T wrote:

> What a bunch of bull shit.  I am using science.

Are you fuck as like.

I'm not talking about any belief in whether the vaccine saves people or kills
people, just simple numeric proof that a significantly smaller number of people
who use the vaccine have died.

> The mRNA therapy is showing "though record
> keeping" that is does not work all that well
> and those who took it are dying at a higher rate
> than those without it.

Do you actually understand complicated mathematical concepts such as "higher"
and "lower"? Go ask mummy ...

Andy Burns wrote:

> I'm not talking about any belief in whether the vaccine saves people or kills
> people, just simple numeric proof that a significantly smaller number

bad phrasing, it is in fact a larger *number* which is a smaller *percentage*

> of people who use the vaccine have died.

On 11/10/21 12:13, Andy Burns wrote:
> T wrote:
>
>> What a bunch of bull shit.  I am using science.
>
> Are you fuck as like.
>
> I'm not talking about any belief in whether the vaccine saves people or
> kills people, just simple numeric proof that a significantly smaller
> number of people who use the vaccine have died.

Show your numbers, not your opinion.
>
>> The mRNA therapy is showing "though record
>> keeping" that is does not work all that well
>> and those who took it are dying at a higher rate
>> than those without it.
>
> Do you actually understand complicated mathematical concepts such as
> "higher" and "lower"?  Go ask mummy ...

I can read. Can you? More folks died with the jab
than did not.

On 11/10/21 12:18, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about any belief in whether the vaccine saves people
>> or kills people, just simple numeric proof that a significantly
>> smaller number
>
> bad phrasing, it is in fact a larger *number* which is a smaller
> *percentage*
>
>> of people who use the vaccine have died.
Look at the top of table 5.
Less than 50
≥14 days
post
dose 2
: 85,407
Unvax: 248,803
Greater than 50
≥14 days post dose 2: 71,991
Unvax: 8,551
Way higher chance of catching it
if you are under 50. Less if over 50.
And three times higher change of dying from it
if over 50

On 11/10/21 13:52, T wrote:
> And three times higher change of dying from it
> if over 50
if you got the jab.

T wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> T wrote:
>>
>>> What a bunch of bull shit.  I am using science.
>>
>> Are you fuck as like.
>>
>> I'm not talking about any belief in whether the vaccine saves people or kills
>> people, just simple numeric proof that a significantly smaller number of
>> people who use the vaccine have died.
>
> Show your numbers, not your opinion.

I *am* using the numbers you extracted from the uk.gov report, remember?

>>> Jab: 1613 deaths
>>> no Jab: 722 deaths

1,613 / 43,000,000 = 3.7 deaths per hundred thousand
722 / 10,400,000 = 6.9 deaths per hundred thousand

Comprendez?

> More folks died with the jab than did not.

In absolute numbers, nobody is disputing that.

You actually think it's *better* to portray yourself as a totally innumerate
antivaxer dipshit, rather than accept that vaccines have saved lives.

As far as I'm concerned you might as well never bother posting here again,
because I sure as hell won't reply to you, but you won't be killfiled as it'll
be fun watching from the sidelines ...

On 11/10/21 14:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> T wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> T wrote:
>>>
>>>> What a bunch of bull shit.  I am using science.
>>>
>>> Are you fuck as like.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about any belief in whether the vaccine saves people
>>> or kills people, just simple numeric proof that a significantly
>>> smaller number of people who use the vaccine have died.
>>
>> Show your numbers, not your opinion.
>
> I *am* using the numbers you extracted from the uk.gov report, remember?
>
>>>> Jab:    1613 deaths
>>>> no Jab:  722 deaths
>
> 1,613 / 43,000,000 = 3.7 deaths per hundred thousand
>   722 / 10,400,000 = 6.9 deaths per hundred thousand
>
> Comprendez?
I do. Do you? The per xxx totals is a silly
number. The actual deaths numbers are what you
are after.
In Israel, where there is almost a total jab rate,
virtually all the deaths are with the jab. You could
really comes up with some really silly per xxx numbers
when you can only find 10 folks without the jab.

>
>> More folks died with the jab than did not.
>
> In absolute numbers, nobody is disputing that.
>
> You actually think it's *better* to portray yourself as a totally
> innumerate antivaxer dipshit, rather than accept that vaccines have
> saved lives.
Is insulting me and putting words in my mouth all you have?
The only thing I commented on was THIS mRNA's results,
which are not good. Some vaccines are good, some are
bad. Small pox and Polio vaccines have saved
countless lives. This is one not even a real vaccine.
My criticism is of THIS not-a-vaccine vaccine. But
that does not stop you from name calling.
And the most horrifying numbers won't be in until
Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) kicks in and
we see how many folks it kills becasue they can longer
create their own antibodies to the target of the mRNA
therapy. ALL the animal models from prior tests of mRNA
therapies were killed by ADE and had to be shut down.
And I sincerely hope that does not happen with the mRNA
therapy. The loss of life will be breath taking.
They should have gone for a real vaccine instead where
actual results has been generally very positive, not an
mRNA therapy were prior attempts have been horrifying.
>
> As far as I'm concerned you might as well never bother posting here
> again, because I sure as hell won't reply to you, but you won't be
> killfiled as it'll be fun watching from the sidelines ...
All you have is insults and name calling.

A weird stalker, usually "Corvid".
Perpetually proving why it must nym-shift.
Its mission... annoy everybody.

see also...
=?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=b6rvid?= <bl@ckbirds.org>
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= <nice@cows.moo>
Banders <snap@mailchute.com>
Covid-19 <always.look@message.header>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.net>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.org>
Cows Are Nice <cows@nice.moo>
Cows are nice <moo@cows.org>
Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo>
dogs <dogs@home.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Great Pumpkin <pumpkin@patch.net>
Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com>
Local Favorite <how2recycle@palomar.info>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Sea <freshness@coast.org>
Standard Poodle <standard@poodle.com>
triangles <build@home.com>
and others...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RANT - MS does it again!
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> References: <smc3q4$iao$1@dont-email.me> <smg0tu$efk$3@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <exQiJ.624075$Ah33.467935@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:18:50 UTC
> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:18:50 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1359
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:156113 free.spam:16465
>
> The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
>
> And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
>> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
>> CLUELESS...
>
> And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
> incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:46:54 -0000
> (UTC) in message-id <smg0tu$efk$3@dont-email.me>.
>
> This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
> readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
> follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.
>
> AfUywTT6wpjh
>
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:46:36 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smhsls$99e$1@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

pHYtAghzvxGo

The nym-shifting stalker Corvid/Edward/others is upset because it will
never again troll USENET without its nyms being exposed.

Corvid perpetually proves why it must nym-shift.
Its mission, as always... annoy everybody.

--

How would you like it if your nyms were exposed???

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:16:20 -0500, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>| So what are you supposed to do if your problem is such that you aren't
>| /able/ to go online?
>
> Same as with people who don't use cellphones and people
>who smoke: They're ritually treated to public humiliation for
>being uncooperative. That's happening, for example, with
>COVID vaccines. If you're adept online you can search gov't
>sites for available vaccines. If not, good luck. When you call
>drugstore phone numbers you'll be lucky to get a person. If
>you do they'll try to tell you to go online. I found that I couldn't
>even schedule a booster shot in person. They told me I'd
>need to call or go online! When I called the 800 number I was
>scolded for not going online. I told them the website was
>broken. They recommended that I try Chrome. Across the world
>of the tech illiterate, the mysterious panacea called "Chrome"
>is known to cure all maladies. :)

I know plenty of people who booked their shots by phone (I booked my
first that way)

Of course FINDING the actual phone number online is far easier today
than any other way. One of my employees got her second shot 3 days
before I did though she had booked it after me via the phone booking
line.

As for web browsers I know of a couple of financial web sites that
work just fine under MSIE or Firefox that are broken under Chrome.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:26:05 -0500, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

>I bought a cell phone as kind of a toy/joke. Had no idea how much I could use it for but wanted the toy to play with. If I had only known
>then what I know now. HOW does society live without a cell phone? Like you, I constantly try to test support on the phone when they want
>to text me a like or code, and I just say "I don't have one.". Really puts a monkey wench in the works. LOL
>

I used to have a cell phone (a phone not a smart phone) but gave it up
my thinking being "I have very effective online connections at work
and at home and don't plan on taking phone calls while going to and
from and therefore it's a monthly expense I don't need"

My personal home machine is the equivalent of a mid size corporate
file serve while my work machine is an aging I7 laptop (pretty spiffy
when new!) so I don't feel "underprivileged"

For me the tipping point was when I was making an errand for work and
was expecting a call from home base so left the phone on on the
passenger seat. The phone rang, I duly pulled over on the highway ....
and it was a bloodly telemarketer who had somehow gotten my number! (I
had deliberately not given the number to anybody but work and my wife)

At that point my provider started screwing me over on contract renewal
so I threw up my hands and have been cell free ever since. And
maligned Rogers Cellular for years ever since for their add-on fees.
(As I told their rep I would if they didn't treat me right)

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:32:17 -0500, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> That was true here, too. They told me no appt needed.
>But the next day when I went it had suddenly got busy.
>I had to go online and was lucky to find a place with an
>opening in 2 days. Without online I would haver been lost.

Good for you! For me it took 3 weeks from booking the second shot till
clinic.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:55:01 -0500, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
>| > Without online I would have been lost.
>|
>| Maybe not if you'd have waited a few weeks like I did to avoid the
>| crowd. Then I just walked right in with no line, no appointment, and no
>| online needed...
>|
>
> You're missing the point. What you suggest is possible.
>But either way, finding out about available vaccines is only
>realistically done online.
>
I dunno - I had a scheduled in person appointment with my doctor on
other matters and after we had gotten done with the purpose of the
appointment he was happy to take a few questions about the various
vaccines (this was Feb/Mar 2021)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 11:51:58, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:26:05 -0500, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>I bought a cell phone as kind of a toy/joke. Had no idea how much I
>>could use it for but wanted the toy to play with. If I had only known
>>then what I know now. HOW does society live without a cell phone?
>>Like you, I constantly try to test support on the phone when they want
>>to text me a like or code, and I just say "I don't have one.". Really
>>puts a monkey wench in the works. LOL

Me too. (though in practice, I'm probably only inconveniencing myself by
now.)
>>
>
>I used to have a cell phone (a phone not a smart phone) but gave it up
>my thinking being "I have very effective online connections at work
>and at home and don't plan on taking phone calls while going to and
>from and therefore it's a monthly expense I don't need"

I've noticed before that true PAYG (pay as you go) contracts seem to be
rare in the USA. Here in UK, they're expensive to actually _use_ - I
think tens of pence per minute - but almost free _not_ to use (I put ten
pounds on mine when I got it years ago, and last time I checked there
were still over 7 left). I say _almost_ free not to use: you have to
make a call once in a blue moon (month, quarter ... it varies) to keep
the number active. But I certainly don't have to pay anything monthly.
>
>My personal home machine is the equivalent of a mid size corporate
>file serve while my work machine is an aging I7 laptop (pretty spiffy
>when new!) so I don't feel "underprivileged"
>
>For me the tipping point was when I was making an errand for work and
>was expecting a call from home base so left the phone on on the
>passenger seat. The phone rang, I duly pulled over on the highway ....
>and it was a bloodly telemarketer who had somehow gotten my number! (I
>had deliberately not given the number to anybody but work and my wife)

I don't give mine out, usually saying (truthfully) that there'd be no
point as it's rarely switched on. (I keep it in case of emergencies,
such as a breakdown.)
>
>At that point my provider started screwing me over on contract renewal
>so I threw up my hands and have been cell free ever since. And
>maligned Rogers Cellular for years ever since for their add-on fees.
>(As I told their rep I would if they didn't treat me right)

I don't think "I'll bad-mouth your company" cuts much ice these days.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bugger," said Pooh, feeling very annoyed.

On 12/6/2021 2:52 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:32:17 -0500, "Mayayana"
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> That was true here, too. They told me no appt needed.
>> But the next day when I went it had suddenly got busy.
>> I had to go online and was lucky to find a place with an
>> opening in 2 days. Without online I would haver been lost.
>
> Good for you! For me it took 3 weeks from booking the second shot till
> clinic.
>
For our fist shot we went to the Johnston County NC Health Department
and they gave us a time windows to go.

For our second shot we went to the same place and they said come in on a
specified day.

For our booster shot, the health department said come in at your leisure.

Each time we were in and out in about a half an hour, included a 15
minuter observation period to insure there were no bad reactions.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:45:02 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>And other things to do with them - in the UK, you can order (lateral
>flow) tests, or report their result, online - _if_ you have a fobile.
>When you get to the screen where it asks you for the number, there _is_
>a button to say you haven't got one - at which point it refuses to go
>further, but tells you to dial 119. (If you do, you go through a menu
>obviously not designed with you in mind, then a wait, then speak to an
>individual who asks the same questions you've already answered,
>including what is your mobile number - though s/he _is_ able to
>continue, as they have a dummy number they can put in at that point.)
>

I don't know what a fobile is but my daughter over there is a bit of a
cell phone warrior who does much of her work on her laptop. (She's a
graphic designer)

On 09/11/2021 13:16, Mayayana wrote:
> Same as with people who don't use cellphones and people
> who smoke: They're ritually treated to public humiliation for

Smokers stink and if I have to be around them they make me stink and the
smell doesn't go away until I shower change all my clothes.

I am glad that they are not allowed in most places any more.

How dare they whine about restrictions on their freedom.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:55:50 -0500, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> If people don't smoke near you then you're not suffering.
>Making them pariahs is not justified. Harm from phones? They
>don't seem so harmless to me when I see someone trying to
>text on the highway. Or someone walking out into the street
>in front of my car. I don't mind if they walk into trees and end
>up in comas that my taxes are not paying for, but I'll be very
>mad if I end up hitting one of them, with no chance to stop,
>and then get sued by the family.

I've actually had a woman looking down at her cell phone while
standing stationary next to me. I was in a designated turn lane and
stopped to let her go then when she didn't I started my turn. Only
then did she RUN (still without looking up from her phone) directly in
front of me and it was only my good reflexes and recent brake job that
prevented her from joining the angels that day.

Again it was NOT in the curb lane on a regular road but in a right
turn lane that was separated from the through traffic lane.

As someone whose mother was killed by an errant driver, I tend to be
more careful than most in this area.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 16:06:46, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:45:02 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>And other things to do with them - in the UK, you can order (lateral
>>flow) tests, or report their result, online - _if_ you have a fobile.
[]
>I don't know what a fobile is but my daughter over there is a bit of a
>cell phone warrior who does much of her work on her laptop. (She's a
>graphic designer)

A fobile moan. (In US, a fell soan, I suppose.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Often there is no more than a little plaque to reveal that, against all
gynaecological probability, someone very famous was born halfway up a wall."
- Terry Pratchett-