On 08/01/2022 23:54, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:51:49 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't read it as "anti-vax" but "anti-compulsion", which is quite a
> different thing. Saying that a medical treatment should not be
> administered without consent is not the same as saying it should not
> be administered at all.

In a perfect world, compulsion would never be needed, but in a perfect
world we wouldn't be waging a war against a pandemic. The more a
minority of selfish refuseniks endanger the lives of others, the more
compulsion of the few becomes necessary to ensure the safety of the many.

As far as Bob himself goes, although I haven't found the more damning
quote I thought I remembered, here are some claims by him, as usual
unsupported by any meaningful *EVIDENCE*, which were getting very close
to being anti-vax, and while it's true that he says that he has had all
the vaccines so far and hasn't refused one yet, it looks increasingly to
me as though ultimately he's headed in that direction ...

On 11/11/2021 09:32, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> My wife and I got our 3rd or booster jab yesterday afternoon. We had
> Comirnaty which I think is made by Pfizer. So far, unlike the
> Astra-zenica no obvious side effects.
>
> My wife googled the vaccine and it said it was remarkably good at
> preventing you getting the virus. It claimed that of 5000 people who
> were given the jab in the trial only 5 ever developed CV19. Trying to
> make you think this meant 99.9% protection. Of course, in reality
> this is meaningless because only 5 people may have been exposed to
> the virus in the test period. I certainly don't believe they exposed
> all 5000 people to the virus. So entirely propaganda.

On 09/12/2021 16:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> It is also being shown in
> statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
> surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
> shingles.
> [...]
> Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
> decrease.
> [...]
> FOR A
> PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.
> [...]
> I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
> figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
> overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people in
> hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
> [...]
> Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports people
> collapsing are now common.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/01/2022 23:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
>> and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
>> need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
>> for the unnecessary costs incurred.
>
> Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
> This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
> insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.

Your reply above contains no "reasoned argument" on the point at issue
at all.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23:39 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
>>the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
>
> It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
> unvaccinated alike can spread it.

The situation is not as binary as you suggest. An unvaccinated person
is far more likely to catch Covid, to have a bad symptoms, to spread
the disease to others and to be admitted to hospital (half of those in
hospital are unvaccinated).

On the other hand a vaccinated person is far less likely to catch the
disease or to be as infectious.

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

Indeed it is ultimately the decision of an individual to have the
vaccine or not but it is not without consequence for public health nor
for the indivudual. An unvaccinated person should expect to be
required to take extra precautions in public in interactions with
other people, be refused admission to certain venues and also to pay
for any Covid-related hospital treatment.

On 10:53 9 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:

> On 08/01/2022 23:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to
>>> contain the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more
>>> people.
>>
>> It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
>> unvaccinated alike can spread it.
>
> 'can' does not mean 'are just as likely to'. AIUI, the vaccinations
> reduce the probability of people becoming infectious, and therefore
> of transmitting the disease. They also reduce the severity of the
> infection, and therefore the average time that someone is likely to
> be infectious, and therefore of their transmitting the disease.

Covidiots and their supporters often make misleading black and white
statements.

For example, "the vaccine doesn't protect you from the disease" which
gives the false impression the vaccine has no effect.

In reality, they are referring only to transmission and even then to
the minority of vaccinated people who contract Covid.

On 00:07 9 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 18:00:23 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 14:07 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>>> 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 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
>>>>retrospectively.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>One group you mention is deliberately taking a risk, the other is
>>not.
>>
>>If two people's lives need to be saved but only one can be, then
>>save the life of the person who will not unnecessarily expose
>>themselves to the same risk again.
>
> Is there a doctor in the house? My mother was a doctor and I know
> what she or any of her medical friends would have thought of that
> suggestion, but it would be interesting to hear from a few more
> people directly involved with medical triage if possible. Are there
> any here?
>
> Rod.

Idealistic doctors with no financial pressure to act as effectively
and efficiently as possible are quite different from those doctors on
the front line having to find the best compromise with very limited
resources.

The situation we discuss here is not strictly about triage but
responsibility. The irresponsible (who refuse to be vaccinated and
then acquire a serious Covid infection) should be required to pay for
the unnecessary care they incur and should also permit other more
responsible people to get treatment before them.

On 23:58 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
>>and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
>>need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
>>for the unnecessary costs incurred.
>
> Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
> This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
> insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.
>
> Rod.

There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a changing
picture because, for example, many of those who opposed every requirement
to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.

For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than each time
list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers, conspiracy theorists,
vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents, misfits, law breakers, poorly
informed, poorly educated, narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult
members, self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?

On 11:40 9 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>
> [...]
>
> In a perfect world, compulsion would never be needed, but in a
> perfect world we wouldn't be waging a war against a pandemic. The
> more a minority of selfish refuseniks endanger the lives of others,
> the more compulsion of the few becomes necessary to ensure the
> safety of the many.
>
> As far as Bob himself goes, although I haven't found the more
> damning quote I thought I remembered, here are some claims by him,
> as usual unsupported by any meaningful *EVIDENCE*, which were
> getting very close to being anti-vax, and while it's true that he
> says that he has had all the vaccines so far and hasn't refused one
> yet, it looks increasingly to me as though ultimately he's headed in
> that direction ...
>
> On 11/11/2021 09:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > My wife and I got our 3rd or booster jab yesterday afternoon. We
> > had Comirnaty which I think is made by Pfizer. So far, unlike the
> > Astra-zenica no obvious side effects.
> >
> > My wife googled the vaccine and it said it was remarkably good at
> > preventing you getting the virus. It claimed that of 5000 people
> > who were given the jab in the trial only 5 ever developed CV19.
> > Trying to make you think this meant 99.9% protection. Of course,
> > in reality this is meaningless because only 5 people may have been
> > exposed to the virus in the test period. I certainly don't believe
> > they exposed all 5000 people to the virus. So entirely propaganda.
>
> On 09/12/2021 16:05, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > It is also being shown in
> > statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
> > surprising number of people test covid positive and get things
> > like shingles.
> > [...]
> > Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
> > decrease.
> > [...]
> > FOR A
> > PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.
> > [...]
> > I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
> > figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
> > overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people
> > in hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
> > [...]
> > Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports
> > people collapsing are now common.

Bob sounds both conflicted and resentful.... he says the vaccine is
dangerous and ineffective but still gets all three jabs.

On 00:20 9 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:43:42 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Indeed, but if priority has to be given, it's based on purely
> practical medical considerations - first on urgency and then on the
> likelihood of success, never, absolutely never, on any moral
> judgement of the patient's behaviour or what it is thought they
> might do with their life after it's been saved. Doctors and nurses
> are not gods; they just save every life they can without judging
> their value.
>
> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they
> are, so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the
> same. If we're all equal when we're murdered, it would make no sense
> for us not to be equal when somebody is trying to save us.
>
> Rod.

The basis of deciding what the consequences are is not moral at all.
It is a tailored response to a freely-chosen decision not to comply
with public health advice.

It's not a good parallel but if you choose to drive on the wrong side
of the road and have an accident then the consequences are worse than
if you followed the rules.

On 10:28 9 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
>>
>>If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look
>>at the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception
>>(despite the Government's promise to the people protesting against
>>the removal of the death penalty that "whole life would be the norm)
>>and the relatives of the murder victim might see an "eligible for
>>parole" tariff of anything from 7 years upwards, and some murderers
>>are released with a new and secret identity.
>>
>>Jim
>
> The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the
> point I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same
> crime, regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered.
> It doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a
> Nobel prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the
> principle that all human lives are of equal value.
>
> Rod.

Observers of the OJ Simpson murder trial may beg to differ.

In article <XnsAE1A7DA43C3F237B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
> changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
> every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.

> For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than
> each time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers,
> conspiracy theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents,
> misfits, law breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated,
> narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult members,
> self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?

It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
disturbing.

Bob.

On 09/01/2022 12:38, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
> disturbing.

I didn't think you ever bothered to read through what you write.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <59a8157a81bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <XnsAE1A7DA43C3F237B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> > There is a broad spectrum of deviants and misfits. It is also a
> > changing picture because, for example, many of those who opposed
> > every requirement to do with Covid eventually had the vaccine.

> > For brevity I group panoply together as "Covidiots" rather than
> > each time list deniers, sceptics, antivaxxers, antimaskers,
> > conspiracy theorists, vaccine hesitants, spreaders, malconents,
> > misfits, law breakers, poorly informed, poorly educated,
> > narcissistic, selfish, insecure, fearful, cult members,
> > self-appointed researchers, etc. Have I forgotten any?

> It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
> disturbing.

I'm fearful to ask, do you have a "final solution" to deal with
members of your hate list?

Bob.

In article <vp4jtgh911jp12co9rovbrshfms8su1k0d@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Maybe you haven't noticed that people tend not to organise protests in
order to say that they are happy with what is being done.

> 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.

Yes, it depends for example on the above point.

As it is, all the 'numbers' about how many go to a 'protest' tell us is
that those people were willing to go on that 'protest'. Hence when that
number is a tiny percentage of the population it isn't very good evidence
that their view is the one held by most people, or even by a large
percentage of the population. In the absence of other relevant stats such
a claim is cherry-picking.

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

Indeed. Alas, 'abandonment' has been happening for some time. e.g.
Prescription charges in England. (BTW still free in Scotland.) Also some
charges for dentistry IIRC. Plus of course the artificial division between
NHS care and 'social care' - which also afflicts the NHS due to
bed-blocking because local councils can't afford the level of social care
needed, and are prevented by Westminster from raising enough money to cope.

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 <7o6jtgpahpsgt293f5nftv7thf2dfn3smq@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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"?

Quite reasonable questions. Hence my phrase "it might be nice if" where I
accept that things aren't so simple as we may sometimes wish.

> 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.

Yes. However it might be possible to take a view that someone who had been
repeatedly warned that smoking kills, but then persisted and refused help
with quitting, might reasonably find themselves at the "back of the queue"
when it came to hospital admissions, etc. But your point is a good one.
This really isn't the kind of decision that medical staff should be taking
when people come for help, even when victims of their own pre-warned
idiocy.

How about requiring such people to do community service in a nasty job
afterwards? :-)

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 <u58jtgt6ug204c1e4h5bm0slq0ltd39t62@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> 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,

That is simply untrue. Vaccination on a social level is intended to reduce
the chance of chains of infective spread in addition to protecting each
vaccinated individual. i.e. part of the 'herd immunity' some people bang on
about. It helps protect others, as their being vaccinated also help protect
you, given that vaccinations aren't inevitably 100% in their effect.

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 <XnsAE19B46EC8E8D37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why are you referencing out of date modelling?

Bob: -> Cherry picking. Often out of context.

> What is complicated about that which makes it so hard to grasp?

Bob: -> as per above. Bob starts from what he chooses to believe then finds
shiny things that seem to reflect that. Refuses to even look at material
that he fears might clash with that. Instead posting links to garbage like
the NO rant.

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 <0r9ktglbb5mqn3jbeleeqshmbrij51ba7j@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,

Erm, that seems to be to be untrue. Courts hand down a variety of sentences
for 'murders'. Or at least that't my impression from seeing many cases
reported over the years.

> so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.

If you say so. However I've thought the 'penalty' depended on the details
of the case. At least that's what the judges seem to think. Are you a
judge?

Or are you playing games with the word "murder" to cherry-pick only the
killings that suit what you want to assert as an absolute? i.e.
side-stepping the realities which in medicine would be triage and deciding
'who goes first' on the basis of the details of individual cases presenting
for treatment.

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 <v87ktgt9cgb3291g173mca9nne0d2js9ds@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

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

> It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
> unvaccinated alike can spread it.

Oversimplified use of "can".

On a social level the point of mass vaccination is that it reduces the
infection 'rate' or 'chance'. If that helps get r below unity the
epidemic/pandemic fades away, despite some infections still occuring.

So the aim is to get a *combination* of 'r reducing' measures in place to
acheive and r less than unity. Mass vaccination is a standard method for
this aim, as well as making serious illnesses and deaths due to infection
less likely.

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 09/01/2022 13:11, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <59a8157a81bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> It's been a long time if ever, that I've read something more
>> disturbing.
>
> I'm fearful to ask, do you have a "final solution" to deal with
> members of your hate list?

You're the one here who's using Nazi propaganda techniques of endlessly
repeating the same oft-disproven lies, so you're the obvious person to
be asked that question. What's *YOUR* answer?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10:48 9 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <7o6jtgpahpsgt293f5nftv7thf2dfn3smq@4ax.com>, Roderick
> Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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"?
>
> Quite reasonable questions. Hence my phrase "it might be nice if"
> where I accept that things aren't so simple as we may sometimes
> wish.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes. However it might be possible to take a view that someone who
> had been repeatedly warned that smoking kills, but then persisted
> and refused help with quitting, might reasonably find themselves at
> the "back of the queue" when it came to hospital admissions, etc.
> But your point is a good one. This really isn't the kind of decision
> that medical staff should be taking when people come for help, even
> when victims of their own pre-warned idiocy.
>
> How about requiring such people to do community service in a nasty
> job afterwards? :-)
>
> Jim

Placing Covidiots who have recovered from ICU to work in a vaccine
centre seems appropriate. I'm told volunteers are paid quite
generously, so Covidiots could have their pay deducted to meet their
hospital bill.

In article <XnsAE1A7E264126C37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob sounds both conflicted and resentful.... he says the vaccine is
> dangerous and ineffective but still gets all three jabs.

The basis of Bob's behaviour is his obsessional hate for what he calls
'woke', 'lefites', 'universities', etc, etc. He bases his beliefs about
other topics on this, not on science or rational evidential relationships.
The same mindset has repeatedly post drivel and accusations about
mysterious political plots of some kind of illuminatii wrt climate change.
Covid has just given him another dimension for his misunderstandings which
stem from that.

The fact that none of that has much to do with uk digital TV tech seems no
bar to him banging on about his delusions, cherry picking, dismissing
reliable evidence, etc. IIRC you've now checked out the 'two point paper'
episode. That's typical.

I do regret this because in the past I had many sensible conversations with
him about science and topics like audio. I saw no sign then of how he has
behaved more recently.

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 <59a80c7cc4charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> The trouble with magicing up suitably trained staff to work in hospitals
> is that there's a few years training involved. Remember that the
> Government (I forget of which colour) cut back on medical school places
> a few years ago.

IIRC a recent Tory Gov. also changed the status of trainee nurses. They
used to be paid as they learnt. Now they are regarded as 'students'.

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 08/01/2022 11:05, Bob Latham wrote:
> It was interesting to watch a Covid ward doctor last night telling
> Sajid Javid to his face (on Sky News) that he wasn't going to get
> jabbed because the science wasn't there. He'd already had covid and
> didn't need jabbing.

He was on BBC radio 4 the other day.

His arguments have some merit - he knows:
* He's had COVID
* He's been tested, and has good antibody levels
* He's young and healthy
* He works in a hospital where he is exposed to COVID on a daily basis

So he's decided that he isn't at risk.

They didn't explain why he won't have it, just why he feels he doesn't
need it.

The problem though is that the anti-vaxxers will use his argument to
persuade many people who are not young and healthy to avoid having it.
"You shouldn't have the vaccine, this doctor won't".

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

Andy

On 08/01/2022 23:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
>> the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
>
> It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
> unvaccinated alike can spread it.
>
One of the effects of the immunisation is to stop you being infected at all.

Another is to reduce the duration of the infection.

A third is to reduce the viral load - the amount of virus in your system.

All three of those reduce the chance of spreading it to other people.

I take it you do know why we don't have smallpox any more?

On the other hand given that the vast majority of severe cases now are
the unvaccinated perhaps we should allow evolution to take its course
and remove them from the population? Preferably without us taxpayers
paying for expensive treatment of course.

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

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/monthlymortalityanalysisenglandandwales/november2021>

tells me COVID is responsible for only about 7% of the deaths in
England, and 9% in Wales last November.

People with the other 90%+ of causes seem to be having trouble getting
treatment.

Andy