studies with poor methodology is
> > astounding. For a given topic, I have seen Cochrane identify something
> > like 50 papers dealing with the topic but Cochrane is prepared to
> > accept only half a dozen as having validity.
> >
> > In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
> > remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
> > benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine
> > trusted information which has been scientifically proven rather than
> > determine what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect
> > knowledge.

> Yes. Every year there are more and more scientists doing more and more
> research, so it would seem rational to suppose that there is more chaff
> as well as more grain, and that it's becoming increasingly difficult to
> winnow out those few bad scientists that are over-claiming at best or
> fraudulent at worst. This is mostly a problem with the 'soft' sciences
> such as psychology, sociology, animal behaviour, etc, but sometimes
> spills over into the 'hard' sciences as well:

> BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...]
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st

> However, as the report above makes clear, problems with scientific
> claims are being retracted by the originating scientists themselves
> and/or unmasked by other scientists, they are not being exposed by
> politically motivated pseudo-scientists.

There is also a problem in the 'hard' sciences because of the way they get
funded. Basically, many researchers apply for grants from bodies like
'Research Councils'. And may need a lot of money for a project.

Nominally these are their 'peers' so can sniff out dribble. But the status
of a researcher tends to be determined by *how much* they have 'published'
and *where* it was published. Also by it being 'well regarded' by the
'peers' who get to 'referee' applications, etc.

This makes it *very* hard to get started from scratch unless an idividual
researcher is working for someone already "in the club" because many
projects require cash for kit. You can find examples of how this affects
research on my 'biog' webpages which example what it does. Particularly for
genuinely novel ideas which aren't simply polishing previous things done by
those "in the club". The results can be bonkers.

I once had an application turned down because I hadn't asked for much
money!

On another occasion I was told that what I proposed couldn't work. so
wasn't fundable. Curiously, *I already had it working in the lab*. I'd
asked for money to get some better bits for it and make some more
improvements. But hadn't admitted that because they wouldn't have regarded
it as 'novel' enough.

And, as per my earlier posting, established members of the 'club', can get
loads-o-money sometimes for bonkers ideas. In one case to employ their son
as a researcher.

In another case someone phoned me up after they'd got a grant and asked me
how what they proposed could be got to work. I had to explain that what
they were trying to do was more difficult than they'd realised. So might
not be a smart approach to getting the results they wanted.

Another feature of this is genuinely novel ideas can run into finding that
there is no pre-existing funding body/committee for what is proposed. I
once had an application rejected on that basis! Looking at the 'rule book'
I found that in such cases the Research Council was obliged to *form* a
suitably one, not reject out of hand. So I appealed, and got the money...

The next rule book had that section removed!

I also adopted the method of - as far as possible - bulding new kit 'from
scratch' rather than buying everything 'off the shelf'. This required
ingenuity and needed good technicians, but meant being able to make things
that were better than you could buy. So could be cheaper in the long run.
And lets you sell versions to others once they see it works - and they want
one! ... which then funds something else. :-)

So if anyone thinks I'm blanket-supporting all of how 'established science'
is done, they're wrong. I've repeatedly clashed with 'powers that be' about
this, and as a result had often to get cash for research via other routes
because I was 'awkward squad'. Indeed, on one occasion I resigned from a
committee because I didn't want to stay with it as they kept on using their
'standard' approach. Part of which was that people on the committee tended
to award grants to its members rather that look outwards. Not uncommon.

Fortunately, I managed to make progress, and enjoyed it. :-) But not
everyone does, alas.

One outcome for me is that I'm happy to shoot down 'learned papers' that
are dribble. :-)

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 <ss3tbp$oj2$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 13:02, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected
> >>>>> with Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are
> >>>>> vertical upwards - extreme transmission.
> >>>
> >>>> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, thankfully that's true.
> >>>
> >>> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron
> >>> (anagram: moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural
> >>> immunity and a lower health risk than the current vaccines.

> >>> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
> >>> it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
> >>> /sage models but most things are.

> > Just on the off chance I thought I'd see what Mr. Nasty is saying
> > this morning.

> Says Mr. Nastier

> >> Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way
> >> that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your
> >> behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.

And yet the video says it with numbers admittedly early on before
christmas. I never claimed it was correct in fact I specifically
stated I wasn't claiming that which for some reason you removed,
can't think why but I've replaced that.

But driven by hate, you saw a chance to attack me and predictably you
jumped in with nonsense which you'll now defend with ever greater
nonsense for ever, it's a repeating pattern with you.

> > I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.

> I never said that you claimed it, I said it was an absurd claim
> (whoever made it). Further, repeating here a claim from
> elsewhere, without bothering to check its provenance before
> repeating it, is in effect restating the claim here, so your

More black is white arguing from a loser.

> attempt to pass the blame for the absurdity of it onto others is
> just yet another example of your chronic dishonesty. *YOU*
> repeated it here despite its obvious untruth, therefore it's
> *YOUR* trolling of this ng with it and countless other like
> absurdities that is the problem here.

Twisted bullshit.

So if that's the case why did you claim you reported the post. Why
would anyone report a post that only reports what someone else said
and specifically states that I was not making that claim myself.

Don't bother to answer that, it will only be more nonsense twisting
reality and I'm not going to read it anyway.

You're wriggling, I know it, anyone who read my original post and
your response knows it though I do expect your far left mates to
suspend truth and honesty to come to your aid.

> > Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
> > Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
> >
> > Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
> > vaccines, there have been others ...
> >
> > Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
> >
> > h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 S u 8 7 8 h S _ w g

^^^^^^^^^
Credibility when the behaviour is that of a 5 years old.

> Dr. Chris Martenson is an economic researcher, not an
> epidemiologist, no more need be said.

Yes, always rubbish anyone that says something you disagree with,
it's the way of the far left mob.

It's an opinion and people are allowed to have them and they don't
need to agree with yours and if they don't it doesn't mean they're
wrong. You are not the truth, the way and the life.

> >>> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
> >>> it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
> >>> /sage models but most things are.
> >>
> >> False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
> >
> > There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.

> There is, as I have proved above.

You accused me of making a false claim. Nothing I wrote in that post
was false.

You were wrong.

I'm not going to continue to argue with someone I have zero respect
for and is prepared to argue black is white indefinitely and I
believe has a serious mental disorder.

Back to the bin with you.

Bob.

On 17/01/2022 16:44, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <ss3tbp$oj2$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/01/2022 13:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way
>>>> that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your
>>>> behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.
>
> And yet the video says it with numbers admittedly early on before
> christmas. I never claimed it was correct in fact I specifically
> stated I wasn't claiming that which for some reason you removed,
> can't think why but I've replaced that.

See next section of my previous reply, still quoted, though
unnecessarily interrupted by you, below ...

> But driven by hate, you saw a chance to attack me and predictably you
> jumped in with nonsense which you'll now defend with ever greater
> nonsense for ever, it's a repeating pattern with you.

Yawn, more paranoid victim signalling.

>>> I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.
>>
>> I never said that you claimed it, I said it was an absurd claim
>> (whoever made it). Further, repeating here a claim from
>> elsewhere, without bothering to check its provenance before
>> repeating it, is in effect restating the claim here, so your
>
> More black is white arguing from a loser.

See below ...

>> attempt to pass the blame for the absurdity of it onto others is
>> just yet another example of your chronic dishonesty. *YOU*
>> repeated it here despite its obvious untruth, therefore it's
>> *YOUR* trolling of this ng with it and countless other like
>> absurdities that is the problem here.
>
> Twisted bullshit.

In other words, you have no rational reply to the charge of
irresponsibly propagating obviously fake news about the epidemiology of
covid-19 from someone who obviously isn't an epidemiologist. What makes
you think that anyone else here in a sci/tech ng is interested in such
OT propaganda?

> So if that's the case why did you claim you reported the post. Why
> would anyone report a post that only reports what someone else said
> and specifically states that I was not making that claim myself.

I reported the post as anti-science fake news for yet again attacking
modelling and modellers.

> Don't bother to answer that, it will only be more nonsense twisting
> reality and I'm not going to read it anyway.

Yet here you are, despite for over two years claiming you never read the
many debunkings of you, and using that as an excuse to repost the same
lies often later the same day that they've already been debunked. It's
that sort of dishonesty that makes it clear to everyone here that you
are a serial liar.

> You're wriggling, I know it, anyone who read my original post and
> your response knows it though I do expect your far left mates to
> suspend truth and honesty to come to your aid.

Yet again the broken psychology of labelling someone who's arguing
against you with what you see as a pejorative label, which at least in
my case is wrongly applied anyway, to give yourself an excuse for
ignoring their arguments, because you know very well that you have no
rational reply to them.

>>> Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
>>> Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
>>>
>>> Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
>>> vaccines, there have been others ...
>>>
>>> Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
>>>
>>> h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 S u 8 7 8 h S _ w g
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Credibility when the behaviour is that of a 5 years old.

As you know very well, it's been munged because it's a link to fake news.

>> Dr. Chris Martenson is an economic researcher, not an
>> epidemiologist, no more need be said.
>
> Yes, always rubbish anyone that says something you disagree with,
> it's the way of the far left mob.
>
> It's an opinion and people are allowed to have them and they don't
> need to agree with yours and if they don't it doesn't mean they're
> wrong. You are not the truth, the way and the life.

It's not his place to vanity publish his opinions where they fall
outside of his sphere of expertise.

>>>>> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
>>>>> it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
>>>>> /sage models but most things are.
>>>>
>>>> False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
>>>
>>> There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.
>>
>> There is, as I have proved above.
>
> You accused me of making a false claim. Nothing I wrote in that post
> was false.

The claim about modelling is false.

> You were wrong.
>
> I'm not going to continue to argue with someone I have zero respect
> for and is prepared to argue black is white indefinitely and I
> believe has a serious mental disorder.
>
> Back to the bin with you.

Any lies and fake news you continue to post here will continue to be
reported to your news server, regardless of whether you choose to read
the rebuttals here or not.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17/01/2022 05:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 17/01/2022 16:44, Bob Latham wrote:

[ ... ]

>> Back to the bin with you.
>
> Any lies and fake news you continue to post here will continue to be
> reported to your news server, regardless of whether you choose to read
> the rebuttals here or not.

Oooh!

Scary! :-)

On 13:02 17 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way that
>> omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your behaviour) can be
>> safer than any of the approved vaccines.
>
> I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.
>
> Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
> Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...
>
> Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
> vaccines, there have been others ...N
>
> Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Su878hS_wg
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Su878hS_wg
>
> At around 22.5 minutes into the video.

Intriguing video. I looked at the spot you mentioned at 22.5 mins and
saw presenter Dr Chris Martensen displays a picture of the following
spoof Tweet by "Travis Kling" which he goes on to take it seriously and
even passes on its comedy message as something valuable.

--------- START

Fatality rate of 0.027% would get Omicron FDA approval..

"Standardized Mortality Rates after dose 1 were 0.42 & 0.37 for
Pfizer & Moderna and were 0.35 and 0.34 after dose 2."

Omicron is better than Pfizer or Moderna.

https://twitter.com/Travis_Kling/status/1473412883396677635

--------- END

According to the Tweet, Pfizer and Moderna reduced the mortality rates
of Omicron to 0.027% which is a clear tribute to those vaccines.
However the spoof then suggests a former Omicron infection in a person
reduced a later infection with Omicron, which is pure nonsense because
there are no cases of reinfection with Omicron.

In fact that statement in the Tweet about "Standardized Mortality
Rates" can't be found anywhere in Google. Even if it were, it would
reflect a study before Omicron emerged, as there hasn't been time yet
to trial those vaccines properly against Omicron.

This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it in
his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv. This all illustrates how the
whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful idiots are
repeating the Tweet?

Thinking of spoof Tweets, the extremely woke Titania McGrath is always
good for a chuckle ....

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath

In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it
> in his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
> referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv.

> This all illustrates
> how the whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful
> idiots are repeating the Tweet?

Ta-DA. Here comes the far left to the rescue !!

BTW, I'm not anti-vax, I've had 3.

Funny I see people pushing vaccines at the moment on the grounds of
preventing infection and spread are wrong because they don't prevent
infections with Omicron. These are people bonded to agenda that
ignore the science unless it suites them.

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaccine++.png

So not vaccinated have the lowest infection rate of the 4 groups.

**I have not said the vaccine doesn't help if you become infected.**

So if your concerned about passing the infection to others, the
unvaxed are fine So therefore the social duty argument collapses as
does vaccine passports.

When oh when, will the left ever learn that just because other people
have a different opinion doesn't make them fools or idiots.

-----------------
Found this on line and had to laugh.

They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed.
-----------------

It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
matters that it exists and what it claims.

I didn't even mention a tweet or video until the mr nasty popped up
and attacked me for nothing.

What I said was:

> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
> moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
> lower health risk than the current vaccines.

> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
> interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
> but most things are.

What I said was perfectly correct.

Bob.

On 20:02 17 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it
>> in his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
>> referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv.
>
>> This all illustrates how the whole antivax movement is comedy. How
>> many more useful idiots are repeating the Tweet?
>
> Ta-DA. Here comes the far left to the rescue !!
>
> BTW, I'm not anti-vax, I've had 3.
>
> Funny I see people pushing vaccines at the moment on the grounds of
> preventing infection and spread are wrong because they don't prevent
> infections with Omicron. These are people bonded to agenda that
> ignore the science unless it suites them.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaccine++.png
>
> So not vaccinated have the lowest infection rate of the 4 groups.
>
> **I have not said the vaccine doesn't help if you become infected.**
>
> So if your concerned about passing the infection to others, the
> unvaxed are fine So therefore the social duty argument collapses as
> does vaccine passports.
>
> When oh when, will the left ever learn that just because other people
> have a different opinion doesn't make them fools or idiots.
>
> -----------------
> Found this on line and had to laugh.
>
> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
> and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
> All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
> in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed.
> -----------------
>
> It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
> matters that it exists and what it claims.
>
> I didn't even mention a tweet or video until the mr nasty popped up
> and attacked me for nothing.
>
> What I said was:
>
>> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
>> moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
>> lower health risk than the current vaccines.
>
>> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
>> interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
>> but most things are.
>
> What I said was perfectly correct.
>
> Bob.

"It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
matters that it exists and what it claims."

My, what jumbled logic you're using! Are you posting under the
influence?

On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>
> [...]
>
>
> BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...]
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st

Out of interest, how do I go from viewing that web page to making a
bookmark of the programme to hear using my Android BBC Sounds app? I'm
logged in to the BBC site on my PC's browser but don't see a link where
I can bookmark (or subscribe) to Inside Science.

To do this I have to launch the Sounds app and use that to search for
the programme .

The same goes for your other link below although this time it's video.
However it can't be found using the iPlayer app's search function.

> Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4

Am I overlooking some shortcuts or feature tucked away somewhere on the
web page? It's as if the BBC web site has a part which is not
reflected in or integrated with BBC apps.

On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
> and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
> All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
> in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed.

You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.

That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum

It isn't as daft as your paragraph above suggests. If you are really
interested in the more complex scenario it is available, but as you tend
to stir rather than learn I don't suppose you will be bothered to find it.

Jim

On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it
>> in his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
>> referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv.
>>
>> This all illustrates
>> how the whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful

ITYM 'useless'

>> idiots are repeating the Tweet?
>
> Ta-DA. Here comes the far left to the rescue !!

FFS grow up and stop victim-signalling. Ask yourself, is it *REALLY
LIKELY* that everyone else in this ng is far left just because so many
of them disagree with you? Occam's Razor dictates that the most likely
explanation is that you are far right!

> BTW, I'm not anti-vax, I've had 3.
>
> Funny I see people pushing vaccines at the moment on the grounds of
> preventing infection and spread are wrong because they don't prevent
> infections with Omicron. These are people bonded to agenda that
> ignore the science unless it suites them.
>
> h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / v a c c i n e + + . p n g

Another dishonest and pointless attempt to obscure provenance by copying
a graph out of context to your own site, but it wasn't too difficult,
because for once it was (short) linked by the original Shitter post, to
determine that actually it comes from an official Public Health Scotland
publication here:

https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/media/11089/22-01-12-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf

The graph is on p32, but for an explanation of the statistics one is
referred to Appendix 6.

> So not vaccinated have the lowest infection rate of the 4 groups.

But, as has been explained to you times beyond counting, the 4 groups
are vastly different proportions of the population - unvaccinated
people represent only about 10-30% of the Scottish population depending
on how many doses you include, see p26 of the same document - and,
while these statistics have been standardised against a 'standard'
European population for more accurate comparison with other countries,
they apparently have only been partitioned into groups by vaccination
status, they do *NOT* appear to have been *WEIGHTED* by vaccination
status. Thus the conclusion you are attempting to draw is entirely
bogus (my caps) ...

From Appendix 6:

"Denominators for the 16 and over population are taken from the COVID-19
vaccination database. The denominator for under 16 year olds is from the
NRS mid-2020 population estimates. Population data are extracted from
Community Health Index (CHI) dataset representing all those currently
registered with a GP practice in Scotland. These are different
denominators than those in the Public Health Scotland COVID-19 Daily
Dashboard and may over-estimate the population size as they will
include, for example, some individuals who are no longer residents in
Scotland. This is a particular issue for the denominator for the
unvaccinated cohort, because for vaccinated individuals we know they
were resident in Scotland at the time of their vaccination whereas for
the unvaccinated cohort there will be a mixture of people who have
chosen not to have the vaccine and those who are no longer resident in
Scotland. THIS MEANS THAT THE RATES OF COVID INFECTION AND HARM FOR THE
UNVACCINATED GROUPS WILL BE UNDERESTIMATED, whereas the rates for the
vaccinated groups will be more accurate.

[...]

Age standardised hospitalisation and mortality rates are used to allow
comparisons of hospitalisation and mortality rates between populations
that have different age distributions. The 2013 European Standard
Population is used to standardise rates. Age-standardised rates for
COVID-19 related hospital admissions are standardised to the 2013
European Standard Population and are adjusted to only include
individuals 16 years old and over. For more information see the ONS
methods. Denominators used to calculate age-standardised mortality rates
are the same as the cases and hospitalisations rate figures and tables
described above."

So, no mention of weighting against vaccination status, and also a
warning that, for reasons other than such weighting, the case rates for
unvaccinated people will be further under-estimated.

> **I have not said the vaccine doesn't help if you become infected.**
>
> So if your concerned about passing the infection to others, the
> unvaxed are fine So therefore the social duty argument collapses as
> does vaccine passports.
>
> When oh when, will the left ever learn that just because other people
> have a different opinion doesn't make them fools or idiots.

See above, you are a fool and an idiot for believing what you read on
Shitter without ever bothering to check it its veracity before
propagandising it here. It's usually considered polite manners to wipe
the shit off your boots before coming into other people's space.

> It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
> matters that it exists and what it claims.

It matters a great deal if it exists and claims something that is false,
as Pamela has proved it to do so.

> What I said was:
>
>> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
>> moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
>> lower health risk than the current vaccines.

And in that you *LIED*, because your source is not an expert in the
relevant field, an epidemiologist, he's just another vanity publisher of
his own views, another pub bore migrated to YouTube, and his opinions
are worth no more wretchedly little than yours.

>> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
>> interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
>> but most things are.

What you did was indirectly make another false claim, as Pamela has proved.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17/01/2022 22:12, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...]
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st
>>
>> Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4

They're both radio, Radio 4 and World Service.

[Question about the Sounds App]

Sorry, I can't help you with the BBC Sounds app, mine wants me to sign
in, but when I do so, errors. This is probably related to the fact that
I haven't allowed cookies, which is in turn related to the fact that
there doesn't appear to be a way of saving my disallow-all-that-I-can
preferences. Talking about pissups and breweries, I notified them a
week or more back that the track listing for the Viennese New Year
Concert has been showing that for last year's concert, but when I looked
a few days later it was still doing so.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:

> On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
>> and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't
>> work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the
>> jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the
>> jabbed.
>
> You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
> outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
>
> That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad Latham. :)

In article <XnsAE2359F8E19D937B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:

> > On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
> >> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
> >> and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't
> >> work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the
> >> jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the
> >> jabbed.
> >
> > You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
> > outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
> >
> > That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum

> Reductio ad Latham. :)

That was humour from the net which I thought may be enjoyed or a
least raise a smile.

Wooosh.

Bob.

In article <XnsAE22DE3F381AD37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> "It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
> matters that it exists and what it claims."

> My, what jumbled logic you're using! Are you posting under the
> influence?

No. What I said is logically fine if you addressing the accusation
about my original post.

Sorry you can't see that.

Bob.

On 09:06 18 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE22DE3F381AD37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "It matters not if the tweet or video was false or true, it only
>> matters that it exists and what it claims."
>
>> My, what jumbled logic you're using! Are you posting under the
>> influence?
>
> No. What I said is logically fine if you addressing the accusation
> about my original post.
>
> Sorry you can't see that.
>
> Bob.

Do you think you should wait until your hangover passes before trying
to explain your drunken posting?

On 09:08 18 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE2359F8E19D937B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:
>
>> > On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>> >> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab
>> >> works and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab
>> >> doesn't work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are
>> >> putting the jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't
>> >> protect the jabbed.
>> >
>> > You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
>> > outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
>> >
>> > That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum
>
>> Reductio ad Latham. :)
>
>
> That was humour from the net which I thought may be enjoyed or a
> least raise a smile.
>
> Wooosh.
>
> Bob.

Bob, nice backpedalling but you got duped and the dope you quoted got
duped. Duped dopes both! Antivaxxers too but that's no surprise.

Your post referred to a video of someone who recounted "information" he
had found in all seriousness, just as you did. This is what you
actually wrote in your message <59ac3660a2bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>
----------- START -------------
Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
vaccines, there have been others ...

Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
0Su878hS_wghttps://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=0Su878hS_wg

At around 22.5 minutes into the video.
----------- END ------------

In article <ss4usi$pef$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:

> > They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab
> > works and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab
> > doesn't work. All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are
> > putting the jabbed in danger by not getting a jab that didn't
> > protect the jabbed.

> You have

No. Those are not my words, I copied it from the net for humour.

> reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
> outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.

> That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum

It was supposed to be humour, I said it made me laugh.

> It isn't as daft as your paragraph above suggests.

<sigh> It wasn't serious or mine.

> If you are really interested in the more complex scenario it is
> available, but as you tend to stir rather than learn I don't
> suppose you will be bothered to find it.

Right I see. My knowledge is inadequate proven by the fact that I
don't agree with you and covid ideology.

At the moment with Omicron it looks like the hospital/death
prevention argument for the vaccine is still valid. Or more honestly,
I've not seen an argument anywhere against that.

At the moment with Omicron it looks like the defence from infection
argument is bust and in that regard you stand less chance of getting
infected if you're not jabbed.

No! I'm not arguing against the jab, I'm facing the truth.

If that is correct then certain follow on arguments collapse, things
like - you must have the jab to stop the spread otherwise you'll kill
people.

The standard defence against that argument is - but the unvaxed will
have a higher viral load and therefore pass it on more readily.

But that depends on another covid nugget, asymptomatic transmission
otherwise surely people with symptoms would be isolating.

So we have unvaxed - a small minority.
Unvaxed and infected with covid even smaller.
Asymptomatic - even smaller.

Against the vast majority of infections with vaxed people.

And indeed, a higher viral load will also mean people are much more
likely to be ill and symptomatic, remember they don't have the
vaccine's protection against being seriously ill.

I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and it's
clear it's not a major factor in the spread.

Then don't even mention the idiocy of sacking health workers for
being unjabbed. This is insane on any level.

Firstly, thanks to the lockdown, we have a major health crisis of
none covid patients who are dying. Secondly, many people went outside
20 months ago and clapped these same workers for their fight to save
covid lives without any jab and without much PPE. We need these
people and never more so.

And now, they're unsafe and should be sacked?

Howling mad.

Indeed, because of their exposure, many will already have had covid
which gives better protection than the vaccine anyway. We all know
that hospitals and care homes are the best places in the country to
get infected. They've been hammered with covid exposure for 20 months
how can they possibly be a danger to anyone now.

And also, why will these doctors and nurses become dangerous in
April? If they're dangerous then why weren't they suspended before
christmas?

This is an argument of logic against ideology. I have no time for
ideology but it continually drives the left.

Bob.

On 18/01/2022 09:06, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> No. What I said is logically fine if you addressing the accusation
> about my original post.

Except it's not logically fine, because you were reported for
anti-science remarks against modelling and the people who do it.

> Sorry you can't see that.

Sorry you can't see that.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Right I see. My knowledge is inadequate proven by the fact that I
> don't agree with you and covid ideology.

Your knowledge is inadequate because, as long as it has a right-wing
political bias, you believe every absurdity you read on Shitter.

> At the moment with Omicron it looks like the hospital/death
> prevention argument for the vaccine is still valid. Or more honestly,
> I've not seen an argument anywhere against that.
>
> At the moment with Omicron it looks like the defence from infection
> argument is bust and in that regard you stand less chance of getting
> infected if you're not jabbed.

Again, you are failing to note a fundamental principle of simple
mathematics, that *NUMBERS* of unvaccinated people getting infected are
lower than the vaccinated people getting infected because there are far
fewer of them to infect, however the *PROPORTION* of unvaccinated people
getting infected is higher than the vaccinated people getting infected.

> No! I'm not arguing against the jab, I'm facing the truth.

No, you're grossly distorting it.

[Snip false argument based on above misunderstanding of basic maths]

> I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and it's
> clear it's not a major factor in the spread.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED AGAIN!

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

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

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

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

Additionally, many people are pre-symptomatic:

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

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

> Then don't even mention the idiocy of sacking health workers for
> being unjabbed. This is insane on any level.

They have an ethical responsibility - a concept you clearly don't
understand otherwise you wouldn't be posting this diarrhoea here - to
safeguard the lives of others, and that is best done by being vaccinated.

> Firstly, thanks to the lockdown, we have a major health crisis of
> none covid patients who are dying. Secondly, many people went outside
> 20 months ago and clapped these same workers for their fight to save
> covid lives without any jab and without much PPE. We need these
> people and never more so.

So they should get themselves jabbed.

> And now, they're unsafe and should be sacked?
>
> Howling mad.

I wouldn't wish to be treated by anyone who refused to be vaccinated,
because to me that would imply and unreliability and a selfishness in
their character, and a dangerous lack of basic medical knowledge.

> Indeed, because of their exposure, many will already have had covid
> which gives better protection than the vaccine anyway. We all know
> that hospitals and care homes are the best places in the country to
> get infected. They've been hammered with covid exposure for 20 months
> how can they possibly be a danger to anyone now.
>
> And also, why will these doctors and nurses become dangerous in
> April? If they're dangerous then why weren't they suspended before
> christmas?
>
> This is an argument of logic against ideology. I have no time for
> ideology but it continually drives the left.

The above is an argument of ideology against logic, the vaccinations are
both safe, the dangers from covid-19 far outweigh the dangers of any
side effects from the vaccine, and effective, otherwise we wouldn't be
wasting millions of pounds giving them.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it in
> his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
> referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv. This all illustrates how the
> whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful idiots are
> repeating the Tweet?

Alas, it is a 'comedy' that can lead to leathal consequences. Wilful
ignorance spread as 'truth' can cause deaths.

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 <XnsAE22E1FE1AF2C37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16:44 16 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...]
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st

> Out of interest, how do I go from viewing that web page to making a
> bookmark of the programme to hear using my Android BBC Sounds app? I'm
> logged in to the BBC site on my PC's browser but don't see a link where
> I can bookmark (or subscribe) to Inside Science.

> To do this I have to launch the Sounds app and use that to search for
> the programme .

> The same goes for your other link below although this time it's video.
> However it can't be found using the iPlayer app's search function.

> > Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4

> Am I overlooking some shortcuts or feature tucked away somewhere on the
> web page? It's as if the BBC web site has a part which is not
> reflected in or integrated with BBC apps.

Using a web browser on a desktop/laptop machine running OSs like doze,
linux, etc, there should be an icon that will play the audio. However I
don't know if that works outwith the UK.

FWIW I use get-iplayer to obtain BBC items as downloaded files. Then play
them with apps like VLC. So I don't use the above approach.

Can't comment on Android as I don't have a modern 'mobile device'.

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 <XnsAE2359F8E19D937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23:42 17 Jan 2022, Indy Jess John said:

> > On 17/01/2022 20:02, Bob Latham wrote:
> >> They're telling the unjabbed to take the jab because the jab works
> >> and telling the jabbed to get a booster because the jab doesn't work.
> >> All while telling everyone that the unjabbed are putting the jabbed
> >> in danger by not getting a jab that didn't protect the jabbed.
> >
> > You have reduced a complex scenario covering several strains and
> > outcomes into a summary so brief that the point is lost.
> >
> > That is normally referred to as reductio ad absurdum

> Reductio ad Latham. :)

I like that. :-) It could come to be a standard phrase in this newsgroup!

You'll have noticed that Bob's ultimate denialist response is to brand
people "leftie', or 'woke'. He uses this as a shield against actually
dealing with what they wrote.

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 10:08 18 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
> In article <XnsAE22C2C33B1F137B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This may be a spoof but it fooled Chris Martensen into including it in
>> his video, which in turn appears to have fooled Bob Latham into
>> referencing it here in uk.tech.digital-tv. This all illustrates how the
>> whole antivax movement is comedy. How many more useful idiots are
>> repeating the Tweet?
>
> Alas, it is a 'comedy' that can lead to leathal consequences. Wilful
> ignorance spread as 'truth' can cause deaths.
>
> Jim

Antivaxxers and Covidiots are playing a deadly game. There's no
shortage of nominees for the Herman Cain award:

https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

This article tells of a self-confessed "plague spreader". That attitude
won't be missed now that he's succumbed to Covid.

https://www.complex.com/life/italian-anti-vax-radio-personality-plague-
spreader-dies-covid-19

On 11:48 18 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:

> On 18/01/2022 10:17, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> Right I see. My knowledge is inadequate proven by the fact that I
>> don't agree with you and covid ideology.
>
> Your knowledge is inadequate because, as long as it has a right-wing
> political bias, you believe every absurdity you read on Shitter.
>
>> At the moment with Omicron it looks like the hospital/death
>> prevention argument for the vaccine is still valid. Or more
>> honestly, I've not seen an argument anywhere against that.
>>
>> At the moment with Omicron it looks like the defence from infection
>> argument is bust and in that regard you stand less chance of getting
>> infected if you're not jabbed.
>
> Again, you are failing to note a fundamental principle of simple
> mathematics, that *NUMBERS* of unvaccinated people getting infected
> are lower than the vaccinated people getting infected because there
> are far fewer of them to infect, however the *PROPORTION* of
> unvaccinated people getting infected is higher than the vaccinated
> people getting infected.
>
>> No! I'm not arguing against the jab, I'm facing the truth.
>
> No, you're grossly distorting it.
>
> [Snip false argument based on above misunderstanding of basic maths]
>
>> I don't 100% dismiss asymptomatic transmission but others do and
>> it's clear it's not a major factor in the spread.
>
> TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED AGAIN!
>
> More Or Less - Asymptomatic Covid-19 cases
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct0py6
>
> Findings of studies looking for truly asymptomatic carriers
> *throughout* the course of their 'disease' range from 15% to 28%. The
> researcher interviewed on the programme found 23%:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
>
> "Now, evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will
> experience no symptoms, and they will transmit the virus to
> significantly fewer people than someone with symptoms. But
> researchers are divided about whether asymptomatic infections are
> acting as a ‘silent driver’ of the pandemic."
>
> Additionally, many people are pre-symptomatic:
>
> Coronavirus: Majority testing positive have no symptoms
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155
>
> "Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having
> symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for
> National Statistics."
>
>> Then don't even mention the idiocy of sacking health workers for
>> being unjabbed. This is insane on any level.
>
> They have an ethical responsibility - a concept you clearly don't
> understand otherwise you wouldn't be posting this diarrhoea here -
> to safeguard the lives of others, and that is best done by being
> vaccinated.
>
>> Firstly, thanks to the lockdown, we have a major health crisis of
>> none covid patients who are dying. Secondly, many people went
>> outside 20 months ago and clapped these same workers for their fight
>> to save covid lives without any jab and without much PPE. We need
>> these people and never more so.
>
> So they should get themselves jabbed.
>
>> And now, they're unsafe and should be sacked?
>>
>> Howling mad.
>
> I wouldn't wish to be treated by anyone who refused to be vaccinated,
> because to me that would imply and unreliability and a selfishness in
> their character, and a dangerous lack of basic medical knowledge.
>
>> Indeed, because of their exposure, many will already have had covid
>> which gives better protection than the vaccine anyway. We all know
>> that hospitals and care homes are the best places in the country to
>> get infected. They've been hammered with covid exposure for 20
>> months how can they possibly be a danger to anyone now.
>>
>> And also, why will these doctors and nurses become dangerous in
>> April? If they're dangerous then why weren't they suspended before
>> christmas?
>>
>> This is an argument of logic against ideology. I have no time for
>> ideology but it continually drives the left.
>
> The above is an argument of ideology against logic, the vaccinations
> are both safe, the dangers from covid-19 far outweigh the dangers of
> any side effects from the vaccine, and effective, otherwise we
> wouldn't be wasting millions of pounds giving them.

I wonder if Bob lives near a 5G mast? When the mast gets switched on it
connects with microchips from his jab, allowing Bill Gates to control
him like a puppet. That's when he posts garbage messages. Or is that
when he posts normal messages? :)

I also wonder if Bob noticed his smartphone was connecting to his
neighbour's wifi after he had the jab, which allowed them to intercept
and report what he was doing. Heh!