On 08/01/2022 11:05, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <48kitghclk27ecifoueqhr1glqauvuk8n4@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into
>> the search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares
>> in many cities from around the world filled with people as far as
>> the camera can see. The numbers don't look trivial. These are
>> nothing at all like the small ragtag bunches of obsessives who have
>> recently been glueing themselves to motorways on account of some
>> issue of their own invention. It's difficult to be sure of exact
>> numbers, but hundreds of thousands at each incident looks lik a
>> reasonable estimate, and these are just the ones who felt strongly
>> enough and had the opportunity to take to the streets.
>
> Yes, indeed perfectly true.
>
> If you confine yourself to main stream media especially the BBC for
> your news supply not only are you seeing a slanted and filtered view
> of the world you're missing entire events which are deemed unsuitable
> for their agenda.
>
> That's not to say that you need to jump on everything you see on the
> net, you still need trusted sources and those sources need to be
> revised with experience.
>
>> I don't know how much of this has found its way into the "official"
>> mainstream news, or what their emphasis has been,
>
> Oh I think we know.

You cannot possibly know, because you claim never to watch the BBC,
therefore you have no right make the claim above.

>> but luckily we now have many alternative sources of information
>> about what's really going on that cannot be suppressed. It seems
>> clear that governments all round the world have grossly misjudged
>> the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.
>
> Yes, indeed and it's interesting to watch increasing numbers of
> journalists and medical professionals slowly distancing themselves
> from lockdown mania. Some have gone so far as to admit they panicked
> and got it wrong and we should have protested the vulnerable just
> like the Barrington Declaration said.

Still no *EVIDENCE* for your unproven claims, presumably because there
isn't any.

> 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.

I expect he's already had a cold or several, and the first one he got
didn't stop him getting the others, they're coronaviruses too. As a
medical professional he should know better.

> Never the less, the idiots in government are still going ahead with
> sacking thousands of workers in an act of tyranny and stupidity when
> the health service needs to fix cancer, heart disease etc. etc. etc.
> But no, loony ideologies still hold sway.

Again, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> Just to clear any misunderstanding, I never watch Sky News, it's more
> biased and insane than the BBC and that's saying something, I only
> see clips copied to the internet.

And that's the trouble, such clips are often taken out of context and
can be highly misleading.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/01/2022 09:18, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 14:31:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <e84gtglp0sqo8vkk8pgvrg2rb2b8tjca1b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
>>>> offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
>>>> drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>
>>> Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
>>> newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
>>> involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking place in
>>> many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the
>>> mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
>>> level of support for the covid rules.
>>
>> Erm, even accepting your "hundreds of thousands" value, none of that
>> establishes that more than a vociferous minority firmly oppose the rules.
>> You can also find 'newspapers' saying pretty much whatever you fancy. So
>> the above is just cherry-picking,
>>
>> And the 'rules' in question will vary from country to country and with
>> time. So you can't bundle them all into support for your beliefs.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into the
> search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares in
> many cities from around the world filled with people as far as the
> camera can see.

I just did, and I didn't see what you are claiming. I saw only 11 hits
covering only 6 different demonstrations as follows:

London, 2wks, 2
Belgium, 1m, 3
Netherlands, 5d, 3
France, 5m, 1
France, 2m, 1
London, 8m, 1

Note that around half of the videos are duplicates of others, that
they're all in Europe, and that the numbers of idiots involved is
minimal compared with the population of Europe.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from
>>their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill from
>>ignoring medical advice.
>
> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
> could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
> this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
> make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
> evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>
> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
> perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
> trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they
> came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
> priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in
> a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who
> started the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
> downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
>
> If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
> for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not
> doctors.
>
> Rod.

When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not
behaving with moral risk.

Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
payment for damage to road furniture and can be done retrospecively.

There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay for
any Covid medical treatment.

Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.

On 10:28 8 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>> course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>> antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>> from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
>> from ignoring medical advice.
>
> It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for
> idiots'. So that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance
> problems could pop a few quid in that the staff could then share out
> later. Sadly, those who should pay up would probably also be the
> group who'd regard it as their 'right' to behave in such ways and
> get 'free' care for the predictable consequences.
>
> Jim

When I go to E&E there is usually someone (very much the worse for wear
in all sorts of ways) accompanied by two policemen. The patient is
usually the noisiest one there but the policemen know how to handle it.

On 11:06 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>> >course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>> >antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>> >from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
>> >from ignoring medical advice.
>
> Advocating pure evil.
>
> Bob.

If people refuse to play their part in public health preventative
measures by not having the jab and they then catch (and spread) the very
disease society is concerned about, they should consider themselves lucky
to get any treatment at all.

If there is pressure in places, it's far better to treat a person who has
had the vaccine and will take precautions subsequently when they recover
than to save the life of someone who has willingly taken a risk of
catching (and spreading) Covid and would do so again when they recover.

This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop drinking.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:37:13 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>How many billions of different people do they show, accordinging to
>reliable checkers who were present - e.g. the police. What fraction of the
>Earth's popuation does that come to when they remove multiple counting of
>people who appear in more than photo/video?
>
>Yes, when you look at something like the 'riot' at the fooball game that
>made the recent England game a disgrace you can see a 'lot' of people. But
>it is trivial compared to the population of planet Earth.

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.

As I tried to point out, statistics can say anything you want
depending on what you decide to count. The numbers are only meaningful
if they've been derived by asking the right questions. Otherwise
they're just numbers.

Rod.

On 08/01/2022 12:59, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/01/2022 09:18, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 14:31:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <e84gtglp0sqo8vkk8pgvrg2rb2b8tjca1b@4ax.com>, Roderick
>>> Stewart
>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I suspect most people agree that burglary should be illegal and
>>>>> offenders prosecuted. I doubt the burglars - or reckless speeding
>>>>> drivers - would outvote the more sensible people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>
>>>> Of course a majority support burglary being illegal, but judging by
>>>> newspaper comments, online presentations, and the street protests
>>>> involving hundreds of thousands of people that have been taking
>>>> place in
>>>> many cities throughout the world (though not widely reported in the
>>>> mainstream media for some reason) there isn't anything like the same
>>>> level of support for the covid rules.
>>>
>>> Erm, even accepting your "hundreds of thousands" value, none of that
>>> establishes that more than a vociferous minority firmly oppose the
>>> rules.
>>> You can also find 'newspapers' saying pretty much whatever you fancy. So
>>> the above is just cherry-picking,
>>>
>>> And the 'rules' in question will vary from country to country and with
>>> time. So you can't bundle them all into support for your beliefs.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Go to the Youtube home page and type "covid street protests" into the
>> search box, and you'll see many examples of streets and squares in
>> many cities from around the world filled with people as far as the
>> camera can see.
>
> I just did, and I didn't see what you are claiming.  I saw only 11 hits
> covering only 6 different demonstrations as follows:
>
> London, 2wks, 2
> Belgium, 1m, 3
> Netherlands, 5d, 3
> France, 5m, 1
> France, 2m, 1
> London, 8m, 1
>
> Note that around half of the videos are duplicates of others, that
> they're all in Europe, and that the numbers of idiots involved is
> minimal compared with the population of Europe.

Slight correction 12 items covering 7 demos* ...

London, 2wks ago 2
Belgium, 1m 3
Netherlands, 5d 3
France, 5m 1
France, 2m 1
London, 8m 1
London, 9m 1
==
12

.... so those countries having in common a right-wing pushing out
misleading fake news, and also I meant to add ...

Sun 1
DM 4
Global News 2
WION 1
NBC 1
ITV 1
Sky 1
Ruptly 1
==
12
Main Stream >= 8
Others <= 4

So the oft-touted right-wing claim that mainstream media don't cover
such events is yet again proven to be false.

* This is in the first section before the 'People also watched' insert.
The list continues beyond that insert, but they nearly all seem to be
reports about the same demos as above, and again almost entirely from
mainstream media.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
>> >of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
>> >contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
>> >and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
>
>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of their
>> patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you could
>> persuade the medical professions that they should be doing this, in
>> practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to make these
>> judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant evidence would be
>> available at this stage anyway.
>
>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
>> perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
>> trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they came
>> to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
>> priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in a
>> car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who started
>> the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
>> downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
>
>No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my
>daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.

This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not be
perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.

>> If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
>> for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not doctors.
>
>> Rod.

On 08/01/2022 13:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> As I tried to point out, statistics can say anything you want
> depending on what you decide to count. The numbers are only meaningful
> if they've been derived by asking the right questions. Otherwise
> they're just numbers.

And that's your problem, see my analysis of your YouTube claim elsewhere
in this thread.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:15:12 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>>course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>>antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from
>>>their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill from
>>>ignoring medical advice.
>>
>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
>> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
>> could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
>> this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
>> make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
>> evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>>
>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
>> perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
>> trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they
>> came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
>> priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in
>> a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who
>> started the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
>> downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
>>
>> If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a system
>> for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries, not
>> doctors.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not
>behaving with moral risk.
>
>Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
>must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
>and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
>payment for damage to road furniture and can be done retrospecively.

Exactly. It's not triage but retrospective admin and not judged by
doctors. It is absolutely not and should never be the judgement of the
front-line lifesavers whether a life is worth saving. They will try
regardless and only give up when they know there is no hope.

>There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
>need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay for
>any Covid medical treatment.
>
>Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
>acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.

You might as well say that the the ninety (or whatever) percent who
are lucky enough to be healthy should not pay for the remaining
percent who are born with impairments, allergies or other medical
conditions, or who are injured while taking part in dangerous sports
or other activities. But where would that lead? To a doctor, a life to
be saved is just a life to be saved if it looks feasible to save it.

Rod.

On 12:51 6 Jan 2022, Pamela said:
> On 11:36 6 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>> In article <j3n1d4Fiv9eU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2022 19:06, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> > In article <j3m3ooFdi87U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> > williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 05/01/2022 13:00, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> >>> It's an airborne virus way smaller than the holes in masks.
>>> >>> Like using chain link fencing to stop flies.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> The virus is carried on water droplets.
>>> >
>>> > Not you as well dear me, look at the graphs. masks or no masks
>>> > makes no difference.
>>> >
>>> > Bob.
>>> >
>>> Sorry Bob but the virus is carried on water droplets.
>>
>> I don't doubt that that happens but I do doubt it's exclusive. So
>> presumably then if we all wore masks there is no need to work from
>> home and all the graphs showing countries with mandated N95 masks
>> doing just the same as everyone else is fake news.
>>
>> Bob.
>
> Bob, do your graphs avoid the influence of conflating factors? Can you
> specify which charts you keep referring to.

Bob, can you provide a link to the graphs you are referring to about mask
wearing in different countries?

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
>> of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
>> contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
>> and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
>
>It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for idiots'. So
>that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance problems could pop
>a few quid in that the staff could then share out later. Sadly, those who
>should pay up would probably also be the group who'd regard it as their
>'right' to behave in such ways and get 'free' care for the predictable
>consequences.
>
>Jim

Under the NHS, we all have that right. Who would you take it away
from, and why? How would you decide whose need for medical help was
the result of "selfishness"?

For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand with
a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged that?
Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement, because
that's what doctors do.

Rod.

On 13:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>> >course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>> >antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>>> >from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
>>> >from ignoring medical advice.
>>
>>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
>>> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
>>> could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
>>> this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
>>> make these judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant
>>> evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>>
>>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
>>> or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
>>> with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
>>> they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
>>> of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
>>> Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
>>> driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
>>> poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
>>> depressed, etc etc?
>>
>>No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my
>>daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.
>
> This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not
> be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
> enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
> that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
> money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
> abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.

You are re-defining the original and current purpose of the NHS.
Although Brits love to laud it, in a survey of healthcare last summer
of 11 wealthy countries, the UK was ranked in 4th place overall and
9th on outcomes. The NHS is struggling to cope and not doing very
well.

In factisolation of infected people (and whole towns) in pandemics has
been sensibly practised for several thousand years before the NHS was
created.

In all societies criminal deviants are locked up and, in the case of
Covid, deviants who unnecessarily expose themselves and others to the
risk of disease should not ask the NHS for treatment, unless they pay
for it.

On 07/01/2022 14:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> In article <sr9h85$n78$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> More like insanity ...
>>
>> M i k e G r a h a m
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Graham_(journalist)
>>
>> "In 2021, Graham criticised a guest on his show, a climate change
>> activist and carpenter, for their use of wood as a building material.
>> Graham claimed it was hypocritical for an environmentalist to chop down
>> trees and build things out of wood. When the activist responded that
>> trees are a sustainable source of building materials because they can be
>> regrown, Graham claimed it was equally possible to "grow concrete".[23]"
>
> Odd. Out of curiousity I clicked the above link and got a page telling me
> the one specified doesn't exist. I've never heard of him, so wondered who
> employed him as a journo.

If, as I suspect, you mean the original interview rather than the
Wikipedia page, it's here - I'm quite happy to leave it unmunged, as I
can't think of a better lesson for any viewer to understand the lengths
of denial of umistakable truth that the right-wing (particularly, though
others do it to some extent as well) are prepared to go. Basically,
it's just a blatant and obvious lie:

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

When I lived in a southern English city, there was a green space outside
it with a patch, what I believe council gardeners call a 'raft', of
daffodils growing just opposite my front-room window. One day in early
spring, just as they were sprouting and about 2-3 inches taller than the
surrounding grass, a council mower came by and mowed them all down. I
flagged him down and told him what he'd done: "Nah!", he said, "Them's
wild onions!" I told them that I'd been living next to them for long
enough to know that they were daffodils, but he still tried to deny it!
Another blatant and obvious lie!

Just who do these people think they are trying to kid?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/01/2022 14:08, Pamela wrote:
>
> Bob, can you provide a link to the graphs you are referring to about mask
> wearing in different countries?

Let sleeping shits lie, if I were you.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:20:41 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 13:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
>> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>>> >course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>>> >antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>>>> >from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
>>>> >from ignoring medical advice.
>>>
>>>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
>>>> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
>>>> could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
>>>> this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
>>>> make these judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant
>>>> evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>>>
>>>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
>>>> or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
>>>> with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
>>>> they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
>>>> of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
>>>> Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
>>>> driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
>>>> poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
>>>> depressed, etc etc?
>>>
>>>No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my
>>>daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.
>>
>> This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not
>> be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
>> enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
>> that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
>> money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
>> abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.
>
>You are re-defining the original and current purpose of the NHS.
>Although Brits love to laud it, in a survey of healthcare last summer
>of 11 wealthy countries, the UK was ranked in 4th place overall and
>9th on outcomes. The NHS is struggling to cope and not doing very
>well.
>
>In factisolation of infected people (and whole towns) in pandemics has
>been sensibly practised for several thousand years before the NHS was
>created.
>
>In all societies criminal deviants are locked up and, in the case of
>Covid, deviants who unnecessarily expose themselves and others to the
>risk of disease should not ask the NHS for treatment, unless they pay
>for it.

People who want to make their own decisions about whether or not to
consent to medical treatment are not "criminal deviants".

There might be some logic if we were considering a treatment that
would make them less likely to catch something and/or pass it on, but
this is not the case. This is not what vaccines are for; they're to
protect the patient, nobody else, and if the patient doesn't want it,
no-one should administer it without their consent. We're all different
in most things, including medical needs, if any. A medical treatment
that's right for one person may not be right for someone else. It's
been common knowledge almost from the start of this virus that it
doesn't attack everyone equally, so not everyone will need any
treament at all, and though doctors can advise and recommend, we
ultimately have the right to decide for ourselves.

Rod.

In article <j95jtgl45es0bv5232bc5s4epcp7tdg6jl@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> >In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
> > Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
> >> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky course
> >> >of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks, antivaxxers who
> >> >contract Covid, etc should have points deducted from their triage score
> >> >and be seen after people are not not ill from ignoring medical advice.
> >
> >> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of their
> >> patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you could
> >> persuade the medical professions that they should be doing this, in
> >> practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to make these
> >> judgements? This is assuming that all the relevant evidence would be
> >> available at this stage anyway.
> >
> >> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent, or
> >> perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on with
> >> trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how they came
> >> to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment of their
> >> priority based on whether you think it was their fault? Were they in a
> >> car accident or a fight or whatever, were they driving, who started
> >> the fight, did somebody else give them the poison, push them
> >> downstairs, treat them so badly they became depressed, etc etc?
> >
> >No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to my
> >daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame later.

> This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may not be
> perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is clear
> enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as practicable
> that certain entitlements, including health care, are based not on
> money but on membership of the human race and nothing else. Any
> abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery slope.

But, that universal treatment should get universal support.

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

In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11:06 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> >> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
> >> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
> >> >course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
> >> >antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
> >> >from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
> >> >from ignoring medical advice.
> >
> > Advocating pure evil.
> >
> > Bob.

> If people refuse to play their part in public health preventative
> measures by not having the jab and they then catch (and spread) the
> very disease society is concerned about, they should consider
> themselves lucky to get any treatment at all.

> If there is pressure in places, it's far better to treat a person
> who has had the vaccine and will take precautions subsequently
> when they recover than to save the life of someone who has
> willingly taken a risk of catching (and spreading) Covid and would
> do so again when they recover.

> This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
> transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
> drinking.

To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
enlightened.

Bob.

In article <j95jtgl45es0bv5232bc5s4epcp7tdg6jl@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> a civilised society should recognise as far as
> practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
> based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
> else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
> slope.

100% Rod. I staggered and appalled that we have people who not hold
those values. The dangers are obvious.

I thought the left were supposed to be caring people or is that now
history a long with reason, logic and biological sex.

Bob.

On 08/01/2022 14:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> People who want to make their own decisions about whether or not to
> consent to medical treatment are not "criminal deviants".

But they might reasonably be termed as 'medical deviants', just like
others who adopt quack remedies, some of which are dangerous.

> There might be some logic if we were considering a treatment that
> would make them less likely to catch something and/or pass it on, but
> this is not the case. This is not what vaccines are for; they're to
> protect the patient, nobody else,

Fundamental misunderstanding, vaccines are there to protect the
population as a whole, including the vaccinee.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/01/2022 15:09, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <j95jtgl45es0bv5232bc5s4epcp7tdg6jl@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> a civilised society should recognise as far as
>> practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
>> based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
>> else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
>> slope.

It's not society that's abandoning that principle, but the individual
nutters concerned.

> 100% Rod. I staggered and appalled that we have people who not hold
> those values. The dangers are obvious.

HYPOSHITE! If you really believed that, you wouldn't spend your time
here propagating dangerous fake news!

> I thought the left were supposed to be caring people or is that now
> history a long with reason, logic and biological sex.

No, that's just your usual paranoia.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/01/2022 15:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
>> transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
>> drinking.
>
> To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
> one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
> you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
> compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
> person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
> life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
> enlightened.

Again, hypocrisy, if you consider that one person's life is as important
as another's, stop spreading dangerous anti-vax and anti-mask fake news
here.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14:14 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:28:45 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <XnsAE18C4E764F2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>> course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>> antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>>> from their triage score and be seen after people are not not ill
>>> from ignoring medical advice.
>>
>>It might be nice in a way if hospitals had 'donation boxes for
>>idiots'. So that people with self-inflicted-by-selfishness/arrogance
>>problems could pop a few quid in that the staff could then share out
>>later. Sadly, those who should pay up would probably also be the
>>group who'd regard it as their 'right' to behave in such ways and
>>get 'free' care for the predictable consequences.
>>
>>Jim
>
> Under the NHS, we all have that right. Who would you take it away
> from, and why? How would you decide whose need for medical help was
> the result of "selfishness"?
>
> For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand
> with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged
> that? Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement,
> because that's what doctors do.
>
> Rod.

It happens all the time in the NHS. Not everyone who requires treament
is given equal priority. A patient waiting to be admitted to a ward
for treatment is given a score, A&E attendees are scored then triaged,
etc.

Google can find documents with titles like "NHS critical care referral
algorithm" and "NHS Covid-19 Decision Suport Tool". There was a bit of
a stir when the press reported on them during the first Covid wave in
2020.

Why should a patient who has not been fulfilling the public health
request placed on citizens to get vaccinated be given equal priority
as someone else, equally ill, who made every effort to contain the
virus and its effect on them?

On 14:47 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:20:41 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 13:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:20 +0000 (GMT), charles
>>> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <sslitg9t4ehnofqq8kj990qll6453hr07c@4ax.com>,
>>>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>>>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a
>>>>> >risky course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>>>> >antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>>>>> >from their triage score and be seen after people are not not
>>>>> >ill from ignoring medical advice.
>>>>
>>>>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
>>>>> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if
>>>>> you could persuade the medical professions that they should be
>>>>> doing this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect
>>>>> them to make these judgements? This is assuming that all the
>>>>> relevant evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
>>>>> or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get
>>>>> on with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about
>>>>> how they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your
>>>>> judgment of their priority based on whether you think it was
>>>>> their fault? Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever,
>>>>> were they driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give
>>>>> them the poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they
>>>>> became depressed, etc etc?
>>>>
>>>>No, you simply ask for their credit card details - as happened to
>>>>my daughter in New York. The admin people can sort out blame
>>>>later.
>>>
>>> This is why in the UK we have a National Health Service. It may
>>> not be perfect (what is?) but its fundamental guiding principle is
>>> clear enough: a civilised society should recognise as far as
>>> practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
>>> based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
>>> else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
>>> slope.
>>
>>You are re-defining the original and current purpose of the NHS.
>>Although Brits love to laud it, in a survey of healthcare last
>>summer of 11 wealthy countries, the UK was ranked in 4th place
>>overall and 9th on outcomes. The NHS is struggling to cope and not
>>doing very well.
>>
>>In factisolation of infected people (and whole towns) in pandemics
>>has been sensibly practised for several thousand years before the
>>NHS was created.
>>
>>In all societies criminal deviants are locked up and, in the case of
>>Covid, deviants who unnecessarily expose themselves and others to
>>the risk of disease should not ask the NHS for treatment, unless
>>they pay for it.
>
> People who want to make their own decisions about whether or not to
> consent to medical treatment are not "criminal deviants".
>
> There might be some logic if we were considering a treatment that
> would make them less likely to catch something and/or pass it on,
> but this is not the case. This is not what vaccines are for; they're
> to protect the patient, nobody else, and if the patient doesn't want
> it, no-one should administer it without their consent. We're all
> different in most things, including medical needs, if any. A medical
> treatment that's right for one person may not be right for someone
> else. It's been common knowledge almost from the start of this virus
> that it doesn't attack everyone equally, so not everyone will need
> any treament at all, and though doctors can advise and recommend, we
> ultimately have the right to decide for ourselves.
>
> Rod.

Criminal deviants and Covid vaccine deviants are both anti-sociial
elements who have a deletrious effect on public health and well-being.

This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.

On 15:02 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11:06 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>> >> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>> >> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a
>> >> >risky course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>> >> >antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>> >> >from their triage score and be seen after people are not not
>> >> >ill from ignoring medical advice.
>> >
>> > Advocating pure evil.
>> >
>> > Bob.
>
>> If people refuse to play their part in public health preventative
>> measures by not having the jab and they then catch (and spread) the
>> very disease society is concerned about, they should consider
>> themselves lucky to get any treatment at all.
>
>> If there is pressure in places, it's far better to treat a person
>> who has had the vaccine and will take precautions subsequently when
>> they recover than to save the life of someone who has willingly
>> taken a risk of catching (and spreading) Covid and would do so
>> again when they recover.
>
>> This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
>> transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
>> drinking.
>
> To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
> one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
> you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
> compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
> person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
> life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
> enlightened.
>
> Bob.

You make a slight error. The consideration is not that one person's
life is worth more than someone else's (that is a separate
consideration) but that SAVING one person's life is worth doing more
than for someone else.

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.

Their survival is indeed less important than someone else. In fact the
survival of a seriously infected Covidiot may actually create further
antivax agitation and problems in future.

In reality, many hospitalised Covidiots have a ICU-bed change of heart
and realise they were very foolish. For some it is too late, hence the
Herman Cain award:

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