FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > 183k new cases today…
183k new cases today…
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes - under reporting at the weekend as usual" It maybe there was a big holiday. Like Easter or something. | |||
"Yes - under reporting at the weekend as usual It maybe there was a big holiday. Like Easter or something. " Thank god for Christmas eh? No-one died | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down " But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. "  | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. " Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x | |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad " Does there always have to be an angle? | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x" Doubt it'll be months. At the current rate of spread there will be little point in anybody isolating in a few week's time as almost everyone will have had it. Arguably that's been the policy since the summer. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad Does there always have to be an angle?" Yep....right at the start of pandemic..they used to display the international comparisons during the daily press briefings....then as ours started to overtake all the other countries, the comparison chart suddenly disappeared from use..... | |||
 | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition). "Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence. Cal | |||
| |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal"What's your evidence for that?  | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. " Have a look at the weekly covid surveillance report.... It shows admissions by none, 1 or 2..... Doesn't show 3.... Yet but hopefully will do soon. | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal
----
What's your evidence for that? "I didn't provide any...  | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal
----
What's your evidence for that?
I didn't provide any... "Apparently not | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal"My sister's husband's hairdresser's cat's uncle's wife Karen posted about it on Facebook. It's true end of. | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal
My sister's husband's hairdresser's cat's uncle's wife Karen posted about it on Facebook. It's true end of. "FACT? | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Will do. Have a look at the weekly covid surveillance report.... It shows admissions by none, 1 or 2..... Doesn't show 3.... Yet but hopefully will do soon. " | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x" I think we need to get to a point if someone has no symptoms they can continue to work. Or shorten the isolation time. Tricky one but we need a solution. | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal
My sister's husband's hairdresser's cat's uncle's wife Karen posted about it on Facebook. It's true end of.
FACT?"  | |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad Does there always have to be an angle?" I was thinking that too - also regarding the news/timing - do people actually still watch it!  | |||
| |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x" I think it is unfortunately. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. "
Plus people can't all test as needed and suggested by those with incompetence | |||
| |||
"End of "…. What? | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. " . A woman after my own heart , couldn't agree more . | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition). "The proportion of Covid-positive hospital admissions that are not primary being treated for the virus as of 23 December is 29% - nhs statistics - Primary Diagnosis Supplement 23/12/21 | |||
| |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad " Today figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt as today’s figures basically are a combination of 1 day of figures from England, 2 days of figures from Scotland, 2 days of figures from wales, and 5 days figures from Northern Ireland | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. " Absolutely spot on. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. " That's too much for some to comprehend. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. " Last week it was 80-90% 'unvaccinated' in ICU, but no official source for the data. JRM quoted this article in a tweet - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10335487/Up-90-Covid-patients-ICU-unvaccinated-medic-claims.html If this is the source, then it came from a single ICU with just 25 patients! This week it is 90% without the booster in ICU. No source so far. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Last week it was 80-90% 'unvaccinated' in ICU, but no official source for the data. JRM quoted this article in a tweet - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10335487/Up-90-Covid-patients-ICU-unvaccinated-medic-claims.html If this is the source, then it came from a single ICU with just 25 patients! This week it is 90% without the booster in ICU. No source so far. " The source was the Priminister ... though to be fair his track record isnt that great but a quick google get you this from NHS North East London. Sure it pre-dates now (expecting you to pick that as a point to refute the evidence) but the gist is clear on ICU risk vaccinated/un vaccinated. Got any sources to show otherwise? Between 14 July and 2 September 2021, 203 patients with Covid-19 were admitted to intensive care units (ICU) across north east London (NEL). Of these, 90% (181) were not fully vaccinated, with most tending to be on average six years younger than patients admitted to ICU who are fully vaccinated. ICUs play an important role in hospitals, including looking after patients undergoing major surgery, for conditions such as cancer and heart disease. Now, with one-third of ICU beds across NEL occupied by people with Covid-19, this surge in critically ill patients is having a significant impact on the care of other patients. Parjam Zolfaghari, a Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine and Anaesthesia at Barts Health NHS Trust said: “A considerable amount of resource is needed to treat patients in ICU, and those with Covid-19 are no exception. On average, a person with Covid-19 stays in an ICU bed for three times longer than ICU patients who are admitted with other conditions. The ongoing admission of patients with Covid-19 to critical care units is impacting on already stretched staff and, causing sustained pressure on services across north east London.” He continues: “Nearly 90% of patients in ICUs with Covid-19 across NEL aren’t fully vaccinated. This clearly shows that getting two doses of a vaccine is the best way to reduce your chances of becoming seriously ill with Covid-19 and ending up in hospital. The individuals currently in our ICUs with Covid-19 are unlikely to have been admitted to intensive care if they had been fully vaccinated.” | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Absolutely spot on." This . | |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad Does there always have to be an angle? I was thinking that too - also regarding the news/timing - do people actually still watch it! "Haven't watched the news since June 2020 get all mine from here I cherry pick what a I want to believe | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down " I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff? | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff?" Actually… it’s a bit worse than that…. Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 | |||
" Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500" With COVID? Or for COVID? | |||
| |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff? Actually… it’s a bit worse than that…. Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500" Where you getting that from? According the gov.uk the number has been around 8,200 for a couple of weeks now. The latest update was today 29th Dec at 6pm and showed 8,246. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. " Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. | |||
" Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 With COVID? Or for COVID?" Absolutely doesn't matter. Even if somebody goes into hospital Because of another condition or illness but tests positive for covid they still need to be treated separately from non covid patients therefore adding to the pressure. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff? Actually… it’s a bit worse than that…. Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 Where you getting that from? According the gov.uk the number has been around 8,200 for a couple of weeks now. The latest update was today 29th Dec at 6pm and showed 8,246. " Fank you I was literally just going to comment and say this, the numbers have been quite consistent for a few months, There has been no sharp rise in hospital admissions due to covid. | |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad " I think that the spread is almost inevitable. Will, sadly, have to see what the admission rates go to and keep our fingers crossed that the severity and vaccination combination keeps it manageable... | |||
| |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff? Actually… it’s a bit worse than that…. Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 Where you getting that from? According the gov.uk the number has been around 8,200 for a couple of weeks now. The latest update was today 29th Dec at 6pm and showed 8,246. Fank you I was literally just going to comment and say this, the numbers have been quite consistent for a few months, There has been no sharp rise in hospital admissions due to covid. " https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-daily-covid-admissions?time=2021-02-05..latest | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff? Actually… it’s a bit worse than that…. Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 Where you getting that from? According the gov.uk the number has been around 8,200 for a couple of weeks now. The latest update was today 29th Dec at 6pm and showed 8,246. Fank you I was literally just going to comment and say this, the numbers have been quite consistent for a few months, There has been no sharp rise in hospital admissions due to covid. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-daily-covid-admissions?time=2021-02-05..latest" That is not the numbers the NHS are reporting. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I wouldn't say 50% increase (2000) admissions was 'stable'. I'd be more inclined to assume a disaster is pending. NHS cannot sustain that, the 183,000 today are from just before Xmas Eve. Then we have Christmas Day and Boxing day wave later this week, New Year's Eve to add in 5 to 10 days after.. Ready reckoner, 80 to 120k results in 50% increase over 40k per day. Today were at 183k but yet to see the hospital rates associated which probably 80% increase then run this day after day. For how long can is be maintained while at the same time the NHS is loosing more staff? Actually… it’s a bit worse than that…. Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 Where you getting that from? According the gov.uk the number has been around 8,200 for a couple of weeks now. The latest update was today 29th Dec at 6pm and showed 8,246. Fank you I was literally just going to comment and say this, the numbers have been quite consistent for a few months, There has been no sharp rise in hospital admissions due to covid. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-daily-covid-admissions?time=2021-02-05..latest That is not the numbers the NHS are reporting. " Well, this is the source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/download | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though." lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. " The country hasn’t been shut down. It isn’t the same as other virus though, it’s a worldwide pandemic. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. " As I said, easy to discuss "sustainable solutions" when it's someone else's life. We vaccinate for other diseases as a matter of course. Why not this one? | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. " The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. " Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x I think we need to get to a point if someone has no symptoms they can continue to work. Or shorten the isolation time. Tricky one but we need a solution. " we've tested positive today, a week after having our booster, with absolutely no symptoms what so ever, so wonder if it's the booster that's caused our positive result?? | |||
 | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x I think we need to get to a point if someone has no symptoms they can continue to work. Or shorten the isolation time. Tricky one but we need a solution. we've tested positive today, a week after having our booster, with absolutely no symptoms what so ever, so wonder if it's the booster that's caused our positive result?? " I think it's more likely to be the booster is the reason you don't have any symptoms. I have tested positive with absolutely no symptoms but had the booster 7 weeks ago. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. " I wonder how many have to have been infected or injected to achieve that thing many were banging on about... Herd immunity.? I mean with over a million a week new infections and over a million a week booster jabs... And a population of 65m.... It won't take much longer that everyone has had it or been triple jabbed... Unless herd immunity for this disease is not achievable of course. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x I think we need to get to a point if someone has no symptoms they can continue to work. Or shorten the isolation time. Tricky one but we need a solution. we've tested positive today, a week after having our booster, with absolutely no symptoms what so ever, so wonder if it's the booster that's caused our positive result?? I think it's more likely to be the booster is the reason you don't have any symptoms. I have tested positive with absolutely no symptoms but had the booster 7 weeks ago. " You can be positive without symptoms. The booster will not have given you Covid or leave you testing positive. That information was in my vaccination advice leaflet. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down But it will matter if too many staff go off sick and there is nobody to care for sick people. It’s about the numbers not necessarily the severity. Agree with this... too many concentrate on only the positive cases going into hospitals etc but not the actual infrastructure that supports those that are positive or need care. I believe this is where we’re going to have the biggest issues over the next few weeks if not months x I think we need to get to a point if someone has no symptoms they can continue to work. Or shorten the isolation time. Tricky one but we need a solution. we've tested positive today, a week after having our booster, with absolutely no symptoms what so ever, so wonder if it's the booster that's caused our positive result?? I think it's more likely to be the booster is the reason you don't have any symptoms. I have tested positive with absolutely no symptoms but had the booster 7 weeks ago. You can be positive without symptoms. The booster will not have given you Covid or leave you testing positive. That information was in my vaccination advice leaflet." I'm very aware of that and that's the point I was making but it probably was nothing to do with the vaccine! Oh and I didn't get a leaflet! | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. " The highest numbers of hospitalisations is young people, the highest number of deaths is older. Older would be expected, you would not expect young. They are reducing isolation periods but it’s a bit like using NHS as cannon fodder and potentially putting people at risk. It’s all about getting them back to work to care for others and yet too many people won’t do anything to help themselves. | |||
" Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 With COVID? Or for COVID? Absolutely doesn't matter. Even if somebody goes into hospital Because of another condition or illness but tests positive for covid they still need to be treated separately from non covid patients therefore adding to the pressure. " It matters rather significantly in relation to the severity of the illness and therefore whether there's a continuing need for isolation. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. " Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time? | |||
| |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. The highest numbers of hospitalisations is young people, the highest number of deaths is older. Older would be expected, you would not expect young. They are reducing isolation periods but it’s a bit like using NHS as cannon fodder and potentially putting people at risk. It’s all about getting them back to work to care for others and yet too many people won’t do anything to help themselves. " Did you even check the link? if you did you would see its currently the older generation that are the majority in hospital. Please send a link to the data you have that the majority of people hospitalised are young and unvaccinated. Its important that we look at all factors involved and not just vaccination status, if we want to come up with the best solution to the problem. Whatever that problem is.  | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. The highest numbers of hospitalisations is young people, the highest number of deaths is older. Older would be expected, you would not expect young. They are reducing isolation periods but it’s a bit like using NHS as cannon fodder and potentially putting people at risk. It’s all about getting them back to work to care for others and yet too many people won’t do anything to help themselves. Did you even check the link? if you did you would see its currently the older generation that are the majority in hospital. Please send a link to the data you have that the majority of people hospitalised are young and unvaccinated. Its important that we look at all factors involved and not just vaccination status, if we want to come up with the best solution to the problem. Whatever that problem is. "Yes, I did check it thank you but I also read it. The increase is in the 15-24 year old and the aged. You are looking at the total and I am looking at where the increase is. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. The highest numbers of hospitalisations is young people, the highest number of deaths is older. Older would be expected, you would not expect young. They are reducing isolation periods but it’s a bit like using NHS as cannon fodder and potentially putting people at risk. It’s all about getting them back to work to care for others and yet too many people won’t do anything to help themselves. Did you even check the link? if you did you would see its currently the older generation that are the majority in hospital. Please send a link to the data you have that the majority of people hospitalised are young and unvaccinated. Its important that we look at all factors involved and not just vaccination status, if we want to come up with the best solution to the problem. Whatever that problem is.
Yes, I did check it thank you but I also read it. The increase is in the 15-24 year old and the aged. You are looking at the total and I am looking at where the increase is. "“Hospital admission rates increased in groups aged 75 years and over and those aged 15 to 24 years, but decreased or remained similar in all other age groups in the week ending 19 December 2021. Admission rates remained lowest in those aged between 5 and 14 years and highest in those aged 85 years and over.” Same link as you provided but this is in the info. I was looking at 15-24 year old increases. | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. Perhaps you would like to write a note to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) who won't get over it? It is preventable without lockdowns if people vaccinate and do very simple things like where a mask in enclosed spaces. Meanwhile we get vaccines out to the rest of the world with urgency. If we are lucky, Covid-19 will become less deadly. If we're lucky. I guess that it's easy to bet on other people's lives though. lockdowns just delay and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed. We can’t keep locking down the whole country every time there is a bit of a spike in infections. Thats not a sustainable solution. As much as we talk about masks and vaccines help in keeping infection down if you look at real world data this is not the case not significantly anyway. I think we need to realise that for the vast majority of people. Covid results in no symptoms or very mild symptoms. It is still very rare for anyone to need hospital treatment because of covid and even rarer for them to die because of it. What the numbers show us is that the huge majority of those in hospital and dying from covid are people aged 75 plus or have underlying health issues. This has always and still continues to be the case. Rather than focussing on getting all the young vaccinated and putting restrictions in place that only really effect the young. We should be more focussed protecting those that are causing the strain on the NHS and are most at risk, putting in more restrictions and support services in place for them. The young healthy unvaccinated without underlying health conditions are the bed blockers currently. I’m not sure why people refer to lockdowns and keep locking down. We aren’t locked down. There are no restrictions, you are all as free as a bird. High numbers affect everyone- when too many NHS staff are off sick and care can’t be provided, we will all suffer. The same goes for other services. The numbers are the crisis not the severity. Where are you getting that data from. The vaccination status of those in hospital is not reported. What is reported is the age group of those in hospital and the majority are over 85. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals I think a potential solution is changing isolation rules if people have no symptoms which is 1/3 or pass 2 in a row LFT let them return to work. The highest numbers of hospitalisations is young people, the highest number of deaths is older. Older would be expected, you would not expect young. They are reducing isolation periods but it’s a bit like using NHS as cannon fodder and potentially putting people at risk. It’s all about getting them back to work to care for others and yet too many people won’t do anything to help themselves. Did you even check the link? if you did you would see its currently the older generation that are the majority in hospital. Please send a link to the data you have that the majority of people hospitalised are young and unvaccinated. Its important that we look at all factors involved and not just vaccination status, if we want to come up with the best solution to the problem. Whatever that problem is.
Yes, I did check it thank you but I also read it. The increase is in the 15-24 year old and the aged. You are looking at the total and I am looking at where the increase is.
“Hospital admission rates increased in groups aged 75 years and over and those aged 15 to 24 years, but decreased or remained similar in all other age groups in the week ending 19 December 2021. Admission rates remained lowest in those aged between 5 and 14 years and highest in those aged 85 years and over.” Same link as you provided but this is in the info. I was looking at 15-24 year old increases. "Okay thank you. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time?" So your position is that it is not necessary? That the medical profession wants to keep working itself into the ground providing data to fund pharmaceutical companies? That global governments, or someone, is earning so much from a handful of pharmaceutical companies that they will let the global economy collapse? You are down a rabbit hole. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time? So your position is that it is not necessary? That the medical profession wants to keep working itself into the ground providing data to fund pharmaceutical companies? That global governments, or someone, is earning so much from a handful of pharmaceutical companies that they will let the global economy collapse? You are down a rabbit hole." No but ongoing boosters over reduced timeframes is concerning to me. We were told categorically: - Vaccines had efficacy of c.90% - To be effective we needed two jabs a certain amount of time apart - That if boosters proved necessary they could not be given sooner than 6mths after 2nd jab - When Omicron was discovered the vaccine manufacturers said they would need c.100 days to reformulate the vaccine to protect All of that got thrown out of the window with accelerated timescales and a miraculous discovery that the boosters still provided c.70% efficacy. I fear that in the scrabble to do something we could be sleepwalking into future health issues. I continue to be concerned about the number and frequency of doses that does not correlate to any other vaccine in history. I also believe more needs to done to ensure vaccination levels are dramatically increased in poorer countries to help mitigate against variants/mutations. I think this is all incredibly complex and does not warrant binary tribalist entrenched views but a grown up discussion about how to tackle things (and not have all our eggs in the vaccine basket which has sadly not been as successful as hoped). | |||
" Last week there were 1800 people being treated in uk hospitals with covid, that number is now 10,500 With COVID? Or for COVID? Absolutely doesn't matter. Even if somebody goes into hospital Because of another condition or illness but tests positive for covid they still need to be treated separately from non covid patients therefore adding to the pressure. It matters rather significantly in relation to the severity of the illness and therefore whether there's a continuing need for isolation." The severities of illness of those in hospital with covid kind of doesn't matter. It's the numbers that matter and of course we need to isolate because it has an impact on staffing levels if it runs through a particular work place. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time? So your position is that it is not necessary? That the medical profession wants to keep working itself into the ground providing data to fund pharmaceutical companies? That global governments, or someone, is earning so much from a handful of pharmaceutical companies that they will let the global economy collapse? You are down a rabbit hole. No but ongoing boosters over reduced timeframes is concerning to me. We were told categorically: - Vaccines had efficacy of c.90% - To be effective we needed two jabs a certain amount of time apart - That if boosters proved necessary they could not be given sooner than 6mths after 2nd jab - When Omicron was discovered the vaccine manufacturers said they would need c.100 days to reformulate the vaccine to protect All of that got thrown out of the window with accelerated timescales and a miraculous discovery that the boosters still provided c.70% efficacy. I fear that in the scrabble to do something we could be sleepwalking into future health issues. I continue to be concerned about the number and frequency of doses that does not correlate to any other vaccine in history. I also believe more needs to done to ensure vaccination levels are dramatically increased in poorer countries to help mitigate against variants/mutations. I think this is all incredibly complex and does not warrant binary tribalist entrenched views but a grown up discussion about how to tackle things (and not have all our eggs in the vaccine basket which has sadly not been as successful as hoped)." | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time? So your position is that it is not necessary? That the medical profession wants to keep working itself into the ground providing data to fund pharmaceutical companies? That global governments, or someone, is earning so much from a handful of pharmaceutical companies that they will let the global economy collapse? You are down a rabbit hole. No but ongoing boosters over reduced timeframes is concerning to me. We were told categorically: - Vaccines had efficacy of c.90% - To be effective we needed two jabs a certain amount of time apart - That if boosters proved necessary they could not be given sooner than 6mths after 2nd jab - When Omicron was discovered the vaccine manufacturers said they would need c.100 days to reformulate the vaccine to protect All of that got thrown out of the window with accelerated timescales and a miraculous discovery that the boosters still provided c.70% efficacy. I fear that in the scrabble to do something we could be sleepwalking into future health issues. I continue to be concerned about the number and frequency of doses that does not correlate to any other vaccine in history. I also believe more needs to done to ensure vaccination levels are dramatically increased in poorer countries to help mitigate against variants/mutations. I think this is all incredibly complex and does not warrant binary tribalist entrenched views but a grown up discussion about how to tackle things (and not have all our eggs in the vaccine basket which has sadly not been as successful as hoped)." It's not a "miraculous" discovery. It's finding out that a booster works by making use of the tools you have in a crisis. Does Covid-19 correlate to any other virus in history? If you say yes do you think you may be overreaching in your knowledge? You say you want an open discussion, but you do keep pushing a pharmaceutical company money-making conspiracy don't you? Yes, wider vaccination globally will reduce the chances of variants evolving at this place, but your narrative is hardly going to encourage anti-vaxers to change their minds, is it? | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time? So your position is that it is not necessary? That the medical profession wants to keep working itself into the ground providing data to fund pharmaceutical companies? That global governments, or someone, is earning so much from a handful of pharmaceutical companies that they will let the global economy collapse? You are down a rabbit hole. No but ongoing boosters over reduced timeframes is concerning to me. We were told categorically: - Vaccines had efficacy of c.90% - To be effective we needed two jabs a certain amount of time apart - That if boosters proved necessary they could not be given sooner than 6mths after 2nd jab - When Omicron was discovered the vaccine manufacturers said they would need c.100 days to reformulate the vaccine to protect All of that got thrown out of the window with accelerated timescales and a miraculous discovery that the boosters still provided c.70% efficacy. I fear that in the scrabble to do something we could be sleepwalking into future health issues. I continue to be concerned about the number and frequency of doses that does not correlate to any other vaccine in history. I also believe more needs to done to ensure vaccination levels are dramatically increased in poorer countries to help mitigate against variants/mutations. I think this is all incredibly complex and does not warrant binary tribalist entrenched views but a grown up discussion about how to tackle things (and not have all our eggs in the vaccine basket which has sadly not been as successful as hoped). It's not a "miraculous" discovery. It's finding out that a booster works by making use of the tools you have in a crisis. Does Covid-19 correlate to any other virus in history? If you say yes do you think you may be overreaching in your knowledge? You say you want an open discussion, but you do keep pushing a pharmaceutical company money-making conspiracy don't you? Yes, wider vaccination globally will reduce the chances of variants evolving at this place, but your narrative is hardly going to encourage anti-vaxers to change their minds, is it?" I am not trying to convince anyone to change their minds. I am raising things that I believe are concerning (and I would be happy to be reassured they are not with evidence that is fair and balanced). It appears that anything that questions the accepted narrative is either dismissed out of hand or lumped in with anti-vax conspiracy theories. I have never said the vaccines do not work (clearly they do) but I also do not have blind acceptance that everything the scientists have said or concluded is unchallengeable because clearly over time they have had to change some of what they are saying/concluding because they got it wrong. As for “follow the money” I think anyone who does not believe the huge amounts involved do not influence human behaviour and provide opportunities for the self-serving and corrupt to influence and drive govt policy making to help enrich themselves, is incredibly naive. While (hopefully) not all governments are corrupt, all governments attract the type of people who see opportunities for personal gain. This is a long read but it illustrates the less than ethical and altruistic behaviour of Pfizer... https://www.ft.com/content/0cea5e3f-d4c4-4ee2-961a-3aa150f388ec | |||
| |||
" I fear that in the scrabble to do something we could be sleepwalking into future health issues. I continue to be concerned about the number and frequency of doses that does not correlate to any other vaccine in history. I also believe more needs to done to ensure vaccination levels are dramatically increased in poorer countries to help mitigate against variants/mutations. " This | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. Hmmm and when it has been decided it is time to roll out the 4th/5th/6th jab the reporting will be the same. Gotta keep that money train chugging along the tracks. Wonder if they will be so blatant next time? So your position is that it is not necessary? That the medical profession wants to keep working itself into the ground providing data to fund pharmaceutical companies? That global governments, or someone, is earning so much from a handful of pharmaceutical companies that they will let the global economy collapse? You are down a rabbit hole. No but ongoing boosters over reduced timeframes is concerning to me. We were told categorically: - Vaccines had efficacy of c.90% - To be effective we needed two jabs a certain amount of time apart - That if boosters proved necessary they could not be given sooner than 6mths after 2nd jab - When Omicron was discovered the vaccine manufacturers said they would need c.100 days to reformulate the vaccine to protect All of that got thrown out of the window with accelerated timescales and a miraculous discovery that the boosters still provided c.70% efficacy. I fear that in the scrabble to do something we could be sleepwalking into future health issues. I continue to be concerned about the number and frequency of doses that does not correlate to any other vaccine in history. I also believe more needs to done to ensure vaccination levels are dramatically increased in poorer countries to help mitigate against variants/mutations. I think this is all incredibly complex and does not warrant binary tribalist entrenched views but a grown up discussion about how to tackle things (and not have all our eggs in the vaccine basket which has sadly not been as successful as hoped). It's not a "miraculous" discovery. It's finding out that a booster works by making use of the tools you have in a crisis. Does Covid-19 correlate to any other virus in history? If you say yes do you think you may be overreaching in your knowledge? You say you want an open discussion, but you do keep pushing a pharmaceutical company money-making conspiracy don't you? Yes, wider vaccination globally will reduce the chances of variants evolving at this place, but your narrative is hardly going to encourage anti-vaxers to change their minds, is it? I am not trying to convince anyone to change their minds. I am raising things that I believe are concerning (and I would be happy to be reassured they are not with evidence that is fair and balanced). It appears that anything that questions the accepted narrative is either dismissed out of hand or lumped in with anti-vax conspiracy theories. I have never said the vaccines do not work (clearly they do) but I also do not have blind acceptance that everything the scientists have said or concluded is unchallengeable because clearly over time they have had to change some of what they are saying/concluding because they got it wrong. As for “follow the money” I think anyone who does not believe the huge amounts involved do not influence human behaviour and provide opportunities for the self-serving and corrupt to influence and drive govt policy making to help enrich themselves, is incredibly naive. While (hopefully) not all governments are corrupt, all governments attract the type of people who see opportunities for personal gain. This is a long read but it illustrates the less than ethical and altruistic behaviour of Pfizer... https://www.ft.com/content/0cea5e3f-d4c4-4ee2-961a-3aa150f388ec " All I am doing is questioning your logic. I have not dismissed anything out of hand. Not sure why this is so unacceptable. Just explain your position. I did not say that you doubted vaccine efficacy. You questioned the use of boosters as being a "miraculous" discovery compared to requiring more development work? What does that mean? What point are you making? What is suspicious about this? They thought one thing based on official data and changed there mind after practical application? Again, do you believe that the entire global economy has been shut down and governments, medical organisations and practitioners have all colluded to make vaccine companies money? If not, what? Who has said that the Pfizer is blameless? How does that make that your (very unclear) inference of some sort of global corruption feasible? Do you have anything more than a vague "suspicion" about "something fishy"? Do you see how this is a conspiracy theory that tips people to not get vaccinated? | |||
"For me no lockdown thats enough...the news the number of cases all after people got vaccinated twice and now a 3rd one...and the cases still rise...no more lockdown no more boosters no more nothing... My opinion only...i respect everyone's opinion.." I know that you are stating your position politely but it doesn't respect everyone's opinion. It will not respect anyone who has taken precautions and becomes severely ill or dies and the effects on their families. Particularly those of people who do not have the same choices as you do. Most of the world would love to have a vaccination. The best way to stop the lockdowns and boosters is for wider vaccination. I am only illustrating that assuming that this isn't a neutral point of view being expressed. The decision is on what acceptable consequences are. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). " What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical bit others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. Uou would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. | |||
| |||
"Cold and flu season. Actual fact. " Yep, you're correct, it is cold and flu season, but and it's a BIG BUT, COVID IS REAL! FACT | |||
"Cold and flu season. Actual fact. " So what you mean is Covid, Cold and Flu season. This will be the scenario for the rest of your life. | |||
"dont worry about it,,, sooner or later it will run out of people to infect "You can have covid more than once. So running out of people to infect isn't possible to be honest. If I want to be really negative I could say unlucky people could even have Delta and Omicron at the same time and still get infected again in the future. People don't like hearing hard truths though like that. | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical bit others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. Uou would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. " Have to agree take China for example, tough on the virus and vaccination and they have a 6% - 8.5 % increase in economic growth for 2021 that has to be the way to go | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical bit others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. Uou would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. " So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? | |||
| |||
" Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread." I'll second that! Although I'm sure, as the self appointed enforcer of the Virus forum, he'll have something to say about it! | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO?" Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is? | |||
" Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. I'll second that! Although I'm sure, as the self appointed enforcer of the Virus forum, he'll have something to say about it! "Did you join in just to insult me? Any other contribution? | |||
" Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. I'll second that! Although I'm sure, as the self appointed enforcer of the Virus forum, he'll have something to say about it!
Did you join in just to insult me?
Any other contribution? "I thought it was rather complimentary. I leave the petty insults to you. | |||
" Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. I'll second that! Although I'm sure, as the self appointed enforcer of the Virus forum, he'll have something to say about it!
Did you join in just to insult me?
Any other contribution?
I thought it was rather complimentary.
I leave the petty insults to you."So, yes, the only reason to post was to try to be rude. Well done you | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is?" When have I used the word conspiracy or claimed coordination between all nations and all medical agencies (for want of a better collective term before that throws us off on a tangent)? Only you have said that, dismissively to undermine any point being made (ie trying to link/tie to one of the conspiracy theories to invalidate any points being made or questions being asked). I am saying there are corrupt opportunists in positions of power who are able to influence policy making (in their own country) that provides financial benefits to vaccine makers. That doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work (though clearly not as well as we were led to believe in the beginning, oh the scientists got that wrong). I am not suggesting coordination, I am saying that there are certain personality types who are attracted to and are in roles within govt(s) that will exploit a public health emergency for self gain. I will concede that my initial use of the word “miraculous” was possibly too emotive. So I will replace that with “convenient” (as it helped the behavioural science team to drive the messaging around need for boosters when demand was dropping = job done). Will post more but life calls (family) so likely “to be continued...” | |||
| |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is? When have I used the word conspiracy or claimed coordination between all nations and all medical agencies (for want of a better collective term before that throws us off on a tangent)? Only you have said that, dismissively to undermine any point being made (ie trying to link/tie to one of the conspiracy theories to invalidate any points being made or questions being asked). I am saying there are corrupt opportunists in positions of power who are able to influence policy making (in their own country) that provides financial benefits to vaccine makers. That doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work (though clearly not as well as we were led to believe in the beginning, oh the scientists got that wrong). I am not suggesting coordination, I am saying that there are certain personality types who are attracted to and are in roles within govt(s) that will exploit a public health emergency for self gain. I will concede that my initial use of the word “miraculous” was possibly too emotive. So I will replace that with “convenient” (as it helped the behavioural science team to drive the messaging around need for boosters when demand was dropping = job done). Will post more but life calls (family) so likely “to be continued...”" You are not using the word conspiracy, but you are describing one. What are the "points"? Some politicians are corrupt and make politically expedient decisions. Pharmaceutical companies are going to make lots of money from supplying the entire planet with vaccines during a global pandemic. The biggest production and rollout in history which makes getting insurance cover a little tricky regardless of how confident they may be. Who's debating that? Is there a global pandemic? Yes/No Are vaccines necessary? Yes/No Are boosters necessary? Yes/No Science is complicated? Yes/No What is the substantive point that you are making? What are you suspicious about? I genuinely do not understand. You have not explained. | |||
"Part 2... You said: “The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible.” It isn’t unconnected, far from it. You agree this corruption and deliberate lack of scrutiny has happened. These actions have seen the biggest transfer of national assets (money) into private hands in history. This will be funded by increases in taxation (even though the debt is already owned by the state - bit complex that one). But while you accept that to be true, somehow you cannot accept that the same corrupt mentality that drove these actions (to enrich self/family/friends/cronies) is not at play when it comes to developing govt policy around the application if vaccines? My hypothesis (that I cannot prove and if I had the evidence it would be the scoop of the century and not something I would reveal on a swinger sub forum) is that those same corrupt self serving individuals would work with companies like Pfizer to speed up a booster programme and keep those revenues chugging along. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying the vaccines do not work, but I am questioning frequency and changing timescales along with having concerns over dosage within given timeframes. Pfizer are forecasting revenue of $80bn this year. That can buy the complicit support of a lot of corrupt politicians. And again, did you read the FT article? If you did then will you argue that Pfizer have acted altruistically around the world? Will you argue that they have not interfered with sovereign laws and policies of countries around the world? Sure you will have a smart (but dismissive) response! " So, you are saying that every government (not just ours), every global medical organisation, academic organisation and medic is also involved in these "fake" timescales for boosters or even lying about the fact that they are necessary. You must be, because that is the only way that your theory can work, isn't it? If not, how is this happening? My smart and dismissive response is to explain your logic. | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is? When have I used the word conspiracy or claimed coordination between all nations and all medical agencies (for want of a better collective term before that throws us off on a tangent)? Only you have said that, dismissively to undermine any point being made (ie trying to link/tie to one of the conspiracy theories to invalidate any points being made or questions being asked). I am saying there are corrupt opportunists in positions of power who are able to influence policy making (in their own country) that provides financial benefits to vaccine makers. That doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work (though clearly not as well as we were led to believe in the beginning, oh the scientists got that wrong). I am not suggesting coordination, I am saying that there are certain personality types who are attracted to and are in roles within govt(s) that will exploit a public health emergency for self gain. I will concede that my initial use of the word “miraculous” was possibly too emotive. So I will replace that with “convenient” (as it helped the behavioural science team to drive the messaging around need for boosters when demand was dropping = job done). Will post more but life calls (family) so likely “to be continued...” You are not using the word conspiracy, but you are describing one. What are the "points"? Some politicians are corrupt and make politically expedient decisions. Pharmaceutical companies are going to make lots of money from supplying the entire planet with vaccines during a global pandemic. The biggest production and rollout in history which makes getting insurance cover a little tricky regardless of how confident they may be. Who's debating that? Is there a global pandemic? Yes/No Are vaccines necessary? Yes/No Are boosters necessary? Yes/No Science is complicated? Yes/No What is the substantive point that you are making? What are you suspicious about? I genuinely do not understand. You have not explained." Once again that dismissive tone! I love the way you can just hand wave away this unprecedented level of corruption. Ah well politicians are corrupt, never mind. Pharma making huge profits, that’s fine just capitalism and ignore how they have black mailed countries to change laws and indemnify them for their perfectly safe and well tested vaccine (that the science around it keeps changing, but we are not still testing/trialling/learning). I have had my first two jabs. My own risk analysis decided it was right for me. I am concerned about the change in timescales for boosters and wonder why pharma corps originally said six months and then with Omicron we need 100 days. That medical professionals in South Africa (are we saying they are no good) questioned the UK response but we know better! And you still fail to respond re the Financial Times article? I have to cook dinner now but if I get a chance (and can be bothered) I might respond to your other points later. | |||
| |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad Today figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt as today’s figures basically are a combination of 1 day of figures from England, 2 days of figures from Scotland, 2 days of figures from wales, and 5 days figures from Northern Ireland " If 183,000 was bad… and we know that was an accumulation over Xmas…. Today’s figures of 190,000 looks a lot worse…. The covid hospitalisation numbers have gone up 2000 from 10500 to 12500 I think the restrictions are coming for England, there is going to be pressure on the government and I don’t see how tory backbencher’s can fight it… New Year’s Eve tomorrow could blow this open! | |||
| |||
| |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is? When have I used the word conspiracy or claimed coordination between all nations and all medical agencies (for want of a better collective term before that throws us off on a tangent)? Only you have said that, dismissively to undermine any point being made (ie trying to link/tie to one of the conspiracy theories to invalidate any points being made or questions being asked). I am saying there are corrupt opportunists in positions of power who are able to influence policy making (in their own country) that provides financial benefits to vaccine makers. That doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work (though clearly not as well as we were led to believe in the beginning, oh the scientists got that wrong). I am not suggesting coordination, I am saying that there are certain personality types who are attracted to and are in roles within govt(s) that will exploit a public health emergency for self gain. I will concede that my initial use of the word “miraculous” was possibly too emotive. So I will replace that with “convenient” (as it helped the behavioural science team to drive the messaging around need for boosters when demand was dropping = job done). Will post more but life calls (family) so likely “to be continued...” You are not using the word conspiracy, but you are describing one. What are the "points"? Some politicians are corrupt and make politically expedient decisions. Pharmaceutical companies are going to make lots of money from supplying the entire planet with vaccines during a global pandemic. The biggest production and rollout in history which makes getting insurance cover a little tricky regardless of how confident they may be. Who's debating that? Is there a global pandemic? Yes/No Are vaccines necessary? Yes/No Are boosters necessary? Yes/No Science is complicated? Yes/No What is the substantive point that you are making? What are you suspicious about? I genuinely do not understand. You have not explained. Once again that dismissive tone! I love the way you can just hand wave away this unprecedented level of corruption. Ah well politicians are corrupt, never mind. Pharma making huge profits, that’s fine just capitalism and ignore how they have black mailed countries to change laws and indemnify them for their perfectly safe and well tested vaccine (that the science around it keeps changing, but we are not still testing/trialling/learning). I have had my first two jabs. My own risk analysis decided it was right for me. I am concerned about the change in timescales for boosters and wonder why pharma corps originally said six months and then with Omicron we need 100 days. That medical professionals in South Africa (are we saying they are no good) questioned the UK response but we know better! And you still fail to respond re the Financial Times article? I have to cook dinner now but if I get a chance (and can be bothered) I might respond to your other points later." We have a lying, corrupt, incompetent government. We do not disagree on that. However, half the people on the Politics forum have been supporting them unquestioningly for years. Our election process voted them in with a huge majority. We cannot change them before another general election. If you have an alternative, bring it on. I'd like rid of them tomorrow. It's not just our government recommending boosters. It's every one that can afford and deliver them. Are they all bought? A number of pharmaceutical companies (not just Pfizer) have created created a range of vaccines in super fast time in the face of a global pandemic. You seem to agree that they are safe and necessary. Should they make zero profit, some profit or a lot of profit? Is it too much? If so how much? Does that include compensation for all of the work and delays to other drugs and research? Who decides? How? If you want to shout about anything it should be that enough vaccine hasn't been produced to supply the non wealthy parts of the world. Would that be even more profit? I have agreed with you that Pfizer, or any large corporation wants to make as much money as possible. Could Pfizer be more corrupt than others? Sure. Also Rolls Royce and Shell and VW amongst others. That's not specific to this topic though. Are all of the other pharmaceutical companies the same? I don't know. Do you? A new variant was identified and found to be ultra contagious and it seems, with multiple mutations. The same scientists whose professionalism and competence you were confident to trust in before modified their assessment due to things like data and now they are no longer to be believed? Are there a significant number of credible scientists saying that boosters are not needed? South Africa has a different demographic with different levels of vaccination. I do not know if they are right but I'm going to trust that the same people who made the scientific decisions before will make the best decisions that they can now. The WHO and every other global health organisation is making the same recommendation. Either they are all complicit in this still unidentified "suspicion" that you have or they are not. Which is it? Our corrupt government and the reach of big corporations is not new. Neither are specific to the pandemic. The only thing that you appear to be worried about is that the booster is being rolled out "suspiciously" early specifically due to BoJo's mob and Pfizer. That does not explain the global link between other governments, pharmaceutical companies and medical organisations and individuals in medicine and research. Join those dots and then you have something more than being vaguely upset. We all are after all this time, but just raising some vague "doubts" do not get us anywhere do they. If I was being "dismissive" I would not be spending all this time to work out what is wrong or what your solution to this would be... | |||
"Vaccines have lowered immune systems natural ability to fend of virus and is causing the increase in positive cases. Plus more people are testing so they can go out and celebrate over the festive period. Stop testing for a cold and just get on with it. Or will you continue the same relentless cycle every year? " Seriously? After all of this time, that's what you understand? You develop immunity naturally by getting the virus. If you are lucky you produce sufficient antibodies and are fine. If you are less lucky you get ill. Less lucky still, seriously ill, long term ill or die. A vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill. Antibodies which do the same thing as natural immunity without you being seriously ill or dying? The rate, meaning the percentage, proportion or fraction, of positive results as well as the total number of positive results has gone up. As have the number of total admissions. I really hope that nobody you know gets seriously ill or dies whilst we all "get on with it". | |||
| |||
"Vaccines have lowered immune systems natural ability to fend of virus and is causing the increase in positive cases. Plus more people are testing so they can go out and celebrate over the festive period. Stop testing for a cold and just get on with it. Or will you continue the same relentless cycle every year? Seriously? After all of this time, that's what you understand? You develop immunity naturally by getting the virus. If you are lucky you produce sufficient antibodies and are fine. If you are less lucky you get ill. Less lucky still, seriously ill, long term ill or die. A vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill. Antibodies which do the same thing as natural immunity without you being seriously ill or dying? The rate, meaning the percentage, proportion or fraction, of positive results as well as the total number of positive results has gone up. As have the number of total admissions. I really hope that nobody you know gets seriously ill or dies whilst we all "get on with it"." What a load of rubbish as usual... coming out with incorrect information as usual....but trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason... The vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill eh? Yet you completely ignore information about people being vaccine injured, dismissing it completely as usual. I know a few people personally who have been injured by the vaccine. A family member and a few in my social circle. But i bet you will jump on here and claim it couldn't possibly be so....and we all have to listen to your perfect point of view as it is the correct one.....What rubbish. You carry on like a drug addict injecting yourself every 10 weeks and testing every day in a panic over a cold. I know more and more people now after having one or two jabs now realising what a con this whole vaccine and testing is. Even the politicians are taking the mick out of you all, whilst they have their social gatherings and enjoy themselves, whilst they tell everyone to refrain and wear masks and social distance. The same people that told us at the start, that masks don't work, yet people are walking around like sheep wearing them. These same people also sold you at the start that vaccines would prevent you from getting the virus and now look at the situation......vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated. The truth about these so called vaccines will come out one day and I'll be ready for your comments then too. | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Apparently... most statements that begin with the word Apparently are not supported by any evidence.
Cal"Including yours i take it? | |||
"Vaccines have lowered immune systems natural ability to fend of virus and is causing the increase in positive cases. Plus more people are testing so they can go out and celebrate over the festive period. Stop testing for a cold and just get on with it. Or will you continue the same relentless cycle every year? Seriously? After all of this time, that's what you understand? You develop immunity naturally by getting the virus. If you are lucky you produce sufficient antibodies and are fine. If you are less lucky you get ill. Less lucky still, seriously ill, long term ill or die. A vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill. Antibodies which do the same thing as natural immunity without you being seriously ill or dying? The rate, meaning the percentage, proportion or fraction, of positive results as well as the total number of positive results has gone up. As have the number of total admissions. I really hope that nobody you know gets seriously ill or dies whilst we all "get on with it". What a load of rubbish as usual... coming out with incorrect information as usual....but trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason... The vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill eh? Yet you completely ignore information about people being vaccine injured, dismissing it completely as usual. I know a few people personally who have been injured by the vaccine. A family member and a few in my social circle. But i bet you will jump on here and claim it couldn't possibly be so....and we all have to listen to your perfect point of view as it is the correct one.....What rubbish. You carry on like a drug addict injecting yourself every 10 weeks and testing every day in a panic over a cold. I know more and more people now after having one or two jabs now realising what a con this whole vaccine and testing is. Even the politicians are taking the mick out of you all, whilst they have their social gatherings and enjoy themselves, whilst they tell everyone to refrain and wear masks and social distance. The same people that told us at the start, that masks don't work, yet people are walking around like sheep wearing them. These same people also sold you at the start that vaccines would prevent you from getting the virus and now look at the situation......vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated. The truth about these so called vaccines will come out one day and I'll be ready for your comments then too. " Nobody has said that it is not possible to have a significant side effect from the vaccine, but it is orders of magnitude lower than the risks of becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid. Nobody said that the vaccines would prevent you from catching the virus. They will reduce the chance and more importantly reduce the impact of the virus on you if you do catch it so that you do not get as seriously ill or die from it. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282 The vaccinated, if they catch Covid will have the same maximum viral load as the unvaccinated, but for a significantly shorter period and are less likely to catch it to begin with so are less likely to pass it on. There is still some risk, hence taking the precaution of wearing a mask in a crowded place. Sure. We can wait until "one day" comes. | |||
"We have a family member who twice has gone into Hospital Covid clear, caught Covid IN Hospital, and sent home both times with Covid, makes me wonder what or how well they clean...." This was, unfortunately, the same with things like MRSA. I guess many people who are in hospital will be more susceptible to Covid which is one of the reasons why they have to minimise elective treatments as Covid cases ramp up | |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad " well also it’s a high figure due to the late reporting over the passed couple of days | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. That's too much for some to comprehend. " Telling people to comprehend while failing to comprehend it's about hospital capacity. Not about just getting on with it. | |||
"Vaccines have lowered immune systems natural ability to fend of virus and is causing the increase in positive cases. Plus more people are testing so they can go out and celebrate over the festive period. Stop testing for a cold and just get on with it. Or will you continue the same relentless cycle every year? Seriously? After all of this time, that's what you understand? You develop immunity naturally by getting the virus. If you are lucky you produce sufficient antibodies and are fine. If you are less lucky you get ill. Less lucky still, seriously ill, long term ill or die. A vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill. Antibodies which do the same thing as natural immunity without you being seriously ill or dying? The rate, meaning the percentage, proportion or fraction, of positive results as well as the total number of positive results has gone up. As have the number of total admissions. I really hope that nobody you know gets seriously ill or dies whilst we all "get on with it". What a load of rubbish as usual... coming out with incorrect information as usual....but trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason... The vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill eh? Yet you completely ignore information about people being vaccine injured, dismissing it completely as usual. I know a few people personally who have been injured by the vaccine. A family member and a few in my social circle. But i bet you will jump on here and claim it couldn't possibly be so....and we all have to listen to your perfect point of view as it is the correct one.....What rubbish. You carry on like a drug addict injecting yourself every 10 weeks and testing every day in a panic over a cold. I know more and more people now after having one or two jabs now realising what a con this whole vaccine and testing is. Even the politicians are taking the mick out of you all, whilst they have their social gatherings and enjoy themselves, whilst they tell everyone to refrain and wear masks and social distance. The same people that told us at the start, that masks don't work, yet people are walking around like sheep wearing them. These same people also sold you at the start that vaccines would prevent you from getting the virus and now look at the situation......vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated. The truth about these so called vaccines will come out one day and I'll be ready for your comments then too. Nobody has said that it is not possible to have a significant side effect from the vaccine, but it is orders of magnitude lower than the risks of becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid. Nobody said that the vaccines would prevent you from catching the virus. They will reduce the chance and more importantly reduce the impact of the virus on you if you do catch it so that you do not get as seriously ill or die from it. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282 The vaccinated, if they catch Covid will have the same maximum viral load as the unvaccinated, but for a significantly shorter period and are less likely to catch it to begin with so are less likely to pass it on. There is still some risk, hence taking the precaution of wearing a mask in a crowded place. Sure. We can wait until "one day" comes." Yet again...your response is flawed. When you say Nobody said the vaccines would prevent you from catching the virus... I have just watched a number of videos of the following.... Bill Gates Joe Biden Dr Fauci Boris Johnson Chris Whitty Matt Hancock ALL stating the similar.... Biden - You're ok. You're not going to get covid if you have these vaccinations. If you are vaccinated, you are not going to get hospitalised, you are not going to be in an ICU unit and you are not going to die. If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. Dr Fauci - These Vaccines are highly highly effective. They are really really good against variants. When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected. Dr Rochelle Walensky - CDC Director - Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, do not get sick Bill Gates - Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but also reducing the transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal Matt Hancock - The arrival of the vaccine marks the beginning of the end of the pandemic Boris Johnson - has declared that the nation is no longer resting on the hope of a return to normality by spring but instead has the “certain knowledge” that people can reclaim their lives, as he hailed the arrival of the newly approved Covid-19 vaccine “We have been waiting and hoping for the day when the searchlights of science would pick out our invisible enemy and give us the power to stop that enemy from making us ill. And now the scientists have done it, and they have used the virus itself to perform a kind of biological jiu-jitsu, to turn the virus on itself in the form of a vaccine.” Chris Whitty - Life in the UK should be “much, much better” by Easter as coronavirus vaccines gradually restore normality to the country, England’s chief medical officer is said to have told Boris Johnson. Chris Whitty , the chief medical officer, set a target of 5 April for the relaxation of coronavirus restrictions, Mr Johnson revealed in an interview. lol | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. That's too much for some to comprehend. Telling people to comprehend while failing to comprehend it's about hospital capacity. Not about just getting on with it. " Well. The vaccine is the only option strategy clearly isn't working sufficiently well to manage infections, Or admissions. So time to think of alternatives to reduce infections to a less dangerously high level | |||
"Vaccines have lowered immune systems natural ability to fend of virus and is causing the increase in positive cases. Plus more people are testing so they can go out and celebrate over the festive period. Stop testing for a cold and just get on with it. Or will you continue the same relentless cycle every year? Seriously? After all of this time, that's what you understand? You develop immunity naturally by getting the virus. If you are lucky you produce sufficient antibodies and are fine. If you are less lucky you get ill. Less lucky still, seriously ill, long term ill or die. A vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill. Antibodies which do the same thing as natural immunity without you being seriously ill or dying? The rate, meaning the percentage, proportion or fraction, of positive results as well as the total number of positive results has gone up. As have the number of total admissions. I really hope that nobody you know gets seriously ill or dies whilst we all "get on with it". What a load of rubbish as usual... coming out with incorrect information as usual....but trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason... The vaccine produces antibodies without you becoming ill eh? Yet you completely ignore information about people being vaccine injured, dismissing it completely as usual. I know a few people personally who have been injured by the vaccine. A family member and a few in my social circle. But i bet you will jump on here and claim it couldn't possibly be so....and we all have to listen to your perfect point of view as it is the correct one.....What rubbish. You carry on like a drug addict injecting yourself every 10 weeks and testing every day in a panic over a cold. I know more and more people now after having one or two jabs now realising what a con this whole vaccine and testing is. Even the politicians are taking the mick out of you all, whilst they have their social gatherings and enjoy themselves, whilst they tell everyone to refrain and wear masks and social distance. The same people that told us at the start, that masks don't work, yet people are walking around like sheep wearing them. These same people also sold you at the start that vaccines would prevent you from getting the virus and now look at the situation......vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated. The truth about these so called vaccines will come out one day and I'll be ready for your comments then too. Nobody has said that it is not possible to have a significant side effect from the vaccine, but it is orders of magnitude lower than the risks of becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid. Nobody said that the vaccines would prevent you from catching the virus. They will reduce the chance and more importantly reduce the impact of the virus on you if you do catch it so that you do not get as seriously ill or die from it. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282 The vaccinated, if they catch Covid will have the same maximum viral load as the unvaccinated, but for a significantly shorter period and are less likely to catch it to begin with so are less likely to pass it on. There is still some risk, hence taking the precaution of wearing a mask in a crowded place. Sure. We can wait until "one day" comes. Yet again...your response is flawed. When you say Nobody said the vaccines would prevent you from catching the virus... I have just watched a number of videos of the following.... Bill Gates Joe Biden Dr Fauci Boris Johnson Chris Whitty Matt Hancock ALL stating the similar.... Biden - You're ok. You're not going to get covid if you have these vaccinations. If you are vaccinated, you are not going to get hospitalised, you are not going to be in an ICU unit and you are not going to die. If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask. Dr Fauci - These Vaccines are highly highly effective. They are really really good against variants. When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected. Dr Rochelle Walensky - CDC Director - Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, do not get sick Bill Gates - Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but also reducing the transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal Matt Hancock - The arrival of the vaccine marks the beginning of the end of the pandemic Boris Johnson - has declared that the nation is no longer resting on the hope of a return to normality by spring but instead has the “certain knowledge” that people can reclaim their lives, as he hailed the arrival of the newly approved Covid-19 vaccine “We have been waiting and hoping for the day when the searchlights of science would pick out our invisible enemy and give us the power to stop that enemy from making us ill. And now the scientists have done it, and they have used the virus itself to perform a kind of biological jiu-jitsu, to turn the virus on itself in the form of a vaccine.” Chris Whitty - Life in the UK should be “much, much better” by Easter as coronavirus vaccines gradually restore normality to the country, England’s chief medical officer is said to have told Boris Johnson. Chris Whitty , the chief medical officer, set a target of 5 April for the relaxation of coronavirus restrictions, Mr Johnson revealed in an interview. lol " Do you really not understand timing and context? Well, for both the Alpha and Delta variants the vaccine was extremely effective. That is what was being commented on. This is a new variant. Efficacy is lower but substantially better than being unvaccinated. You know that already though. Were Corona virus restrictions reduced and did life get back pretty close to normal over the summer? What point are you making that you think supports your case? Your case which appears to be to surrender to the virus and allow death to take the susceptible and vulnerable, however many that may be? | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. That's too much for some to comprehend. Telling people to comprehend while failing to comprehend it's about hospital capacity. Not about just getting on with it. Well. The vaccine is the only option strategy clearly isn't working sufficiently well to manage infections, Or admissions. So time to think of alternatives to reduce infections to a less dangerously high level" Infections rising but admissions of the vaccinated relatively low compared to the unvaccinated. Unfortunately the unvaccinated now entrenched in their view. So, what is the solution of not a vaccination or wider global vaccination or a combination of the two? | |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. That's too much for some to comprehend. Telling people to comprehend while failing to comprehend it's about hospital capacity. Not about just getting on with it. Well. The vaccine is the only option strategy clearly isn't working sufficiently well to manage infections, Or admissions. So time to think of alternatives to reduce infections to a less dangerously high level Infections rising but admissions of the vaccinated relatively low compared to the unvaccinated. Unfortunately the unvaccinated now entrenched in their view. So, what is the solution of not a vaccination or wider global vaccination or a combination of the two?" There is no one solution. The solution as much as one exists would ideally be a combination of measures, which of course includes use of the vaccine and excellent and honest communication of how long it is effective for. But you stop people going to hospital by stopping them getting infected. Check the rates of admissions in the latest covid surveillance report. Although even on that now they finally admit / caveat the data saying people's behaviours impact infection rates not just their vax status. Still... What's a good stick to beat the unvaxxed behaviours with is an equally good stick to beat the vaxxed behaviours with. Regarding "the numbers Vaxed compared to unvaxed" which is incorrectly used as a stick to beat the unvaxxed with. It's worth remarking the follwing comment from the mentioned weekly report. "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." It is also worth looking at page 49 and the following... "Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination. Consequently, over time the state of the actual pandemic and the no-vaccination pandemic scenario have become increasingly less comparable." From the govt own report... And yet.... Now I mention them only as they are govts words not mine. And yet the obsession with the unvaxxed continues. Even if everyone who was able to be vaxxed were vaxxed... Its still not going to get infections under control... And infections lead to hospital.. The numbers are scarily high now and it is surely only a matter of time till that wave crashes all over our sacred nhs . This is the result of behaviours and policies that led people to think... I'm jabbed therefore I'm OK to crack on... "The vaccines are our way out" I seem to remember was the oft repeated childish mantra. It was never THE way out... It was only ever going to help us on our way out alongside other measures. People's behaviours play as great a part in this as anything else. Go and celebrate Xmas and New year responsibly and get jabbed (mixed messages?) .. Responsibly! The British public? ... And Watch the numbers go up and up... Yep that has a great ending. | |||
| |||
"Why are you just trying to out do each other? Just agree to disagree " Ooops forgot to quote - this is a fair challenge. Probably just a bit of willy waving and boredom really! | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is? When have I used the word conspiracy or claimed coordination between all nations and all medical agencies (for want of a better collective term before that throws us off on a tangent)? Only you have said that, dismissively to undermine any point being made (ie trying to link/tie to one of the conspiracy theories to invalidate any points being made or questions being asked). I am saying there are corrupt opportunists in positions of power who are able to influence policy making (in their own country) that provides financial benefits to vaccine makers. That doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work (though clearly not as well as we were led to believe in the beginning, oh the scientists got that wrong). I am not suggesting coordination, I am saying that there are certain personality types who are attracted to and are in roles within govt(s) that will exploit a public health emergency for self gain. I will concede that my initial use of the word “miraculous” was possibly too emotive. So I will replace that with “convenient” (as it helped the behavioural science team to drive the messaging around need for boosters when demand was dropping = job done). Will post more but life calls (family) so likely “to be continued...” You are not using the word conspiracy, but you are describing one. What are the "points"? Some politicians are corrupt and make politically expedient decisions. Pharmaceutical companies are going to make lots of money from supplying the entire planet with vaccines during a global pandemic. The biggest production and rollout in history which makes getting insurance cover a little tricky regardless of how confident they may be. Who's debating that? Is there a global pandemic? Yes/No Are vaccines necessary? Yes/No Are boosters necessary? Yes/No Science is complicated? Yes/No What is the substantive point that you are making? What are you suspicious about? I genuinely do not understand. You have not explained. Once again that dismissive tone! I love the way you can just hand wave away this unprecedented level of corruption. Ah well politicians are corrupt, never mind. Pharma making huge profits, that’s fine just capitalism and ignore how they have black mailed countries to change laws and indemnify them for their perfectly safe and well tested vaccine (that the science around it keeps changing, but we are not still testing/trialling/learning). I have had my first two jabs. My own risk analysis decided it was right for me. I am concerned about the change in timescales for boosters and wonder why pharma corps originally said six months and then with Omicron we need 100 days. That medical professionals in South Africa (are we saying they are no good) questioned the UK response but we know better! And you still fail to respond re the Financial Times article? I have to cook dinner now but if I get a chance (and can be bothered) I might respond to your other points later. We have a lying, corrupt, incompetent government. We do not disagree on that. However, half the people on the Politics forum have been supporting them unquestioningly for years. Our election process voted them in with a huge majority. We cannot change them before another general election. If you have an alternative, bring it on. I'd like rid of them tomorrow. It's not just our government recommending boosters. It's every one that can afford and deliver them. Are they all bought? A number of pharmaceutical companies (not just Pfizer) have created created a range of vaccines in super fast time in the face of a global pandemic. You seem to agree that they are safe and necessary. Should they make zero profit, some profit or a lot of profit? Is it too much? If so how much? Does that include compensation for all of the work and delays to other drugs and research? Who decides? How? If you want to shout about anything it should be that enough vaccine hasn't been produced to supply the non wealthy parts of the world. Would that be even more profit? I have agreed with you that Pfizer, or any large corporation wants to make as much money as possible. Could Pfizer be more corrupt than others? Sure. Also Rolls Royce and Shell and VW amongst others. That's not specific to this topic though. Are all of the other pharmaceutical companies the same? I don't know. Do you? A new variant was identified and found to be ultra contagious and it seems, with multiple mutations. The same scientists whose professionalism and competence you were confident to trust in before modified their assessment due to things like data and now they are no longer to be believed? Are there a significant number of credible scientists saying that boosters are not needed? South Africa has a different demographic with different levels of vaccination. I do not know if they are right but I'm going to trust that the same people who made the scientific decisions before will make the best decisions that they can now. The WHO and every other global health organisation is making the same recommendation. Either they are all complicit in this still unidentified "suspicion" that you have or they are not. Which is it? Our corrupt government and the reach of big corporations is not new. Neither are specific to the pandemic. The only thing that you appear to be worried about is that the booster is being rolled out "suspiciously" early specifically due to BoJo's mob and Pfizer. That does not explain the global link between other governments, pharmaceutical companies and medical organisations and individuals in medicine and research. Join those dots and then you have something more than being vaguely upset. We all are after all this time, but just raising some vague "doubts" do not get us anywhere do they. If I was being "dismissive" I would not be spending all this time to work out what is wrong or what your solution to this would be..." Whoah lots of words to wake up to! The ultimate problem here is that I have put forward a hypothesis (and no I will not call it a conspiracy theory due to the negative connotations linking it to complete whackos) which is based on the recent and historic actions of our current corrupt government (which you acknowledge and agree) and the historic behaviour of companies like Pfizer who have $billions of lawsuits out against them for malpractice and drugs that did not do as declared and caused serious side effects. You know if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog then it probably is a dog! Obviously as I have stated I cannot prove this hypothesis (nor am I an investigative journalist) but then neither can you disprove it. You have not supplied any evidence to dispute my hypothesis. You have not provided sufficient reassurance to me that my hypothesis is wrong and nothing to be concerned about. All you have done is dismiss it (and attempt to delegitimise it) and basically said how could they all be in this together (when I have not said ALL and repeatedly said NOT coordinated but rather opportunistic). I supply a link to the Financial Times with some pretty damning evidence against the way Pfizer have behaved by forcing countries to change their laws to indemnify them against their product that they have so much faith in. And you make no comment. Oh and in this last post having agreed we have a corrupt government you then challenge me to propose a new electoral system!!!! How is that on topic? For the record, I believe in PR but seeing as neither Conservatives or Labour will go down that route, it is pointless. In addition, your whole approach is to try and force people "down the rabbit hole" where you know they do not have access to the sort of information that, were they to, would be a major scoop (as I said above, if I had that sort of info I would not reveal it on a swinger site, I would be trying to get that out in the media). How about actually explaining your opposing view instead of simply trying to undermine my (or others) views? How about providing YOUR evidence as to why my hypothesis is impossible and could not happen (and no, saying too complex is not an adequate response). I have also not said boosters are bad per se. I have said my concern comes from accelerated timescales and convenient changes in science. IMHO there is no way the scientists are not under pressure to change their views (pressure from Govt who fund their research and provide them with their living, pressure from Pharma who do the same - still all about money). Major corporates have serious form with bringing forward or moving back product releases to suit their financial years (no not saying that is always insidious but we are talking about healthcare here). When you combine a corrupt populist govt who need to be seen to be taing action, with a very powerful and wealthy company that has the world over a barrel that is driven by profit and their eye on the $80bn revenue this year, that creates an environment for opportunistic changes to govt policy. All that said, you don't want a discussion you simply want to dispute what I am saying without counter evidence. Your views are as based on opinion as mine and neither of us can prove or disprove the hypothesis. I will be surprised if you don't insist on the last word so feel free! | |||
"Handily released after the national news to make France and USA look bad " Yeah, but how many of that number are in hospitals or have sadly died…. Not many | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think we need to realise that most people get over this. Just like other viruses. We can't shut the country down forevermore. That's the crippling thing. Enforcing isolation for no reason needs to end. That's too much for some to comprehend. Telling people to comprehend while failing to comprehend it's about hospital capacity. Not about just getting on with it. Well. The vaccine is the only option strategy clearly isn't working sufficiently well to manage infections, Or admissions. So time to think of alternatives to reduce infections to a less dangerously high level Infections rising but admissions of the vaccinated relatively low compared to the unvaccinated. Unfortunately the unvaccinated now entrenched in their view. So, what is the solution of not a vaccination or wider global vaccination or a combination of the two? There is no one solution. The solution as much as one exists would ideally be a combination of measures, which of course includes use of the vaccine and excellent and honest communication of how long it is effective for. But you stop people going to hospital by stopping them getting infected. Check the rates of admissions in the latest covid surveillance report. Although even on that now they finally admit / caveat the data saying people's behaviours impact infection rates not just their vax status. Still... What's a good stick to beat the unvaxxed behaviours with is an equally good stick to beat the vaxxed behaviours with. Regarding "the numbers Vaxed compared to unvaxed" which is incorrectly used as a stick to beat the unvaxxed with. It's worth remarking the follwing comment from the mentioned weekly report. "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." It is also worth looking at page 49 and the following... "Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination. Consequently, over time the state of the actual pandemic and the no-vaccination pandemic scenario have become increasingly less comparable." From the govt own report... And yet.... Now I mention them only as they are govts words not mine. And yet the obsession with the unvaxxed continues. Even if everyone who was able to be vaxxed were vaxxed... Its still not going to get infections under control... And infections lead to hospital.. The numbers are scarily high now and it is surely only a matter of time till that wave crashes all over our sacred nhs . This is the result of behaviours and policies that led people to think... I'm jabbed therefore I'm OK to crack on... "The vaccines are our way out" I seem to remember was the oft repeated childish mantra. It was never THE way out... It was only ever going to help us on our way out alongside other measures. People's behaviours play as great a part in this as anything else. Go and celebrate Xmas and New year responsibly and get jabbed (mixed messages?) .. Responsibly! The British public? ... And Watch the numbers go up and up... Yep that has a great ending. " Only the short-term motivations of our government have been minimising the message of wearing masks in confined spaces over the summer and reducing large scale mixing now. Infection rates as much as hospital admissions are higher amongst the unvaccinated. More data is needed on Omicron for triple vaccination as it is, by definition, collated after the event. I have little sympathy for the voluntarily unvaccinated at this point. It ultimately comes down to fear. Those who just haven't understood the risks can be better informed with clearer messaging. Those who spread disinformation and misuse the data to justify their position (as often demonstrated) on this forum are a danger to others. It's not a matter of just making your own choices anymore. If you have little regard for the NHS and its staff it doesn't matter. It's all that we have to deliver any sort of solution. Of the staff also have to isolate at scale then we are really screwed. I'm not disagreeing with you substantively. It's all understood and predictable. However, as a country we elected this government of liars and incompetents. We have had months of seeing people slavishly defending their actions on all manner of stupidity including Covid policy. Even if BoJo is removed the pool of talent is the shallowest it's ever been. Next election is how far away? | |||
| |||
""Infection rates as much as hospital admissions are higher amongst the unvaccinated. More data is needed on Omicron for triple vaccination as it is, by definition, collated after the event." You keep repeating this. Take a look at the weekly covid surveillance report. Table 11. Page 40. Lets pick one age group. 40 to 49. Rate of infections per 100k for double vaccinated... Approx 3000k. Rate of infections per 100k for unvaccinated... 1320k. Now...id say that 3000 is greater than 1320. Not suggesting vaccines aren't good for some people nor a useful tool in this battle. I'm suggesting the endless message about unvaccinated spreading this is not backed by this set of govt facts and that the spread of covid is much more complex than if someone is vaccinated or not. " Having said the above.. It looks like we are in danger of agreeing on some of this! But re the political parties... And this in way defends the incumbents nor excuse them. But I'm far from convinced we have the talents in any party in public service that has better abilities. It's one of the reasons why I as a rule generally disagree with chucking people out of office after 2 years when they have learned on the job... Only to be replaced by a virgin who will spend another 2 years learning how to do their job... Only to be turfed our and replaced.. Etc... | |||
"@Easyuk not going to keep quote posting as thread will get too long and get closed. Your tone is not questioning, it is dismissive. You may well be better informed than I am but “my position” is one of confusion and very much situated in the muddle ground between the pro and anti tribes. I want to ask questions and want straight, intelligent answers rather than propaganda. I want to be treated as an adult who has every right to ask questions on any topic I wish to satisfy my own lack of knowledge on a topic and/or test hypotheses based on what I have read (from a wide variety of sources covering multiple viewpoints). You seem to be trying to pigeon hole me into one of the tribes but I am neither. You appear to be trying to prove a point rather than discuss an issue. Did you read the FT article? Do you honestly think there are not corrupt individuals in govts around the world enriching themselves by influencing/setting govt policy that is favourable to the likes of Phizer? Again, me stating that does not mean I think all govt policy is wrong or everything is corrupt or it is some kind of coordinated global conspiracy (more an uncoordinated “once in an epoch opportunity” - see FT article). We already know over the past 18mths that the govt has “followed the science” when it suits them and ignored advice on numerous occasions (India/delta/delayed border controls). Why is it such a stretch to believe policy around timing of boosters (as an example) is not also driven by financial considerations? I could go on but there is little point as I am sure from your posts that you will hold to an entrenched position. You will demand evidence knowing full well that any such evidence would be a scandal of such magnitude it could topple govts. I believe there are sufficient breadcrumb trails to warrant some level of suspicion. That isn’t conspiracy, that is just healthy skepticism based on a mistrust of human beings attracted and in positions of power. Oh and your point on the global economy - when I get time or inclination I will do some more reading but from what I have seen (I am no economist) it doesn’t actually look as if the global economy is doing that badly (excepting specific sectors). What is "dismissive" or "entrenched" about questioning what you are stating? Is that not what you are doing? You can be sceptical but others cannot be of you? What are you actually trying to communicate other than a vaguely defined suspicion that 'something" is going on between pharmaceutical companies and all governments and global medical organisations? What are "significant" about the breadcrumbs that points to a collusion on this scale and does the profit from this stack up? This is a conspiracy theory. That is what you are implying, but you do not like that label because it sounds foolish. You would consider it as appropriate to apply or other people with grand, unprovable theories of secret plots, but not to yours? The global economy was hammered and the "suspiciously" rapid development of vaccines have got it out of a hole. As has the more limited efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron. Vaccination and the economy are intimately linked, but so are many things. So Pfizer aren’t primarily profit driven? Govt officials, MPs etc are not paid consultancy fees and lobbying fees to represent the interests if pharmaceutical companies and in turn steer policy to be more favourable to said companies? I won’t quote the FT article as it has a copyright cookie attached. However, you can read it and absorb the info on how they refused to supply vaccines to any country that did not first alter sovereign law around vaccine liability (ie ALL countries had to indemnify Pfizer first). Don’t they have absolute faith in their product? Afterall it had the most extensive research and far reaching trials in history. Instead of discursive you are entrenched and dismissive of anyone not aligning to your world view. Not just this thread but every thread. You know what, you may well be right but your approach is dogmatic. You also avoid responding to direct questions. Here’s another... Has the UK Government (ie the Executive) used emergency powers to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny (ie the Legislature) and appropriate procurement due diligence to facilitate the awarding of contracts for PPE to companies with little or no track record that have connections to MPs and Ministers and/or their families/friends/cronies. YES or NO? Please stop telling me what I am thinking. All I am asking you to do is explain how this conspiracy works with governments and pharmaceutical companies AND global health organisations, academic institutions and medical staff. You have made lots of implications about the first two and nobody will doubt that some politicians are corrupt and big companies want to make money. The answer to your unconnected question is YES, the current UK government is bathing in corruption and wants to bypass democratic scrutiny, but that is not conspiracy. That is who they are instinctively not wanting to be questioned. We also know that BoJo is powerless with his more lunatic party members not wanting any further restrictions and that anything over Christmas and New year is politically impossible. How is the timing of finding that the existing vaccine working with a new variant "suspicious" when it could only have been tried just after Omicron was identified? What about the "breadcrumbs" with respect to medical organisations, academic research groups, global medical organisations and all medics everywhere? What are they and where do they lead? Are you saying that the vaccines are not needed anymore? You have been talking about "breadcrumbs" and "suspicions" but I do not, actually, know what the accusation is? When have I used the word conspiracy or claimed coordination between all nations and all medical agencies (for want of a better collective term before that throws us off on a tangent)? Only you have said that, dismissively to undermine any point being made (ie trying to link/tie to one of the conspiracy theories to invalidate any points being made or questions being asked). I am saying there are corrupt opportunists in positions of power who are able to influence policy making (in their own country) that provides financial benefits to vaccine makers. That doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work (though clearly not as well as we were led to believe in the beginning, oh the scientists got that wrong). I am not suggesting coordination, I am saying that there are certain personality types who are attracted to and are in roles within govt(s) that will exploit a public health emergency for self gain. I will concede that my initial use of the word “miraculous” was possibly too emotive. So I will replace that with “convenient” (as it helped the behavioural science team to drive the messaging around need for boosters when demand was dropping = job done). Will post more but life calls (family) so likely “to be continued...” You are not using the word conspiracy, but you are describing one. What are the "points"? Some politicians are corrupt and make politically expedient decisions. Pharmaceutical companies are going to make lots of money from supplying the entire planet with vaccines during a global pandemic. The biggest production and rollout in history which makes getting insurance cover a little tricky regardless of how confident they may be. Who's debating that? Is there a global pandemic? Yes/No Are vaccines necessary? Yes/No Are boosters necessary? Yes/No Science is complicated? Yes/No What is the substantive point that you are making? What are you suspicious about? I genuinely do not understand. You have not explained. Once again that dismissive tone! I love the way you can just hand wave away this unprecedented level of corruption. Ah well politicians are corrupt, never mind. Pharma making huge profits, that’s fine just capitalism and ignore how they have black mailed countries to change laws and indemnify them for their perfectly safe and well tested vaccine (that the science around it keeps changing, but we are not still testing/trialling/learning). I have had my first two jabs. My own risk analysis decided it was right for me. I am concerned about the change in timescales for boosters and wonder why pharma corps originally said six months and then with Omicron we need 100 days. That medical professionals in South Africa (are we saying they are no good) questioned the UK response but we know better! And you still fail to respond re the Financial Times article? I have to cook dinner now but if I get a chance (and can be bothered) I might respond to your other points later. We have a lying, corrupt, incompetent government. We do not disagree on that. However, half the people on the Politics forum have been supporting them unquestioningly for years. Our election process voted them in with a huge majority. We cannot change them before another general election. If you have an alternative, bring it on. I'd like rid of them tomorrow. It's not just our government recommending boosters. It's every one that can afford and deliver them. Are they all bought? A number of pharmaceutical companies (not just Pfizer) have created created a range of vaccines in super fast time in the face of a global pandemic. You seem to agree that they are safe and necessary. Should they make zero profit, some profit or a lot of profit? Is it too much? If so how much? Does that include compensation for all of the work and delays to other drugs and research? Who decides? How? If you want to shout about anything it should be that enough vaccine hasn't been produced to supply the non wealthy parts of the world. Would that be even more profit? I have agreed with you that Pfizer, or any large corporation wants to make as much money as possible. Could Pfizer be more corrupt than others? Sure. Also Rolls Royce and Shell and VW amongst others. That's not specific to this topic though. Are all of the other pharmaceutical companies the same? I don't know. Do you? A new variant was identified and found to be ultra contagious and it seems, with multiple mutations. The same scientists whose professionalism and competence you were confident to trust in before modified their assessment due to things like data and now they are no longer to be believed? Are there a significant number of credible scientists saying that boosters are not needed? South Africa has a different demographic with different levels of vaccination. I do not know if they are right but I'm going to trust that the same people who made the scientific decisions before will make the best decisions that they can now. The WHO and every other global health organisation is making the same recommendation. Either they are all complicit in this still unidentified "suspicion" that you have or they are not. Which is it? Our corrupt government and the reach of big corporations is not new. Neither are specific to the pandemic. The only thing that you appear to be worried about is that the booster is being rolled out "suspiciously" early specifically due to BoJo's mob and Pfizer. That does not explain the global link between other governments, pharmaceutical companies and medical organisations and individuals in medicine and research. Join those dots and then you have something more than being vaguely upset. We all are after all this time, but just raising some vague "doubts" do not get us anywhere do they. If I was being "dismissive" I would not be spending all this time to work out what is wrong or what your solution to this would be... Whoah lots of words to wake up to! The ultimate problem here is that I have put forward a hypothesis (and no I will not call it a conspiracy theory due to the negative connotations linking it to complete whackos) which is based on the recent and historic actions of our current corrupt government (which you acknowledge and agree) and the historic behaviour of companies like Pfizer who have $billions of lawsuits out against them for malpractice and drugs that did not do as declared and caused serious side effects. You know if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog then it probably is a dog! Obviously as I have stated I cannot prove this hypothesis (nor am I an investigative journalist) but then neither can you disprove it. You have not supplied any evidence to dispute my hypothesis. You have not provided sufficient reassurance to me that my hypothesis is wrong and nothing to be concerned about. All you have done is dismiss it (and attempt to delegitimise it) and basically said how could they all be in this together (when I have not said ALL and repeatedly said NOT coordinated but rather opportunistic). I supply a link to the Financial Times with some pretty damning evidence against the way Pfizer have behaved by forcing countries to change their laws to indemnify them against their product that they have so much faith in. And you make no comment. Oh and in this last post having agreed we have a corrupt government you then challenge me to propose a new electoral system!!!! How is that on topic? For the record, I believe in PR but seeing as neither Conservatives or Labour will go down that route, it is pointless. In addition, your whole approach is to try and force people "down the rabbit hole" where you know they do not have access to the sort of information that, were they to, would be a major scoop (as I said above, if I had that sort of info I would not reveal it on a swinger site, I would be trying to get that out in the media). How about actually explaining your opposing view instead of simply trying to undermine my (or others) views? How about providing YOUR evidence as to why my hypothesis is impossible and could not happen (and no, saying too complex is not an adequate response). I have also not said boosters are bad per se. I have said my concern comes from accelerated timescales and convenient changes in science. IMHO there is no way the scientists are not under pressure to change their views (pressure from Govt who fund their research and provide them with their living, pressure from Pharma who do the same - still all about money). Major corporates have serious form with bringing forward or moving back product releases to suit their financial years (no not saying that is always insidious but we are talking about healthcare here). When you combine a corrupt populist govt who need to be seen to be taing action, with a very powerful and wealthy company that has the world over a barrel that is driven by profit and their eye on the $80bn revenue this year, that creates an environment for opportunistic changes to govt policy. All that said, you don't want a discussion you simply want to dispute what I am saying without counter evidence. Your views are as based on opinion as mine and neither of us can prove or disprove the hypothesis. I will be surprised if you don't insist on the last word so feel free!" Again, if I was "dismissing" or "deligitamising" your "hypothesis" I would not be debating it with you at all, would I? You are stating again and again that you have some separate pieces of information that you cannot see a way to linking, but have come to a conclusion that needs to be "disproved". Nobody can find "counterevidence" when there is no "evidence" to counter. Our Government is corrupt and incompetent. That's not OK, but it is one of your pieces of information. You were never asked for a solution. Large companies, including pharmaceutical ones want to make money and can be corrupt. One piece of information. Pfizer (one of several pharmaceutical companies) has been caught out. One piece of information. No disagreement. I would even add that our particular Government may have a particularly cosy deal with Pfizer as purchasing their vaccines early was portrayed a Brexit "win" followed by the dispute with their supply to the EU. Let's add that as a third piece of information. What indicates in any way that a third dose is not needed now? The US, the EU, the WHO and every other group agrees with that stance. The disagreement is that first and second doses to the unvaccinated would be more valuable. That would be far more vaccine than for boosters and far more money to the pharmaceutical companies. So, why is the rollout of boosters more suspicious to you? You are saying that every scientist in the global industry is under pressure to the extent that they are altering their findings to recommend boosters? That all dissent is being suppressed and silenced by a combination of every government and every vaccine producer? If not, then what? Equally, with a new variant and a rapidly growing set of data, why would it is suspicious to change advice? Does science, and particularly epidemiology, work by deciding on an answer and then not looking at any new data to alter a conclusion? If you have a hypothesis, then test it yourself. You don't seem to want anyone else to. | |||
""Infection rates as much as hospital admissions are higher amongst the unvaccinated. More data is needed on Omicron for triple vaccination as it is, by definition, collated after the event." You keep repeating this. Take a look at the weekly covid surveillance report. Table 11. Page 40. Lets pick one age group. 40 to 49. Rate of infections per 100k for double vaccinated... Approx 3000k. Rate of infections per 100k for unvaccinated... 1320k. Now...id say that 3000 is greater than 1320. Not suggesting vaccines aren't good for some people nor a useful tool in this battle. I'm suggesting the endless message about unvaccinated spreading this is not backed by this set of govt facts and that the spread of covid is much more complex than if someone is vaccinated or not. " Double vaccination, Omicron, boosters. Now look at the data that you are quoting. Then consider what I wrote. It's a different discussion. I do not know what information you are looking at and picking one age group could "prove" a point either way. I am looking at the scientific advice and do not see a reason to question it. The Government advice, yes, but not the scientific advice. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, characteristics of people testing positive for COVID-19, UK: 16 December 2021 'Our latest data for the fortnight ending 28 November 2021 show similar conclusions to our last publication, namely: those who reported receiving at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those not vaccinated; those who reported receiving three vaccinations (including booster vaccinations) were even less likely to test positive than those who had a second AstraZeneca vaccination, or a second Pfizer vaccination more than 90 days ago' See Figure 1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveycharacteristicsofpeopletestingpositiveforcovid19uk/16december2021#characteristics-associated-with-testing-positive-uk | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition). "Exactly | |||
""Infection rates as much as hospital admissions are higher amongst the unvaccinated. More data is needed on Omicron for triple vaccination as it is, by definition, collated after the event." You keep repeating this. Take a look at the weekly covid surveillance report. Table 11. Page 40. Lets pick one age group. 40 to 49. Rate of infections per 100k for double vaccinated... Approx 3000k. Rate of infections per 100k for unvaccinated... 1320k. Now...id say that 3000 is greater than 1320. Not suggesting vaccines aren't good for some people nor a useful tool in this battle. I'm suggesting the endless message about unvaccinated spreading this is not backed by this set of govt facts and that the spread of covid is much more complex than if someone is vaccinated or not. " Interesting that you cherry picked that information. From the same table : Cases presenting to emergency care per 100,000 : Vaccinated 7.9 Unvaccinated 34.4 Death within 28 days of positive covid test : Vaccinated 0.7 Unvaccinated 3.6 Death within 60 days of positive covid test : Vaccinated 1 Unvaccinated 4.6 Cheery picking your data like that is disingenous at best. | |||
| |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Exactly"The data is not collected in a way that allows that to be defined. There is no box for "with" or for "because". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Exactly
The data is not collected in a way that allows that to be defined.
There is no box for "with" or for "because".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions"Incidental Covid - even NHS chiefs are saying it’s skewing the figures. | |||
"Now.. You see that's interesting... Because the actual data (not estimates) from here.. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports And shows that for those age groups between 18 and 70.. The actual rates of infection as measured by a test is higher for those double vaccinated than for those without a vaccine. And yet in the link fron the ons that you posted above and which seems to be titled estimates? ...it makes this statement... "those who reported receiving at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those not vaccinated; those who reported receiving three vaccinations (including booster vaccinations) were even less likely to test positive than those who had a second AstraZeneca vaccination, or a second Pfizer vaccination more than 90 days " I know the time periods are slightly different but would be interested how the conclusions of the one are diametrically opposed to the data from the other. " I don't really understand why you would choose to reinterpret the data that is presented. From your link, this is clearly stated: 'Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is summarised on pages 5 to 15 in this report' This is from p15: 'These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low counts and the possible biases related to the populations with highest exposure to Omicron (including travellers and their close contacts) which cannot fully be accounted for. With previous variants, vaccine effectiveness against severe disease, including hospitalisation and death, has been significantly higher than effectiveness against mild disease (i.e. those detected through community testing and included here). Although an analysis has been trialled, the number of cases in hospital is too small to determine effectiveness against severe disease. It will be a few weeks before effectiveness against severe disease with Omicron can be estimated, however based on experience with previous variants, this is likely to be substantially higher than the estimates against symptomatic disease. After the emergence of Delta in the UK, early estimates of vaccine effectiveness against mild infection after two doses of vaccine were substantially attenuated in comparison to alpha. Analysis of protection against hospitalisation however, showed no diminution of protection when comparing the two variants.' | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Exactly
The data is not collected in a way that allows that to be defined.
There is no box for "with" or for "because".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions
Incidental Covid - even NHS chiefs are saying it’s skewing the figures. "Skewing by a lot or a little? Not known. If you read the the article, they are also saying that doesn't mean that there is nothing to be concerned about or that "with" is not the factor causing admission to be required for another illness. You cannot separate them because the information is not available. | |||
"Noticed a bbc report saying 90% of those in hospital didn't have their 3rd jab, it would be interesting to know the breakdown of those admitted who had 2 jabs, 1 jab or none whatsoever. " Well if they’re anything like me - I got it just before I was due my booster - as at that time they were recommending a six month gap. It’s not always because people decide not to have it or ‘can’t be bothered’. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down " I think were at the point of treating this the same way we've treated the flu for the last decade or so. By taking reasonable precautions, encouraging yearly vaccinations for the vulnerable and those in contact with them or want it. And to carry on with life as normal as possible. There's no other way in my opinion. | |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Exactly
The data is not collected in a way that allows that to be defined.
There is no box for "with" or for "because".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions
Incidental Covid - even NHS chiefs are saying it’s skewing the figures.
Skewing by a lot or a little? Not known.
If you read the the article, they are also saying that doesn't mean that there is nothing to be concerned about or that "with" is not the factor causing admission to be required for another illness.
You cannot separate them because the information is not available."As the the Primary Diagnosis data excludes non-acute trusts an assumption can be made that non-acute patients are all incidental ("with covid"), this suggests that around 60% of covid+ inpatients in England are currently in hospital "for covid". Ergo the figures are skewed by around 40% | |||
" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions Incidental Covid - even NHS chiefs are saying it’s skewing the figures. " According to the NHS England statistics data - Primary Diagnosis Supplement 31/12/2021 - the difference is between 8321 and 5578 - approx. a third. Collected data is available at england.nhs.uk statistics | |||
| |||
"Apparently a third of the daily reported Covid admissions are people admitted "with" not "for" Covid (i.e. they are in for treatment of another condition).
Exactly
The data is not collected in a way that allows that to be defined.
There is no box for "with" or for "because".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions
Incidental Covid - even NHS chiefs are saying it’s skewing the figures.
Skewing by a lot or a little? Not known.
If you read the the article, they are also saying that doesn't mean that there is nothing to be concerned about or that "with" is not the factor causing admission to be required for another illness.
You cannot separate them because the information is not available.
As the the Primary Diagnosis data excludes non-acute trusts an assumption can be made that non-acute patients are all incidental ("with covid"), this suggests that around 60% of covid+ inpatients in England are currently in hospital "for covid". Ergo the figures are skewed by around 40%
"Then there is no problem and that's what NHS chiefs are saying? If not, then what point are you making? Has this been missed by the UK's scientific community and they are consequently giving incorrect advice and need to reassess? | |||
" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/how-can-we-measure-the-true-scale-of-uk-covid-hospital-admissions Incidental Covid - even NHS chiefs are saying it’s skewing the figures. According to the NHS England statistics data - Primary Diagnosis Supplement 31/12/2021 - the difference is between 8321 and 5578 - approx. a third. Collected data is available at england.nhs.uk statistics "Again, what relevance does this have when the advice about the data is: 'However these patients [with Covid] still require their treatment in areas that are segregated from patients without Covid, and the presence of Covid can be a significant co-morbidity in many cases. Equally, while the admission may be due to another primary condition, in many instances this may have been as a result of contracting Covid in the community. For example research has shown that people with Covid are more likely to have a stroke (Stroke Association); in these cases people would be admitted for the stroke, classified as ‘with’ Covid despite having had a stroke as a result of having Covid.' 'In practice this distinction [between for and with] is not always clear at the point of admission when the patient’s record has not been fully clinically coded. In light of this, trusts have been asked to provide this “for” and “with” split on a ‘best endeavours’ basis.' | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I think were at the point of treating this the same way we've treated the flu for the last decade or so. By taking reasonable precautions, encouraging yearly vaccinations for the vulnerable and those in contact with them or want it. And to carry on with life as normal as possible. There's no other way in my opinion." Totally agree. | |||
"Does not matter the numbers hospital admissions stable deaths down I think were at the point of treating this the same way we've treated the flu for the last decade or so. By taking reasonable precautions, encouraging yearly vaccinations for the vulnerable and those in contact with them or want it. And to carry on with life as normal as possible. There's no other way in my opinion." Completely agree. Get boosters well into the 90’s, perfentwise, I’m the next few weeks and then start getting back to normal, accepting that the remaining unvaccinated people simply don’t want the protection and are happy to take their chances and gamble with their lives | |||
