On 10/26/21 9:26 AM, Folderol wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:59:47 -0400
> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/21 2:23 PM, Folderol wrote:
>>> What has *any* of this got to do with the subject?
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely NONE so far as I can tell ... even
>> going back lots of generations of the thread.
>>
>> I'm not sure there CAN be a war on general-purpose
>> computing ... it's where all the special-purpose
>> stuff is planned and written.
>>
>> A war on power users maybe ... The Big Corporations
>> badly want a total return to thin clients and
>> servers so they can charge for every second. All
>> online, all metered, all data harvested, all
>> THEIRS.
>>
> Indeed!
> And with more and more going online (looking at you webassembly) it's getting
> harder to keep some semblance of control and security :(

At some point - indeed starting to happen now - the
evils of All-Online will become too obvious to ignore.
Whatever, where-ever, THEY can get at it, steal it,
destroy it. SolarWinds was just a tiny preview. Now
imagine the entire weight of the Chinese govt behind
the efforts. Imagine the entire weight of the US
govt behind spying/micro-managing ...........

And hey, we did it to ourselves - for "convenience",
because we are lazy, because we are cheap, because we
prefer to think all will be OK, because Big Biz and
our govts wouldn't possibly lie to us ...

You know how I do banking ? I take those PAPER things,
tangible objects, to the branch and hand them to Actual
Humans who know me. Physical Chain-Of-Evidence ...

Oh, SolarWinds claims to have Fixed The Problem - and
their supplicants CONTINUE to use it because they're
too cheap to hire more sysadmins. It was probably
"fixed" by agents of the very people who used it for
attack in the first place - and it ain't just SolarWinds ...

On 31/10/2021 22:38, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> On 2021-10-28, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2021 08:19, jak wrote:
>>> Thanks for the replies. Now I understand better why this pandemic lasts
>>> so long. The Maya people were more fortunate in meeting the Hispanics.
>>
>> in 700 years time what we ought to have done will become as clear to our
>> descendants as what the 14th century people wearing plague masks ought
>> to have done. Namely spent less on the church and more on terriers.
>>
>>
>
> The problem is not how do we live, but what do we live *for.* The former is
> solved by logistics, the latter by art, morality and religion.
>
Er, no.

Art morality and religion don't tell us what we are living for.
Mostly our hormones do that. To fuck and make babies. That's all. The
rest is mere intellectual pretension.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 23:59:47 -0400
1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> A war on power users maybe ... The Big Corporations
> badly want a total return to thin clients and
> servers so they can charge for every second. All
> online, all metered, all data harvested, all
> THEIRS.

This is not in reality what is driving the move to software as a
service etc. although it is a side effect that some exploit.

The main driver is that Wall Street investors want to see
predictable business and predictable growth (that's the current Wall Street
fashion). Sell someone a thing or a perpetual license and they may not come
back. Selling annual updates didn't fly but getting people (and more
especially large companies) to spring for a month or year of service and
then again next month/year is working for them and providing the kind of
financial behaviour that makes Wall Street investors put a big valuation on
the company and thus feed money to the shareholder.

So no it's not about the data at the core, it's about the money
they are much happier to sell you a 100 a year license that you'll renew
for years to come than to sell you a 500 thing that you will keep forever.
The license model makes income growth easier, you only have to sell enough
new licenses to cover the attrition before every sale is growth. Investors
really want to buy into growing businesses.

Notice that nowhere in this do the interests of the customers
appear, the only way that surfaces at all is in making the product
attractive. Companies do tend to prefer the license model as customers
because it gets them out of the irregular big spend on depreciating capital
assets into service costs that scale with use. Many people do too, notice
how Spotify has hammered CD sales.

This is why we have "the cloud" and "X as a service" and "virtual
data centres" and so on.

Fortunately for those few of us who care about keeping our own data
and having our own computing resources there is open source and cheap
hardware (RPi etc and used corporate for the big stuff) available to do a
good job of it. We can even use some of the "cloud" techniques internally
to make life easier.

There is no war on general purpose computing really and it's been
getting cheaper and more powerful for as long as it has existed and
continues to do so.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:30:16 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Art morality and religion don't tell us what we are living for.
> Mostly our hormones do that. To fuck and make babies. That's all. The
> rest is mere intellectual pretension.

That's what our bodies are here for, what about our minds ?

I've done all the making babies I'm going to (barring the unlikely
cooperation of a far younger woman - I'm not Mick Jagger - and even then
raising them would be problematic) and they've grown up to the point of
being able to make their own babies.

So what am I living for ? The only person who knows the answer to
that is me[1] - but unless I am much mistaken you are in a very similar
position so ask yourself what are you living for ?

[1] Art figures into it a bit, not morality (that has more to do with how)
and certainly not religion. I live for the love of life.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:27:52 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> It's too important a matter to allow them to get away with lying and
> fake-news. Kill the subthread if you don't like it.

This (USENET) is too small a forum for this argument, don't waste
your time on it here make your points in a more relevant place where more
people are listening.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> This (USENET) is too small a forum for this argument, don't waste
> your time on it here make your points in a more relevant place where more
> people are listening.

Several times I've nearly made that argument, but not wanted to annoy JJ. If he
really wants to make a difference to spreading of fake news, facetwit would be
much richer pickings compared to the stagnant backwaters of usenet.

On 01/11/2021 06:11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:30:16 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Art morality and religion don't tell us what we are living for.
>> Mostly our hormones do that. To fuck and make babies. That's all. The
>> rest is mere intellectual pretension.
>
> That's what our bodies are here for, what about our minds ?

They are there to make sure that our bodies are healthy. And meet..

>
> I've done all the making babies I'm going to (barring the unlikely
> cooperation of a far younger woman - I'm not Mick Jagger - and even then
> raising them would be problematic) and they've grown up to the point of
> being able to make their own babies.
>
> So what am I living for ? The only person who knows the answer to
> that is me[1] - but unless I am much mistaken you are in a very similar
> position so ask yourself what are you living for ?
>

Nothing.

I have as little idea why as I had 50 years ago.

I am always surprised when I wake up in the morning

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:32:40 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I am always surprised when I wake up in the morning

Might as well enjoy it then.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 01/11/2021 09:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> I am always surprised when I wake up in the morning

According to some, were you to die in the night then you
wouldn't know about it until you woke up in the morning! :-)

On 01/11/2021 12:27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:32:40 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I am always surprised when I wake up in the morning
>
> Might as well enjoy it then.
>
I have cultivated a stoical indifference.

Life happens, no matter what.

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

In article <slk5n5$ln7$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>Figures vary but within the UK, if you catch covid-19 you are about 3x more
>likely to die if you're not vaccinated than if you are

In other words, your likelihood of dropping dead of the China virus goes
from 3 in 1000 (already highly unlikely) to 1 in 1000 (slightly more
unlikely). Meanwhile, we're learning more and more about the side effects
of the !vax, which can have significantly worse probabilities (and those get
even worse as it's administered to younger and younger people).

Even all that is predicated on the !vax doing what the public's been led to
believe it's intended to do, which is not at all clear:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244072

> If you take the measles shot you won't get measles -- or give it to anyone
> else.
>
> Of course this forms the entire premise of so-called "mandatory"
> vaccinations, all of which has always been a crock of shit and worthy of a
> piano dropped on the head of anyone arguing for it. The only reason it
> didn't happen over the decades is that those other shots were in fact safe
> (which these are not) and, once taken, you didn't get the disease.
>
> But now we have an actual Government so-called expert, in this case
> Germany's, stating out loud that the vaccines are in fact worthless as a
> public health measure. They neither prevent you from getting the virus or
> transmitting it, making them nothing more than a very dangerous flu shot.
>
> The flu shot usually doesn't prevent you from getting or spreading the flu
> either. Indeed in Canada nurses have won court cases against their
> employers who argued for mandatory flu shots on exactly this basis. The
> flu shot, which is pushed heavily by a lot of doctors and so-called
> "experts", has the virtue of being quite safe, however, that only about 20
> or 25 people die associated with it and it has no record of causing
> effects like myocarditis. Neither can be said for these jabs that are
> somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times as dangerous -- bad enough that for
> someone under the age of 30 who doesn't have a pre-existing
> life-threatening condition the jab is more-dangerous than the virus
> itself.
>
> But what's worse is the continuing stream of data out of England which
> strongly suggests that not only do these jabs not stop you from getting
> the virus they also have a very nasty tendency to prevent you from
> building "N" antibodies if and when you do get infected after being
> jabbed. That's very bad, because it is those antibodies that, we have
> reason to believe, are in fact critical to prevent serious or fatal
> outcomes.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 01/11/2021 16:57, Scott Alfter wrote:
>
> In article <slk5n5$ln7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Figures vary but within the UK, if you catch covid-19 you are about 3x more
>> likely to die if you're not vaccinated than if you are
>
> In other words, your likelihood of dropping dead of the China virus

Ah! We're dealing with a Trump supporter, rationality is not to be
expected then.

> goes
> from 3 in 1000 (already highly unlikely) to 1 in 1000 (slightly more
> unlikely). Meanwhile, we're learning more and more about the side effects
> of the !vax, which can have significantly worse probabilities (and those get
> even worse as it's administered to younger and younger people).

FALSE!

Covid: Vaccine complications dwarfed by virus risks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434

"A major review of vaccines suggests the AstraZeneca jab does raise the
risk of blood clots and another serious condition that can cause bleeding.

But the study found the risk of such problems following a coronavirus
infection was still much higher.

The University of Oxford-led team also found an increased risk of stroke
after the Pfizer jab - but again at a much lower rate than after infection.

The team said it once again showed the "substantial" benefit of
vaccination."

> Even all that is predicated on the !vax doing what the public's been led to
> believe it's intended to do, which is not at all clear:
>
> https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244072

[Snip a great deal of ill-informed opinion stated as if it were fact but
having no scientific provenance whatsoever, including ...]

>> But what's worse is the continuing stream of data out of England which
>> strongly suggests that not only do these jabs not stop you from getting
>> the virus they also have a very nasty tendency to prevent you from
>> building "N" antibodies if and when you do get infected after being
>> jabbed. That's very bad, because it is those antibodies that, we have
>> reason to believe, are in fact critical to prevent serious or fatal
>> outcomes.

FALSE! See BBC link above.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 01/11/2021 08:19, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>> This (USENET) is too small a forum for this argument, don't waste
>> your time on it here make your points in a more relevant place where more
>> people are listening.
>
> Several times I've nearly made that argument, but not wanted to annoy
> JJ.  If he really wants to make a difference to spreading of fake news,
> facetwit would be much richer pickings compared to the stagnant
> backwaters of usenet.

It's a perfectly valid point, and I wouldn't've been annoyed by it, but
I don't do this out of some sort of radicalised devout desire to convert
bullshitters to a path of greater truth, and therefore feeling that I
have to go out and find bullshitters to try to convert. I just debunk
whatever bullshit happens to come my way, as a matter of principle.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Il 28/10/2021 21:10, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
> On 28/10/2021 15:35, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:49:05 +0100
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable?  A person who
>>> is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
>>> ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
>>> and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?
>>
>>     Yet when the vaccines did become available they went to those most
>> at risk first, at least that's what happened here.
>>
> Well yes.
>
> The effect of the vaccine is to reduce the severity and the viral load
> on people who catch the thing.
>
> So less ill, less likely to die, less likely to pass it on.
>
> The first priority here was to stop people dying and reduce the hospital
> load. The medical staff I have talked to said it was touch and go at one
> or two points.,
>
> Subsequently the next priority was to reduce the spread, to protect
> mostly those who refused to be vaccinated.
>
>

Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
of you even if you are vaccinated. The difference is that you who are
vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 21:22:44 +0100
jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:

>Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
>on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
>vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
>touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
>of you even if you are vaccinated. The difference is that you who are
>vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
>young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
>would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
>to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
>because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
>
You misunderstand how the virus is transferred. There is a very low chance of
infection by contact. There is a very *high* chance of infection by airborne
droplets.

If someone who is vaccinated does get infected, they will not only have
milder symptoms but will also produce very much less viral content on their
breath than an unvaccinated person.

--
Basic

Dana Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:47:48 +0000, Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> napis'o:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 21:22:44 +0100
> jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
>
>>Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
>>on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
>>vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
>>touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
>>of you even if you are vaccinated. The difference is that you who are
>>vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
>>young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
>>would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
>>to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
>>because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
>>
> You misunderstand how the virus is transferred. There is a very low chance of
> infection by contact. There is a very *high* chance of infection by airborne
> droplets.
>
> If someone who is vaccinated does get infected, they will not only have
> milder symptoms but will also produce very much less viral content on their
> breath than an unvaccinated person.

But they will transmit the virus. But in smaller amounts. Therefore you are
getting vaccinated to protect yourself but also other people around you as
you will transmit less.
But, in order to protect those that cannot be vaccinated (for other health
problems) other people around them should be vaccinated. This is the whole
reason of vaccination. To protect yourself and protect others that cannot
be vaccinated.
The biggest problem with this virus is that it is airborne.

On 2021-11-01, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> In article <slk5n5$ln7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Figures vary but within the UK, if you catch covid-19 you are about 3x more
>>likely to die if you're not vaccinated than if you are
>
> In other words, your likelihood of dropping dead of the China virus goes
> from 3 in 1000 (already highly unlikely) to 1 in 1000 (slightly more

Actually no, there is something very wrong with those figures. British
Columbia recently released the number of cases broken down into
vaccinated and non-vaccinated. The chance of your getting the disease
was 40 times greater if you were unvaccinated than if you were
vaccinate, and your chance of dying was 80 times higher. You have to be
really really careful with those figures. Since the number vaccinated in
the UK is 5 times higher than those unvaccinated, you have to take that
into account.

> unlikely). Meanwhile, we're learning more and more about the side effects
> of the !vax, which can have significantly worse probabilities (and those get
> even worse as it's administered to younger and younger people).

Yes, what side effects are you refering to?

>
> Even all that is predicated on the !vax doing what the public's been led to
> believe it's intended to do, which is not at all clear:
>
> https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244072

Thanks for posting the link. It makes it absolutely clear that the
person writing it has not the first clue about anything. It is like
asking a flat earther about how to get a spacecraft from one planet to
the next.

>
>> If you take the measles shot you won't get measles -- or give it to anyone
>> else.
>>
>> Of course this forms the entire premise of so-called "mandatory"
>> vaccinations, all of which has always been a crock of shit and worthy of a
>> piano dropped on the head of anyone arguing for it. The only reason it
>> didn't happen over the decades is that those other shots were in fact safe
>> (which these are not) and, once taken, you didn't get the disease.
>>
>> But now we have an actual Government so-called expert, in this case
>> Germany's, stating out loud that the vaccines are in fact worthless as a
>> public health measure. They neither prevent you from getting the virus or
>> transmitting it, making them nothing more than a very dangerous flu shot.
>>
>> The flu shot usually doesn't prevent you from getting or spreading the flu
>> either. Indeed in Canada nurses have won court cases against their
>> employers who argued for mandatory flu shots on exactly this basis. The
>> flu shot, which is pushed heavily by a lot of doctors and so-called
>> "experts", has the virtue of being quite safe, however, that only about 20
>> or 25 people die associated with it and it has no record of causing
>> effects like myocarditis. Neither can be said for these jabs that are
>> somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times as dangerous -- bad enough that for
>> someone under the age of 30 who doesn't have a pre-existing
>> life-threatening condition the jab is more-dangerous than the virus
>> itself.
>>
>> But what's worse is the continuing stream of data out of England which
>> strongly suggests that not only do these jabs not stop you from getting
>> the virus they also have a very nasty tendency to prevent you from
>> building "N" antibodies if and when you do get infected after being
>> jabbed. That's very bad, because it is those antibodies that, we have
>> reason to believe, are in fact critical to prevent serious or fatal
>> outcomes.
>
> _/_
> / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
> (IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
> \_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 2021-11-01, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
> Il 28/10/2021 21:10, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 28/10/2021 15:35, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:49:05 +0100
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if they had, is your statement any more reasonable?  A person who
>>>> is most at risk will likely die. The ones we want to vaccinate are the
>>>> ones who don't die, but wander around giving the virus to other people
>>>> and allowing it to live and mutate. Surely?
>>>
>>>     Yet when the vaccines did become available they went to those most
>>> at risk first, at least that's what happened here.
>>>
>> Well yes.
>>
>> The effect of the vaccine is to reduce the severity and the viral load
>> on people who catch the thing.
>>
>> So less ill, less likely to die, less likely to pass it on.
>>
>> The first priority here was to stop people dying and reduce the hospital
>> load. The medical staff I have talked to said it was touch and go at one
>> or two points.,
>>
>> Subsequently the next priority was to reduce the spread, to protect
>> mostly those who refused to be vaccinated.
>>
>>
>
> Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
> on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
> vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
> of you even if you are vaccinated. The difference is that you who are

Uh, no. The chance of you getting infected from a doorknob are truely
miniscule. If and infected person spit on the doorknow and you then
licked it off then the probablility may go up (even that is not clear).

> vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.

People who have been vaccinated can still carry a viral load. However
recent research seems to show that thos viruses are far less
transmissable than those from an unvaccinated individual (ie, if they
get into someone's lungs the probability they will produce Covid is far
less) Eg, it might well be that antibodies clog up the receptors on the
virus meaning they cannot latch onto the ACE2 and infect the cells in
the recipient.

>

On 01/11/2021 23:20, William Unruh wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-01, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>>
>> In article <slk5n5$ln7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Figures vary but within the UK, if you catch covid-19 you are about 3x more
>>> likely to die if you're not vaccinated than if you are
>>
>> In other words, your likelihood of dropping dead of the China virus goes
>> from 3 in 1000 (already highly unlikely) to 1 in 1000 (slightly more
>
> Actually no, there is something very wrong with those figures. British
> Columbia recently released the number of cases broken down into
> vaccinated and non-vaccinated. The chance of your getting the disease
> was 40 times greater if you were unvaccinated than if you were
> vaccinate, and your chance of dying was 80 times higher. You have to be
> really really careful with those figures. Since the number vaccinated in
> the UK is 5 times higher than those unvaccinated, you have to take that
> into account.

Very good point.

>> unlikely). Meanwhile, we're learning more and more about the side effects
>> of the !vax, which can have significantly worse probabilities (and those get
>> even worse as it's administered to younger and younger people).
>
> Yes, what side effects are you refering to?
>
>>
>> Even all that is predicated on the !vax doing what the public's been led to
>> believe it's intended to do, which is not at all clear:
>>
>> https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244072
>
> Thanks for posting the link. It makes it absolutely clear that the
> person writing it has not the first clue about anything. It is like
> asking a flat earther about how to get a spacecraft from one planet to
> the next.

LOL! Good analogy. At one time, I don't know if it's still true, it
was rumoured that the Flat Earth Society's website claimed that it had
members 'all around the globe', or some such phrase.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <slq1eb$l9e$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> At one time, I don't know if it's still true, it
> was rumoured that the Flat Earth Society's website claimed that it had
> members 'all around the globe', or some such phrase.

<https://twitter.com/kmvnarayan14/status/1443271512077836292>

On 01/11/2021 20:22, jak wrote:
> Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
> on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
> vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
> of you even if you are vaccinated.

Exactly.

> The difference is that you who are
> vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.

Exactly. BUT it reduces the spread. the virus on your vaccinated hands
will not multiply in your lungs and get coughed out into someone
unvaccinated persons face to cause them to wither and die.

Vaccination reduces the overall world virus load.

As well as 'protecting vulnerable people'

The whole anti-vax thing is simply another manifestation of the
ArtStudent™ mind that can only think in Boolean terms = protect/does
not protect, prevents infection/does not prevent infection.

It's a numbers game. Vaccination lowers infection rate, transmission
rate hospitalisation rate and death rate.

which certainly indicates that the side effects are less worse than the
disease.

It does however, *guarantee* nothing,

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

Il 02/11/2021 09:26, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
> On 01/11/2021 20:22, jak wrote:
>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
>> on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
>> vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
>> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
>> of you even if you are vaccinated.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> The difference is that you who are
>> vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
>> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
>> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
>> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
>> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
>
> Exactly. BUT it reduces the spread. the virus on your vaccinated hands
> will not multiply in your lungs and get coughed out into someone
> unvaccinated persons face to cause them to wither and die.
>
> Vaccination reduces the overall world virus load.
>
> As well as 'protecting vulnerable people'
>
> The whole anti-vax thing is simply another manifestation of the
> ArtStudent™ mind that can only think in Boolean terms =  protect/does
> not protect, prevents infection/does not prevent infection.
>
> It's a numbers game. Vaccination lowers infection rate, transmission
> rate hospitalisation rate and death rate.
>
> which certainly indicates that the side effects are less worse than the
> disease.
>
> It does however, *guarantee* nothing,
>
>
>
>

First of all I thank everyone (in this branch) for your answers and now
I understand the reason for your reasoning. Here where I live (Italy)
the media have said and reiterated that this was not an airborne virus,
for this reason I have a different way of looking at the related
problems. In any case, public administrations are very concerned with
the people who want to vaccinate and what they don't, but they forget to
manage what they can't.

On 02/11/2021 14:31, jak wrote:
> Il 02/11/2021 09:26, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 01/11/2021 20:22, jak wrote:
>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
>>> on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
>>> vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
>>> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
>>> of you even if you are vaccinated.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> The difference is that you who are
>>> vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
>>> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
>>> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
>>> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
>>> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
>>
>> Exactly. BUT it reduces the spread. the virus on your vaccinated hands
>> will not multiply in your lungs and get coughed out into someone
>> unvaccinated persons face to cause them to wither and die.
>>
>> Vaccination reduces the overall world virus load.
>>
>> As well as 'protecting vulnerable people'
>>
>> The whole anti-vax thing is simply another manifestation of the
>> ArtStudent™ mind that can only think in Boolean terms =  protect/does
>> not protect, prevents infection/does not prevent infection.
>>
>> It's a numbers game. Vaccination lowers infection rate, transmission
>> rate hospitalisation rate and death rate.
>>
>> which certainly indicates that the side effects are less worse than
>> the disease.
>>
>> It does however, *guarantee* nothing,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> First of all I thank everyone (in this branch) for your answers and now
> I understand the reason for your reasoning. Here where I live (Italy)
> the media have said and reiterated that this was not an airborne virus,

Then they are probably guilty of fake news.
Wiki:

"COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets
and small airborne particles containing the virus. The risk of breathing
these in is highest when people are in close proximity, but they can be
inhaled over longer distances, particularly indoors. Transmission can
also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids in the eyes,
nose or mouth, and, rarely, via contaminated surfaces. People remain
contagious for up to 20 days, and can spread the virus even if they do
not develop symptoms"

> for this reason I have a different way of looking at the related
> problems. In any case, public administrations are very concerned with
> the people who want to vaccinate and what they don't, but they forget to
> manage what they can't.
>

I think something got lost in translation there.???

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

Il 02/11/2021 15:31, jak ha scritto:
> Il 02/11/2021 09:26, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>> On 01/11/2021 20:22, jak wrote:
>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is precisely
>>> on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
>>> vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
>>> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected because
>>> of you even if you are vaccinated.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> The difference is that you who are
>>> vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
>>> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
>>> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
>>> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
>>> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
>>
>> Exactly. BUT it reduces the spread. the virus on your vaccinated hands
>> will not multiply in your lungs and get coughed out into someone
>> unvaccinated persons face to cause them to wither and die.
>>
>> Vaccination reduces the overall world virus load.
>>
>> As well as 'protecting vulnerable people'
>>
>> The whole anti-vax thing is simply another manifestation of the
>> ArtStudent™ mind that can only think in Boolean terms =  protect/does
>> not protect, prevents infection/does not prevent infection.
>>
>> It's a numbers game. Vaccination lowers infection rate, transmission
>> rate hospitalisation rate and death rate.
>>
>> which certainly indicates that the side effects are less worse than
>> the disease.
>>
>> It does however, *guarantee* nothing,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> First of all I thank everyone (in this branch) for your answers and now
> I understand the reason for your reasoning. Here where I live (Italy)
> the media have said and reiterated that this was not an airborne virus,
> for this reason I have a different way of looking at the related
> problems. In any case, public administrations are very concerned with
> the people who want to vaccinate and what they don't, but they forget to
> manage what they can't.
>

....or when the media inquired aboutthe virus was not airborne but now it
is...
.... speaking about mutations ...

Il 02/11/2021 15:39, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
> On 02/11/2021 14:31, jak wrote:
>> Il 02/11/2021 09:26, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
>>> On 01/11/2021 20:22, jak wrote:
>>>> Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is
>>>> precisely
>>>> on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
>>>> vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will
>>>> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected
>>>> because
>>>> of you even if you are vaccinated.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>> The difference is that you who are
>>>> vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was
>>>> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I
>>>> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have
>>>> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused
>>>> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
>>>
>>> Exactly. BUT it reduces the spread. the virus on your vaccinated
>>> hands will not multiply in your lungs and get coughed out into
>>> someone unvaccinated persons face to cause them to wither and die.
>>>
>>> Vaccination reduces the overall world virus load.
>>>
>>> As well as 'protecting vulnerable people'
>>>
>>> The whole anti-vax thing is simply another manifestation of the
>>> ArtStudent™ mind that can only think in Boolean terms =  protect/does
>>> not protect, prevents infection/does not prevent infection.
>>>
>>> It's a numbers game. Vaccination lowers infection rate, transmission
>>> rate hospitalisation rate and death rate.
>>>
>>> which certainly indicates that the side effects are less worse than
>>> the disease.
>>>
>>> It does however, *guarantee* nothing,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> First of all I thank everyone (in this branch) for your answers and now
>> I understand the reason for your reasoning. Here where I live (Italy)
>> the media have said and reiterated that this was not an airborne virus,
>
> Then they are probably guilty of fake news.
> Wiki:
>
> "COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets
> and small airborne particles containing the virus. The risk of breathing
> these in is highest when people are in close proximity, but they can be
> inhaled over longer distances, particularly indoors. Transmission can
> also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids in the eyes,
> nose or mouth, and, rarely, via contaminated surfaces. People remain
> contagious for up to 20 days, and can spread the virus even if they do
> not develop symptoms"
>
>
>> for this reason I have a different way of looking at the related
>> problems. In any case, public administrations are very concerned with
>> the people who want to vaccinate and what they don't, but they forget to
>> manage what they can't.
>>
>
> I think something got lost in translation there.???
>
>

....you are probably right :)

Following the media, they talk a lot about the vaccinated and also a lot
about those who refuse the vaccine. Unfortunately, they speak very
little about how to behave those who cannot be vaccinated. This problem
is very serious here because the green-pass has also become essential to
go to work (in all europe, just here)