FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > NHS staff vaccination
NHS staff vaccination
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And?" The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you "Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind? Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put the stats from the yellow card system on here" Perhaps you can find the definition of how the Yellow Card scheme works and post it on here with the stats. However, if you know better than the CMO then good for you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you
Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind?
Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind?"The words are there. Polite and coherent. You can explain why you know better or you can ignore them or you can just argue for the sake of it. Whatever you choose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you
Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind?
Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind?"Hopefully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now."" So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you
Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind?
Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind?
The words are there. Polite and coherent.
You can explain why you know better or you can ignore them or you can just argue for the sake of it.
Whatever you choose "I'll ignore them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani All coming up after a word from our sponsor..... Pfizer " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now."" I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds?" In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you
Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind?
Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind?
The words are there. Polite and coherent.
You can explain why you know better or you can ignore them or you can just argue for the sake of it.
Whatever you choose
I'll ignore them
"Except you feel compelled to post, which is the opposite... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol" Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani All coming up after a word from our sponsor..... Pfizer "Amusing. Any information to back that up or just some BoJo style mudslinging? Any comment on the content? Do you actually know better? If so, why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it?" The letter is okay. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the way you presented it. But if you are obsessed with the vaccine and your message is on a continuous loop I suppose it is to be expected! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani All coming up after a word from our sponsor..... Pfizer
Amusing. Any information to back that up or just some BoJo style mudslinging?
Any comment on the content? Do you actually know better? If so, why?"Who do I see to become an influencer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it? The letter is okay. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the way you presented it. But if you are obsessed with the vaccine and your message is on a continuous loop I suppose it is to be expected!" As you know better than the CMO and all the other signatories please do ignore. Please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it?" your right no one is compelled to take a blind bit of notice of it and lets be honest for those who aint yet been jabbed i doubt very much a letter is gona make them change there mind,even less likley now the threat of losing there jobs has been taken away,my own view on this is if you want to get jabbed go get jabbed if you dont want it dont take it,what i cant stand is those who like to tell others to get the jab or not get the jab,think pro and anti vaxxers are just as annoying as each other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no?" I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it?your right no one is compelled to take a blind bit of notice of it and lets be honest for those who aint yet been jabbed i doubt very much a letter is gona make them change there mind,even less likley now the threat of losing there jobs has been taken away,my own view on this is if you want to get jabbed go get jabbed if you dont want it dont take it,what i cant stand is those who like to tell others to get the jab or not get the jab,think pro and anti vaxxers are just as annoying as each other" Both options are fine. Despite the assumptions I have never told anyone to get a vaccine or insulted them for not doing so. What I will not do is accept misrepresentation of data and deliberate and arbitrary statements or lies to justify a position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it? The letter is okay. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the way you presented it. But if you are obsessed with the vaccine and your message is on a continuous loop I suppose it is to be expected! As you know better than the CMO and all the other signatories please do ignore. Please "Yawn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated?" Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you
Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind?
Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind?
The words are there. Polite and coherent.
You can explain why you know better or you can ignore them or you can just argue for the sake of it.
Whatever you choose
I'll ignore them
"The easiest option for the hard of thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? The clue is in all of those words. Their order and meaning. How you decipher them is up to you
Do you think the CMO sending the letter to all NHS staff is going to change anyone's mind?
Do you think you posting the letter here is going to change anyone's mind?
The words are there. Polite and coherent.
You can explain why you know better or you can ignore them or you can just argue for the sake of it.
Whatever you choose
I'll ignore them
The easiest option for the hard of thinking."I'm actually alright with that. Not wanting to because, they "don't want to" is fine. Pretending there is a justification when there is none, not so much unless they are genuinely scared. Nobody ever seems to say that though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason." It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason." People can use whatever reason they want, within the law, to justify a decision. It is called freedom of choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? " I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it? The letter is okay. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the way you presented it. But if you are obsessed with the vaccine and your message is on a continuous loop I suppose it is to be expected!" The way it's presented is exactly how it's written in the letter. 
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to?" Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? " So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it?your right no one is compelled to take a blind bit of notice of it and lets be honest for those who aint yet been jabbed i doubt very much a letter is gona make them change there mind,even less likley now the threat of losing there jobs has been taken away,my own view on this is if you want to get jabbed go get jabbed if you dont want it dont take it,what i cant stand is those who like to tell others to get the jab or not get the jab,think pro and anti vaxxers are just as annoying as each other Both options are fine. Despite the assumptions I have never told anyone to get a vaccine or insulted them for not doing so. What I will not do is accept misrepresentation of data and deliberate and arbitrary statements or lies to justify a position." oh you wont accept eh,be honest with you i doubt anyobe really gives two hoots what you will or will not accept,some people may think the jabs contain a chip or other such nonsense most that havent had the jab dont think like that,they have just made a choice not to have it and are prepared to take there chances,ive had all three of mine because im getting to the old bastard stage of life if i was 10-15 years younger i more than likley wouldnt have botherd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable?" I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be." It's a tweet. Easy to find and widely reported. Sent to NHS staff. Professional advice with a suggestion to discuss the matter further. No need to present statistics in a tweet if it is discussed directly is there? Any doubts would be discussed then, not in a tweet. If you are unknowingly treating people whilst infected then there is no way to prevent it. That is a reasonable position. They are less likely to be infected at all if vaccinated. That's what was stated. You have no idea who wrote this or what the reason was beyond encouraging NHS staff to get vaccinated. This position is backed by the science and data. You have no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions. Covid vaccines have not undergone private trials. All of the data is freely available. If you, also, believe that you understand and interpret the available information better than those people just say so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it?your right no one is compelled to take a blind bit of notice of it and lets be honest for those who aint yet been jabbed i doubt very much a letter is gona make them change there mind,even less likley now the threat of losing there jobs has been taken away,my own view on this is if you want to get jabbed go get jabbed if you dont want it dont take it,what i cant stand is those who like to tell others to get the jab or not get the jab,think pro and anti vaxxers are just as annoying as each other Both options are fine. Despite the assumptions I have never told anyone to get a vaccine or insulted them for not doing so. What I will not do is accept misrepresentation of data and deliberate and arbitrary statements or lies to justify a position.oh you wont accept eh,be honest with you i doubt anyobe really gives two hoots what you will or will not accept,some people may think the jabs contain a chip or other such nonsense most that havent had the jab dont think like that,they have just made a choice not to have it and are prepared to take there chances,ive had all three of mine because im getting to the old bastard stage of life if i was 10-15 years younger i more than likley wouldnt have botherd" I can or cannot do as I wish. As can you. I don't know what "most" people think. I am just responding to those who post on this forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. " What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you?" You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be. It's a tweet. Easy to find and widely reported. Sent to NHS staff. Professional advice with a suggestion to discuss the matter further. No need to present statistics in a tweet if it is discussed directly is there? Any doubts would be discussed then, not in a tweet. If you are unknowingly treating people whilst infected then there is no way to prevent it. That is a reasonable position. They are less likely to be infected at all if vaccinated. That's what was stated. You have no idea who wrote this or what the reason was beyond encouraging NHS staff to get vaccinated. This position is backed by the science and data. You have no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions. Covid vaccines have not undergone private trials. All of the data is freely available. If you, also, believe that you understand and interpret the available information better than those people just say so." Your point on me not knowing who wrote this letter is wrong. This IS an area I know a lot about _ased on first hand professional experience. The BIT wrote this (or reviewed/edited). They are part of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviour (SPI-B), a Sage subgroup tasked with advising government about how to maximise the impact of its pandemic communications strategy. You say I have “no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions”. Clarify this statement please. Whose decisions? I know for a fact that many of those who work in the NHS who are not sure about being vaccinated for Covid _ase their decision on what they see as betrayed trust for the handling (and comms) of Pandemrix in 2009. On your last point, can you show me where I implied I knew more than the letter co-sigs? My critique was of the “letter”. I think that was abundantly clear from my post
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The way it's presented is exactly how it's written in the letter.
Winston "Really? Did they include Easy's preface? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. " There are many highly qualified virologists on these very threads. They all seem to defer to the likes of Sir Chris Whitty et al. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? " So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be. It's a tweet. Easy to find and widely reported. Sent to NHS staff. Professional advice with a suggestion to discuss the matter further. No need to present statistics in a tweet if it is discussed directly is there? Any doubts would be discussed then, not in a tweet. If you are unknowingly treating people whilst infected then there is no way to prevent it. That is a reasonable position. They are less likely to be infected at all if vaccinated. That's what was stated. You have no idea who wrote this or what the reason was beyond encouraging NHS staff to get vaccinated. This position is backed by the science and data. You have no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions. Covid vaccines have not undergone private trials. All of the data is freely available. If you, also, believe that you understand and interpret the available information better than those people just say so. Your point on me not knowing who wrote this letter is wrong. This IS an area I know a lot about _ased on first hand professional experience. The BIT wrote this (or reviewed/edited). They are part of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviour (SPI-B), a Sage subgroup tasked with advising government about how to maximise the impact of its pandemic communications strategy. You say I have “no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions”. Clarify this statement please. Whose decisions? I know for a fact that many of those who work in the NHS who are not sure about being vaccinated for Covid _ase their decision on what they see as betrayed trust for the handling (and comms) of Pandemrix in 2009. On your last point, can you show me where I implied I knew more than the letter co-sigs? My critique was of the “letter”. I think that was abundantly clear from my post
"Edited and written, are, of course, different things. I will not doubt that you are well informed, but you do not actually know. It also, does not really matter because the letter represents the position of the countries most senior medical staff. Fair? Should it be written well to maximise its effect or poorly? It is not "coercive" by any reading. There is no sanction for not being vaccinated. It has always been clear that the NHS medical bodies did not support compulsory vaccination. The government made the decision. Fair? What is untrue in the letter? Anything? You know "many" are not getting vaccinated because of Pandemrix? How many out of the 52,000 do you know? Do you feel confident in extrapolating your information? Every single member of the NHS that I know is fully vaccinated. Should I extrapolate that knowledge with confidence. If you disagree with the content of the letter to which they have put their names to, then you disagree with the senior clinicians in the country. So, you must know something that they don't. Are you saying that you agree with the content of the letter or that the signatories do not agree with what they signed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want?" What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? " I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now."" . Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want?" Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be. It's a tweet. Easy to find and widely reported. Sent to NHS staff. Professional advice with a suggestion to discuss the matter further. No need to present statistics in a tweet if it is discussed directly is there? Any doubts would be discussed then, not in a tweet. If you are unknowingly treating people whilst infected then there is no way to prevent it. That is a reasonable position. They are less likely to be infected at all if vaccinated. That's what was stated. You have no idea who wrote this or what the reason was beyond encouraging NHS staff to get vaccinated. This position is backed by the science and data. You have no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions. Covid vaccines have not undergone private trials. All of the data is freely available. If you, also, believe that you understand and interpret the available information better than those people just say so. Your point on me not knowing who wrote this letter is wrong. This IS an area I know a lot about _ased on first hand professional experience. The BIT wrote this (or reviewed/edited). They are part of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviour (SPI-B), a Sage subgroup tasked with advising government about how to maximise the impact of its pandemic communications strategy. You say I have “no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions”. Clarify this statement please. Whose decisions? I know for a fact that many of those who work in the NHS who are not sure about being vaccinated for Covid _ase their decision on what they see as betrayed trust for the handling (and comms) of Pandemrix in 2009. On your last point, can you show me where I implied I knew more than the letter co-sigs? My critique was of the “letter”. I think that was abundantly clear from my post
". This guy is just a troll trying to stir up hate and division not even considering an alternative view as he has no ability to think for himself. Most people also don't realise spi-b, the bahavioural arm of SAGE advocated for our government to terrorise us to increase adherence to unnatural "rules". Just google "Options for adherence to social distancing measures sage" Which will take you to a document on the .gov website that advocates for terrorism amongst its own people. All proposed by a declared communist party member. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. " I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be. It's a tweet. Easy to find and widely reported. Sent to NHS staff. Professional advice with a suggestion to discuss the matter further. No need to present statistics in a tweet if it is discussed directly is there? Any doubts would be discussed then, not in a tweet. If you are unknowingly treating people whilst infected then there is no way to prevent it. That is a reasonable position. They are less likely to be infected at all if vaccinated. That's what was stated. You have no idea who wrote this or what the reason was beyond encouraging NHS staff to get vaccinated. This position is backed by the science and data. You have no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions. Covid vaccines have not undergone private trials. All of the data is freely available. If you, also, believe that you understand and interpret the available information better than those people just say so. Your point on me not knowing who wrote this letter is wrong. This IS an area I know a lot about _ased on first hand professional experience. The BIT wrote this (or reviewed/edited). They are part of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviour (SPI-B), a Sage subgroup tasked with advising government about how to maximise the impact of its pandemic communications strategy. You say I have “no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions”. Clarify this statement please. Whose decisions? I know for a fact that many of those who work in the NHS who are not sure about being vaccinated for Covid _ase their decision on what they see as betrayed trust for the handling (and comms) of Pandemrix in 2009. On your last point, can you show me where I implied I knew more than the letter co-sigs? My critique was of the “letter”. I think that was abundantly clear from my post
. This guy is just a troll trying to stir up hate and division not even considering an alternative view as he has no ability to think for himself. Most people also don't realise spi-b, the bahavioural arm of SAGE advocated for our government to terrorise us to increase adherence to unnatural "rules". Just google
"Options for adherence to social distancing measures sage"
Which will take you to a document on the .gov website that advocates for terrorism amongst its own people. All proposed by a declared communist party member."The "medicinal chemist" who doesn't understand how "his" industry works that advocates every conspiracy theory and got schooled by an actual lecturer? Run along now and stop calling people names. I hope that life gets better for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post?" You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. " I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly." Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be. It's a tweet. Easy to find and widely reported. Sent to NHS staff. Professional advice with a suggestion to discuss the matter further. No need to present statistics in a tweet if it is discussed directly is there? Any doubts would be discussed then, not in a tweet. If you are unknowingly treating people whilst infected then there is no way to prevent it. That is a reasonable position. They are less likely to be infected at all if vaccinated. That's what was stated. You have no idea who wrote this or what the reason was beyond encouraging NHS staff to get vaccinated. This position is backed by the science and data. You have no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions. Covid vaccines have not undergone private trials. All of the data is freely available. If you, also, believe that you understand and interpret the available information better than those people just say so. Your point on me not knowing who wrote this letter is wrong. This IS an area I know a lot about _ased on first hand professional experience. The BIT wrote this (or reviewed/edited). They are part of the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviour (SPI-B), a Sage subgroup tasked with advising government about how to maximise the impact of its pandemic communications strategy. You say I have “no knowledge of how any previous events have influenced decisions”. Clarify this statement please. Whose decisions? I know for a fact that many of those who work in the NHS who are not sure about being vaccinated for Covid _ase their decision on what they see as betrayed trust for the handling (and comms) of Pandemrix in 2009. On your last point, can you show me where I implied I knew more than the letter co-sigs? My critique was of the “letter”. I think that was abundantly clear from my post
Edited and written, are, of course, different things.
I will not doubt that you are well informed, but you do not actually know.
It also, does not really matter because the letter represents the position of the countries most senior medical staff. Fair? Should it be written well to maximise its effect or poorly?
It is not "coercive" by any reading. There is no sanction for not being vaccinated. It has always been clear that the NHS medical bodies did not support compulsory vaccination. The government made the decision. Fair?
What is untrue in the letter? Anything?
You know "many" are not getting vaccinated because of Pandemrix? How many out of the 52,000 do you know? Do you feel confident in extrapolating your information? Every single member of the NHS that I know is fully vaccinated. Should I extrapolate that knowledge with confidence.
If you disagree with the content of the letter to which they have put their names to, then you disagree with the senior clinicians in the country. So, you must know something that they don't. Are you saying that you agree with the content of the letter or that the signatories do not agree with what they signed?"Written vs Edited, oh that is really trying to stretch the point. You do know how a piece of comms like this gets designed don’t you? I know exactly how. The BIT will have designed this letter and ensured it hit all the right “nudge” requirements through structure and careful use of language. The letter follows a classic nudge pattern. I can see their hands all over this and I do know for a fact that BIT steered this. The letter was written in a tone that on the surface is completely respectful and benign. However, it is most certainly coercive (you do not need to express sanctions to be coercive). Just one example being the repeated references to “professional” which is a loaded status and responsibility signifier. I am very confident to extrapolate my information yes. You understand about attitudinal studies right? There have been many undertaken within the NHS on this topic. To be statistically robust the sample size for each is at minimum 1000 people. That quantitative data alongside qualitative data gives a clear indication that factors like the handling of Pandemrix are major contributors to a lack of trust. Your last point once again tries to position something that isn’t there by pitting me against the knowledge and expertise of the co-sigs. Go back and re-read my first post. My focus is the letter itself and whether it will be effective, not the intent/sentiment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be." The letter was sent out to all nhs workers. I got a copy on Monday via nhs e-mail. I am already fully vaccinated so it doesn't apply to me but I agree with the point behind it. Having said that if someone is still not vaccinated after all this time I can't see a letter making a lot of difference to their point of view now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. " I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now."" Emotional bl@ckmail and guilt tripping is not a good look from any one, no matter how qualified they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now."" I wonder if you have or do work the care sector or any high footfall face to face job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.”" This is basically what I was asking. I also felt that the added quote was indeed an unnecessary attempt at provocation, I just wanted to know why the OP felt the need to include it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now."" The issue I have is a PM who cannot be trusted, his cabinet are covering for him, so I cannot trust them, his own party members want him gone, investigated by the police it just goes on, and due to this I will rebel in anyway I can till he is gone. could I do this or that, my answer no resign could I do that or this, my answer no resign. Others feel as I do and for that reason, the PM has to go, I realise others could be affected by my decisions, but as long as the general public support him to stay then they will need to live with it, as it is those supporters who keep him in power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty." Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. " I think the Term is being "Morally Lucky" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. I think the Term is being "Morally Lucky" " Ya lost me there! What do you mean? Ta | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. I think the Term is being "Morally Lucky" Ya lost me there! What do you mean? Ta" Using an apporoach that is manipulitive would be seen as immoral, but thats accepted because the outcome is deemed to be Moral | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. I think the Term is being "Morally Lucky" Ya lost me there! What do you mean? Ta Using an apporoach that is manipulitive would be seen as immoral, but thats accepted because the outcome is deemed to be Moral " Ah ok thanks. Makes sense. As a society we need agreement on where the line of acceptability is drawn. Of course society will never agree because something won’t fit everyone’s narrative, viewpoint or own moral code. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. " The letter is clearly designed to do those things. That neither makes it ‘guilt tripping’, nor ‘emotional bl@ckmail’. It’s a stretch to even say it’s even ‘manipulative’, considering what’s written. The facts and the intent align, and are not distorted in any way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. The letter is clearly designed to do those things. That neither makes it ‘guilt tripping’, nor ‘emotional bl@ckmail’. It’s a stretch to even say it’s even ‘manipulative’, considering what’s written. The facts and the intent align, and are not distorted in any way." Again I disagree and have explained the manipulation in posts above. Manipulation doesn’t have to only involve something that is wrong! Starting the letter with praise and thanks then repeated references to “professional/ism” (which is a highly weighted term that implies all manner of things) is a classic nudge approach. The implication is that not doing as we are recommending is the opposite of professionalism. It’s clever but when you have seen BIT in action first hand (over the years) the patterns become increasingly obvious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. The letter is clearly designed to do those things. That neither makes it ‘guilt tripping’, nor ‘emotional bl@ckmail’. It’s a stretch to even say it’s even ‘manipulative’, considering what’s written. The facts and the intent align, and are not distorted in any way. Again I disagree and have explained the manipulation in posts above. Manipulation doesn’t have to only involve something that is wrong! Starting the letter with praise and thanks then repeated references to “professional/ism” (which is a highly weighted term that implies all manner of things) is a classic nudge approach. The implication is that not doing as we are recommending is the opposite of professionalism. It’s clever but when you have seen BIT in action first hand (over the years) the patterns become increasingly obvious. " There was no suggestion it wasn’t manipulation because it wasn’t wrong. And you really don’t need to explain anything at all, this isn’t difficult stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty. Totally disagree. As explained in several posts above, this letter was carefully designed to provoke an emotive response via “nudge” techniques. It is awash with BIT influence and uses social norming to drive decision making. As I have said (but you probably haven’t read - it is after all a very long and wordy thread) that does not mean the sentiment or desired outcome is wrong. However, the approach is most certainly manipulative. The letter is clearly designed to do those things. That neither makes it ‘guilt tripping’, nor ‘emotional bl@ckmail’. It’s a stretch to even say it’s even ‘manipulative’, considering what’s written. The facts and the intent align, and are not distorted in any way. Again I disagree and have explained the manipulation in posts above. Manipulation doesn’t have to only involve something that is wrong! Starting the letter with praise and thanks then repeated references to “professional/ism” (which is a highly weighted term that implies all manner of things) is a classic nudge approach. The implication is that not doing as we are recommending is the opposite of professionalism. It’s clever but when you have seen BIT in action first hand (over the years) the patterns become increasingly obvious. There was no suggestion it wasn’t manipulation because it wasn’t wrong. And you really don’t need to explain anything at all, this isn’t difficult stuff." I think some struggle. Glad we agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s stating the facts, which is neither emotional bl@ckmail or ‘guilt tripping’. If people read that letter as ‘guilt tripping’, it’s probably because they have a reason to feel guilty." Are you suggesting people need to feel guilty for deciding not to have a vaccine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds?" he feels the need to make himself feel better  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know what makes you think that a doctor, a nurse, a midwife or a dentist has any qualifications regarding the vaccines or more knowledge than general people. They are all relying on the same information available to us or on other people opinions. I don’t know the situation in the UK but in lots of countries the medical staff involved in any way with Covid made lots of money during pandemic. Many of them probably doubled their already generous salaries.Ex. in Germany GPs involved in the vaccination program were paid €175 per hour. In Romania all staff dealing with Covid cases were paid a fix sum for each covid case. It’s a good idea to stop giving merits to people just because they hold some positions. I’ve met quite a few “not so bright” people in very good positions in my life." They are the chief medical officers in the country. Not "a" doctor, "a" midwife and "a"dentist. They really are likely to have more knowledge about vaccination data and better able to understand it than "general people". I cannot comment on what happens in other countries, but as there is nothing to support what you wrote about making "lots of money during the pandemic", then meh. It's a good idea to give "merits" to people who know more than you, isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.”" Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” This is basically what I was asking. I also felt that the added quote was indeed an unnecessary attempt at provocation, I just wanted to know why the OP felt the need to include it. " To give you something really significant to worry about it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? he feels the need to make himself feel better "No. Not that. Interested to know why you might think that though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your health is one area you should always check for yourself because if you are relying on other so called professionals and they get it wrong(which they sometimes do) then it could cost you exactly that... your health There are lots of opinions from professional and educated people scientists and doctors, their opinions differ and so do their reasons for differing. Let people make up there own mind instead of trying to manipulate them to agree with your identified positions Let’s replace the arguments with discussions, and we can then be better educated to make the right decision for ourselves." On this subject, their opinions do not differ greatly except to a very small number. You can choose to listen to this minority or anyone else with no knowledge whatsoever, but the question is why would you? What do you "discuss" when the information is so unbalanced? People did "discuss" smoking not being a problem, or drink-driving, or or climate change as if there was an equivalence. Even more confusing to me when the contrary view appears to be so wildly lacking in supporting evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a good letter but it could be better. While the signatories are undoubtedly very very impressive and without doubt highly/significantly qualified, if someone is still opposed (for whatever reason) to having the Covid vaccine, then I am not sure this letter will change their mind. Where was this published? Who received this letter? All NHS workers or just those unvaccinated? How did you get a copy? Is that the totality or was there an annex providing some hard stats, facts and figures? I ask because this specific paragraph is surprisingly vague (especially considering the authors and audience)... “Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again.” There is an assumption here that people who are infected will continue to treat patients either knowingly or unknowingly. How does that square with information regarding the vaccinated still catching but having reduced symptoms vs the unvaccinated catching but having more severe symptoms? Surely the latter are more likely to know they are ill and take action (and being health workers be acutely aware of what to look out for). How does this square with daily testing to pick up infection? In addition there are examples in recent history that do go some way to explaining why some people in the NHS are still not fully trusting of folks like the co-signatories of this letter. The obvious one being the way the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix was handled within the NHS (and abroad). The letter is very carefully written to come across as conciliatory and supportive but it remains coercive and has almost certainly been written by the Behavioural Insights Team. Not saying the sentiment is wrong, but at this stage I am not sure how effective it will be. The letter was sent out to all nhs workers. I got a copy on Monday via nhs e-mail. I am already fully vaccinated so it doesn't apply to me but I agree with the point behind it. Having said that if someone is still not vaccinated after all this time I can't see a letter making a lot of difference to their point of view now. " I agree, it probably will not, but worth a try if the outcome is positive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” This is basically what I was asking. I also felt that the added quote was indeed an unnecessary attempt at provocation, I just wanted to know why the OP felt the need to include it. To give you something really significant to worry about it seems." Oh I wasn’t worried. Just wondered why you felt it necessary to include it, then wondered why you repeatedly failed to explain why you included it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” This is basically what I was asking. I also felt that the added quote was indeed an unnecessary attempt at provocation, I just wanted to know why the OP felt the need to include it. To give you something really significant to worry about it seems. Oh I wasn’t worried. Just wondered why you felt it necessary to include it, then wondered why you repeatedly failed to explain why you included it. " Because it allows you to spend your time repeating yourself  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” This is basically what I was asking. I also felt that the added quote was indeed an unnecessary attempt at provocation, I just wanted to know why the OP felt the need to include it. To give you something really significant to worry about it seems. Oh I wasn’t worried. Just wondered why you felt it necessary to include it, then wondered why you repeatedly failed to explain why you included it. Because it allows you to spend your time repeating yourself "I don’t mind, see you at 175 baby! At least you accept you didn’t answer the question though. Although, I’m sure you could have if you wanted to haha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? " I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened. "Well done to all those who didn't get vaccinated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." So people are still trying to get othees to take a jab that they dont want to,well i nevee would have belived it lol Seems polite and clear. Nobody is compelled. It is a professional recommendation. Should they not be provided? Is it wrong to do so just because people choose to ignore it?your right no one is compelled to take a blind bit of notice of it and lets be honest for those who aint yet been jabbed i doubt very much a letter is gona make them change there mind,even less likley now the threat of losing there jobs has been taken away,my own view on this is if you want to get jabbed go get jabbed if you dont want it dont take it,what i cant stand is those who like to tell others to get the jab or not get the jab,think pro and anti vaxxers are just as annoying as each other" Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this." A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done." If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened. "Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done? No irony there? My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work. I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that. A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you. That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that. Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion. Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps? I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does. Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally? That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread." You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it."Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter. Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making. And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw" Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make."" There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality."If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you. Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science. "Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about. Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable? Continuing to complain just generates spam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make."" Fair. I misread. In which case I have no idea what your point is. Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately. Natural immunity requires your body to recognise the virus and create new antibodies. The delay can kill you. "Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this." Zero data to support that. Interested to know where you have heard that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing." Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to." How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." Fair. I misread. In which case I have no idea what your point is. Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately. Natural immunity requires your body to recognise the virus and create new antibodies. The delay can kill you. "Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this." Zero data to support that. Interested to know where you have heard that?" "Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately." Studies in New York and California show natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity. It is on Dr John Campbell's video "European normalisation" at 6:20. https://youtu.be/t2vdPJtDDdE | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam."You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning... “a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.” Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say. Until then... ****T U M B L E W E E D**** | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." Fair. I misread. In which case I have no idea what your point is. Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately. Natural immunity requires your body to recognise the virus and create new antibodies. The delay can kill you. "Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this." Zero data to support that. Interested to know where you have heard that? "Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately." Studies in New York and California show natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity. It is on Dr John Campbell's video "European normalisation" at 6:20. https://youtu.be/t2vdPJtDDdE" There has been no peer reviewed study that shows this. There can't be not enough time has elapsed. That retired doctor has got plenty of things wrong so far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight." They are "building" long term immunity...and yes it is only after two months, so as it progresses they will get more information. Which, I seem to remember, is the same argument you used for the vaccines. Hospitalisations have dropped and the death rate from Omicron is very low. I would guess it is now lower than previous year's influenza/pneumonia deaths. Vaccine induced immunity wanes over time and become less effective with each successive vaccine. Natural immunity is the only way forward! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." Fair. I misread. In which case I have no idea what your point is. Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately. Natural immunity requires your body to recognise the virus and create new antibodies. The delay can kill you. "Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this." Zero data to support that. Interested to know where you have heard that? "Catch Covid, vaccine either shuts it down without it taking hold at all or substantially reduces it's effects. Your body recognises the virus immediately." Studies in New York and California show natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity. It is on Dr John Campbell's video "European normalisation" at 6:20. https://youtu.be/t2vdPJtDDdE There has been no peer reviewed study that shows this. There can't be not enough time has elapsed. That retired doctor has got plenty of things wrong so far." He's got plenty of things right too. You could be right reference no peer reviewed study. I suspect if there was you would trash it anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight." I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam.
You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning...
“a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say.
Until then...
****T U M B L E W E E D****"No answer to anything substantive so stop talking. That's a very clear demonstration of diversion. Well done you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam.
You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning...
“a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say.
Until then...
****T U M B L E W E E D****
No answer to anything substantive so stop talking.
That's a very clear demonstration of diversion.
Well done you "Diversion, what’s good for the goose...! Thanks thought you’d like that. We can stay on the merry-go-round as long as you want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Studies in New York and California show natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity. It is on Dr John Campbell's video "European normalisation" at 6:20. https://youtu.be/t2vdPJtDDdE There has been no peer reviewed study that shows this. There can't be not enough time has elapsed. That retired doctor has got plenty of things wrong so far." What exactly has he got wrong so far? You must've watched a significant number of his videos to make that statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. They are "building" long term immunity...and yes it is only after two months, so as it progresses they will get more information. Which, I seem to remember, is the same argument you used for the vaccines. Hospitalisations have dropped and the death rate from Omicron is very low. I would guess it is now lower than previous year's influenza/pneumonia deaths. Vaccine induced immunity wanes over time and become less effective with each successive vaccine. Natural immunity is the only way forward!" That's a whole range of confused arguments. "Building long term immunity" is a phrase with no data to back it up. So actually it's a completely different and meaningless comparison to actual data. You remember poorly. 65% of the population is triple vaccinated and Omicron is, happily, less deadly. You are somehow able to deduce that the reduction in hospitalisations is therefore due to natural immunity? Because? Natural vaccination also wanes with the unfortunate problem of having to catch the disease at which point you have a much higher chance of being seriously ill or dying. You understand that, right? The second vaccine increased levels of immunity, as you know. The booster was less effective against all symptoms due to the virus mutation. A tailored booster, or a wider ranging one will be more effective. Luckily, we don't have to rely on your guesses. There is real data analysed by competent people to look at instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”" ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam.
You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning...
“a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say.
Until then...
****T U M B L E W E E D****
No answer to anything substantive so stop talking.
That's a very clear demonstration of diversion.
Well done you
Diversion, what’s good for the goose...!
Thanks thought you’d like that. We can stay on the merry-go-round as long as you want."I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. They are "building" long term immunity...and yes it is only after two months, so as it progresses they will get more information. Which, I seem to remember, is the same argument you used for the vaccines. Hospitalisations have dropped and the death rate from Omicron is very low. I would guess it is now lower than previous year's influenza/pneumonia deaths. Vaccine induced immunity wanes over time and become less effective with each successive vaccine. Natural immunity is the only way forward! That's a whole range of confused arguments. "Building long term immunity" is a phrase with no data to back it up. So actually it's a completely different and meaningless comparison to actual data. You remember poorly. 65% of the population is triple vaccinated and Omicron is, happily, less deadly. You are somehow able to deduce that the reduction in hospitalisations is therefore due to natural immunity? Because? Natural vaccination also wanes with the unfortunate problem of having to catch the disease at which point you have a much higher chance of being seriously ill or dying. You understand that, right? The second vaccine increased levels of immunity, as you know. The booster was less effective against all symptoms due to the virus mutation. A tailored booster, or a wider ranging one will be more effective. Luckily, we don't have to rely on your guesses. There is real data analysed by competent people to look at instead." Every dataset has to start somewhere. As days and weeks go by, more data about natural immunity will be recorded. Didn't the COVID vaccine data have to start from zero? You were gushing over the stats from studies on 6 dogs in a lab for a few months so it is surprising to see you dismissing other studies in their early stages. Second thoughts, it's not
As another poster has said, CDC studies in the US already demonstrate natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity.
The second vaccine's efficacy may have boosted immunity, but this too has now waned. If vaccines worked, why aren't there 4th and 5th doses against Omicron?
Omicron is, as you correctly say, less deadly. So everyone, as you also say, has a much higher chance of being seriously ill or dying.
Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make.
A tailored booster, or a wider ranging one, will not be needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable?" But...numbers of COVID patients in hospital are down - daily count of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital has gone down from 19,617 to 13,864 in the last month. Numbers of COVID patients in ICU are down - daily count of COVID-19 patients in mechanical ventilation beds has gone down from 800 to 468 in the last month. Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to build. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable?" So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious!" Like anyone is going to read all this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam.
You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning...
“a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say.
Until then...
****T U M B L E W E E D****
No answer to anything substantive so stop talking.
That's a very clear demonstration of diversion.
Well done you
Diversion, what’s good for the goose...!
Thanks thought you’d like that. We can stay on the merry-go-round as long as you want.
I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine."Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up” Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing! And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses? The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”. Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect. Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing! And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses? The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”. Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect. Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam.
You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning...
“a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say.
Until then...
****T U M B L E W E E D****
No answer to anything substantive so stop talking.
That's a very clear demonstration of diversion.
Well done you
Diversion, what’s good for the goose...!
Thanks thought you’d like that. We can stay on the merry-go-round as long as you want.
I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?"Seriously who would read a single word of something this long.. on a site that's supposed to be fun and sexy bore off | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yawn "Right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Letter to unvaccinated NHS staff: from the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, Chief Midwifery Officer Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May, and NHS Medical Director Professor Stephen Powis, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer Suzanne Rasteick, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer of England David Webb, Chief Dental Officer for England Sara Hurley, Medical Director for Primary Care for England Dr Nikki Kanani. All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated. “Your dedication and that of all of the NHS and wider healthcare system to providing the best possible care to patients in the challenging circumstances of the last 2 years has been remarkable, and a testament to you and your commitment to the health of those in your care. Thank you. One aspect of that is the professional responsibility to reduce the risk of infection to others as far as possible. Getting vaccinated against diseases which can be passed person-to-person in healthcare settings is part of that responsibility. Questions of professional responsibility and legal mandation are separate. Mandation is rightly for Ministers and Parliament. The professional responsibility, which is for the professions, predated discussion of mandation, and is widely agreed by professional bodies, Colleges, regulators and others. The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. They also provide protection from being infected. We all know that this protection is not absolute, just as almost every treatment you provide improves the chances of, but does not guarantee, a good outcome. Professional healthcare is about maximising the chance of a good outcome. Whilst we can be infected if vaccinated, getting vaccinated reduces the risk, particularly after your booster dose, and if you are not infected you cannot pass the virus to your patients. There is now good evidence that being vaccinated provides additional protection to those who have had a prior infection from being infected again. The public reasonably expect it of those who care for them or their vulnerable relatives because it is one of the simplest things that we, as healthcare workers, can do to protect patients. Risk benefit in every age group in the NHS is in favour of vaccination. If you have any particular concerns we would urge you get advice from particular knowledge of the vaccines, your employers or occupational health to talk through risk and benefit to you as well as your patients and colleagues. Our professional responsibility is to get the COVID-19 vaccines as recommended, to protect our patients. At the same time the vaccine protects us. The great majority of healthcare workers have already done so. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now." I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that those people are more qualified and knowledgeable than everyone in this forum. Even if true, it seems unnecessary to point it out. Do you think attempting to insult people will convince them to change their minds? In general, yes they will all be far more medically knowledgeable than people on this forum. It is a figure of speech. You can be a pedant if you wish. Why would it be insulting to acknowledge someone may have far more than you? I am certain that they know more thane, so I will defer to their advice. If you know less, why would you think that you knew better. Regardless the advice is perfectly polite and clear, no? I wasn’t referring to the advice. I was addressing your personal comments. Like I said, you can’t claim with absolute certainty that the people in this forum are not qualified enough to provide respectable and valid opinions. Some people will take the advice, some already have, and others will ignore it completely. If you weren’t attempting to be insulting I shall rephrase my initial question; Do you think you will convince people to get vaccinated if you suggest that they aren’t qualified enough to justify not getting vaccinated? Once again, if you wish to be pedantic and choose to take offence you can. What was rude or offensive in the original post? Nobody has to justify not getting vaccinated. Just don't do it for whatever reason. Claiming to justify it is the issue if not as knowledgeable and well informed as those who recommend it. Even going as far as to reinterpret data. Someone has already done this on the thread for some reason. It seems unnecessary to try and suggest people aren’t qualified to have a valid opinion when you don’t know anything about them. So why do it? Or, as I asked, do you think it will convince people to get vaccinated? I have never said that anyone's opinion to be or not be vaccinated is invalid. It should be unnecessary to suggest that if you are untrained and without experience in a highly technical subject then claiming greater understanding than those who are. However, it has been done in this forum regularly, so it seems worth repeating. Those not vaccinated now and post on this forum are not likely to be convinced. Someone who reads the information may be. No idea. What do you actually object to? Was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to suggest that no one was qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Although if you feel like it’s worth repeating, why? So, out of everything written here the only concern is that I suggested that the most senior medical professionals in the country are more qualified to comment on these matters than any posters on here? Of course I may be wrong, but it is, _ased on the posts over two years, highly unlikely. I have already explained what I was starting. That many people claim better understanding than qualified, knowledgeable, well informed professionals. Is that unacceptable? I can ask questions regarding any aspect of your post. Like I said, you’ve can’t say with absolute certainty who is, or isn’t, a qualified, knowledgeable and well informed professional within this forum. Even still, those who aren’t are still allowed to disagree, regardless of who is correct. What is a figure of speech? What is the likelihood of someone on this site being better placed to know about this subject than the people listed? Have I written anywhere that anyone cannot disagree? Again, what have I written that is unacceptable? What would you like me to write that would be acceptable to you? You’re entitled to write anything you like within the rules of the forum. I don’t recall using the term “unacceptable” to describe anything you’ve written so far though. However, if you don’t mind people disagreeing with professionals, you accept that it’s unlikely to convince the remaining unvaccinated to get vaccinated and that they don’t have to justify their reasons, why did you make the post in the first place? So nothing I have written is unacceptable. You have no objection to anything that I have written. Why so many posts? It's an interesting, clearly written letter which addresses the points that continue to be misrepresented by many posters on here. My challenge, as always is why anyone feels better able to interpret the data than the people who signed this letter. If there is no response, then stop pretending there is any data or evidence. It's a personal decision _ased on fear or belief. Nothing more. If any NHS staff who are unvaccinated do take notice of this, them all well and good. Should I not post if there is no guarantee of convincing someone to get a vaccination who is not? What do you want? What am I pretending about? You suggested that people in this forum aren’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with signatories. I said you can’t possibly know that and therefore it seems like an unnecessary comment. If it wasn’t an attempt at being insulting or trying to bait people then why say it? Do you often go around alerting people to check their qualifications before discussing something or does it only apply in this virus forum? I think that you know perfectly well that the English language is idiomatically imprecise and that "you" is used to mean "one" when used colloquially. Again, if you want to take everything personally, I can't do anything about it. I have already said that "of course I may be wrong", statistically speaking. What more would you like? However, is it credible that there are people more knowledgeable than the most senior medical officers in the country posting on Fab? Many people on the virus thread regularly claim knowledge that is clearly false. None are able to explain why they feel better able to interpret complex medical and statistical data than those most qualified to do so. Still no response on this thread. Again, what do you want? Where did I say I took it personally? But yes, statistically speaking you may be wrong indeed, you may be right who knows. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to point out. Something you’re still failing to explain. Not that you have to course. But just say so if you don’t want to. I have explained several times in several different ways. One last time. Many people on these threads reinterpret data on Covid in contradiction of medical and scientific advice. This polite and non-combative letter makes the position of the country's most senior medical staff very clear. If anyone disagrees with the content of the letter they must feel that they know better than them. I would consider being scared or just not understanding as an exception to this. The alternative would be accepting that these individuals understand the subject better but still believe that they are correct despite possessing less knowledge and less information. What is it that you object to or are confused by and why are you spending so much time on a tiny aspect of a post? You haven’t explained though have you? You keep referring the letter which has nothing to do with what I was asking you about. I was specifically referring, and still am, to your suggestion that everyone in these forums are not qualified to argue with the signatories. I initially felt that you were attempting to be deliberately insulting in order to try convince people to get vaccinated. You have since stated that this is not the case and I changed my question accordingly. Simply put, if your only aim was bring this letter to the attention of the users of this forum, then why you did you include your comment on the knowledge and qualifications of people you don’t know? The only thing that’s confusing me is your reluctance to provide a straight answer. I do not know what you want. My responses have been very direct. I cannot decipher what point you are trying to make or what question you are asking. I really have tried terribly hard to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about some, still unspecified, thing. Clearly whatever answers I am providing do not satisfy you so we are at an impasse. There seems to be little point in continuing and you will have to remain bereft of this very important answer to you. I apologise unreservedly. Just wondered why you felt the need to suggest everyone in here isn’t qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue with the signatories. Suppose the more it seemed like you were dodging it, the more curious I became. Apology accepted. I probably shouldn’t poke this particular hornets nest but... The reason some people took issue with @EadyUK was not the letter being posted as a thread but the unnecessary provocation that he added as follows... “All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources.” I have seen this very approach across multiple threads in this forum, namely “you can have an opinion but you cannot actually challenge the narrative because they are all more qualified than you” ergo your opinion is meaningless. It is actually a fairly standard method to control the narrative by undermining the credibility of all other arguments or viewpoints. My posts, which were directly related to the letter structure and content style and not the intent or sentiment (as made clear in my opening post) have repeatedly been challenged on the incorrect basis of me not knowing more/better than the co-sigs (which I never claimed to) despite my focus being the letter itself. A constant attempt to push back towards an inarguable point (that the co-sigs know more about vaccines and viruses then me - errr I know that!) George Orwell said it better than me... “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” Why "unnecessary" and why "provocation"? Do the chief medical officers have more data, better advice and know more than you or I about this topic? Yes or no? Apparently yes. It's not a trick question. It's not an "approach". It's a direct question that you have never directly addressed until now. Your opinion is your opinion as is anyone else's on here. Is it better informed than people trained and practicing in the field with more data available? Yes or no? My position has always been that claiming to be able to better understand complex medical and statistical data better than those trained and practising in those fields is quite a remarkable thing to do. Would you not agree? Perhaps not. Are you saying that if you, or anyone else, writes something that they believe will help people that they should not try to be persuasive? If they do try to be persuasive is that "coercive"? What should they have written? "We think you should get vaccinated, but of you don't want to then never mind" Why do you actually feel that "challenging the prevailing orthodoxy" is something that you need to do? I cannot figure out if you are deliberately being disingenuous, actually don’t get it or are not allowing yourself to deviate from your playbook? Your personal addition to the letter was totally unnecessary and was provocative. You know that and it is pointless denying it. Do you really think everyone on here is so thick that they do not understand the credentials of the co-sigs? Do you see it as your responsibility to educate? I am sure the co-sigs do not need your help (on a swinger site) to underpin their authority and knowledge. And what gives you the authority to do so
You should have simply posted the letter without comment.
Once again you try to move the discussion with me to be about the expertise of the co-sigs and once again I will remind you (this is tiresome) that my posts have been about the letter not the knowledge or credentials of the co-sigs.
As for challenging the orthodoxy. Well I think Orwell would rest his case _ased on you asking that question and how you approach every thread.
Last I looked lived in a free democratic society. Sadly those in positions of authority have had their credibility or trustworthiness severely undermined by either their own actions or those of people who came before. It is right to probe and challenge rather than have blind acceptance under these circumstances.
If our govt and science community were unimpeachable and infallible then that loss of trust would not have happened.
Free democratic society yet you are telling me what I "should have" done?
No irony there?
My point is not complex and I can "move the conversation" anywhere as that is how the open discussions that you are so keen on work.
I also directly referenced your comments on the letter. You seem to have missed that.
A letter designed to persuade should, presumably, be persuasive. Apparently editing it to achieve this end is coercive in your opinion. Your opinion. That free, democratic thing allows me to disagree with you.
That "free democratic" thing also allows me to continue to query why you, or I or anyone else would feel able to reinterpret complex data better than someone trained and experienced to specifically do that.
Actually understand the complexities and nuances and errors and externalities and draw a conclusion.
Not an opinion. Orthodox opinion or behaviour, which is what Orwell was referring to, is not the same as drawing a scientific conclusion from data and knowledge. Another example of misinterpretation, perhaps?
I am very likely to be wrong in interpreting complicated medical data. Those who do it for a living are far less likely to. The fact that the overwhelming majority come to similar conclusions makes them far more likely to be correct. There is not wide scientific debate. I will trust them more than myself in those circumstances. It's not blind acceptance or an assumption of infallibility. It's a balance of likelihood. Those with minimal knowledge, demonstrable inability to understand the data and caveats are not the people I am going to think have some insight that nobody else does.
Why should I, or anybody else, consider your scepticism in higher regard than those who do something professionally?
That is the only question that I ask and do not get answered, as annoying as you may find it.
Thanks for writing so many words! That must have taken some effort. However, I’m afraid I switched off when you totally misinterpreted what Orwell was saying and then ONCE AGAIN steered the discussion towards something that has nothing to do with my specific points or first post on the letter.
Of course you are free to keep diverting and of course I am free to ignore you when it is irrelevant to the points I am making.
And like it or not, those in authority have lost credibility with many people due to various reasons. That’s not my view, it’s just the reality.
If you cannot or will not concentrate, that's for you.
Orwell's quote was about opinions,not science.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
Also, still unable to explain the basic point which you appear to get so annoyed about.
Why believe the opinions of those without understanding over the expertise of the knowledgeable?
Continuing to complain just generates spam.
You do of course know that “opinion” has more than one meaning...
“a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
Happy to concentrate when you have something new and interesting to say.
Until then...
****T U M B L E W E E D****
No answer to anything substantive so stop talking.
That's a very clear demonstration of diversion.
Well done you
Diversion, what’s good for the goose...!
Thanks thought you’d like that. We can stay on the merry-go-round as long as you want.
I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
Seriously who would read a single word of something this long.. on a site that's supposed to be fun and sexy bore off"Alternatively, just ignore it. *revolutionarythinking Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Seriously who would read a single word of something this long.. on a site that's supposed to be fun and sexy bore off Alternatively, just ignore it. *revolutionarythinking Winston"
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shock horror people on swinger site forced to read discussions in the Covid Virus section! Or maybe just don’t! "Be kind .... its all in the 5g signal, nano vaccine programing and big tech algorithms they cant help landing here
This is a long thread for what is basically a management letter to try to get staff to do a particular thing that management cant impose.
I doubt that Witty had any input other than signing it off. Comms team would be given the remit of:
who do we want to adress
what do we want
how do we convince staff to do what we want.
Seen these types of letters a zillion times in my working life (public sector trade union representative).
No new 'coersive techniques' here just usual managememt pressure to get staff to comply. Hardly a suprise and hardly shocking.
Managememt will do what they feel they need to do and staff can choose to ignore if they wish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haha. It seems to be the longer the thread the more intelligent I seem. Or maybe not." Ha ha the longer the thread the more words have been used to say virtually nothing and go around in circles (I include myself in that, pretty self aware lol) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. " https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting " Bearing in mind you can report own death on the yellow card system, I'd not read too much into it if I were you. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can patients refuse treatment from unvaccinated staff? I'm just curious because it seems like it should be allowed. I'm fully vaccinated had to be for work, and I wouldn't care who did or didn't treat me. But, it's an interesting conundrum" Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, reason. Just curious. All this talk of patient choice. I'm curious if it will a thing. For one, my gran is very worried about COVID. And has been housebound since it started. I'm unsure how she will be attending drs appointments etc. As I said, I couldn't care less vaccinated or unvaccinated. But it's something that I expect people will be asking " I have to wonder why vaccine status of others (ie medical workers treating you) concerns people? What matters is regular up-to-date testing. It is still possible to transmit Covid when you are vaccinated. It is possible to have no/few symptoms because you are vaccinated and therefore not even know you are infectious. So testing is what matters surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Risk if death from car crash in U.K. is 1 in 20,000 Risk of covid death for those healthy under age of 60 is 1 in 160,000. I am 8 times more likely to die in a car crash. So I don’t need Whitty or anyone else for that matter to tell me to take a jab that doesn’t work and the long term safety data is unknown." Spot on.. fact of the matter is people that have taken it refuse to admit they know it was for nothing.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Risk if death from car crash in U.K. is 1 in 20,000 Risk of covid death for those healthy under age of 60 is 1 in 160,000. I am 8 times more likely to die in a car crash. So I don’t need Whitty or anyone else for that matter to tell me to take a jab that doesn’t work and the long term safety data is unknown." Where do you get your figures from there were 580 between first half of 2021. Double that up 1060. So that is 1 in 63000 but that is the whole of the population and you are only comparing over 60s. Which are nearly a quarter of the population so you get a figure of about 1 in 84000. Covid deaths of people under 60 are just over 11000 in 22 months. Giving a figure of the chance of dying of covid if under 60 per year of around 1 in 7000. If you copy and paste figures at least think about what you are posting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Risk if death from car crash in U.K. is 1 in 20,000 Risk of covid death for those healthy under age of 60 is 1 in 160,000. I am 8 times more likely to die in a car crash. So I don’t need Whitty or anyone else for that matter to tell me to take a jab that doesn’t work and the long term safety data is unknown. Where do you get your figures from there were 580 between first half of 2021. Double that up 1060. So that is 1 in 63000 but that is the whole of the population and you are only comparing over 60s. Which are nearly a quarter of the population so you get a figure of about 1 in 84000. Covid deaths of people under 60 are just over 11000 in 22 months. Giving a figure of the chance of dying of covid if under 60 per year of around 1 in 7000. If you copy and paste figures at least think about what you are posting." Apologies is around 1 in 13000 not 1 in 7000. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with over 10 billion doses given worldwide. They provide a very high degree of protection from serious disease. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting Bearing in mind you can report own death on the yellow card system, I'd not read too much into it if I were you. Winston" I'm not sure you're able to report your own death unless something has changed dramatically | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. They are "building" long term immunity...and yes it is only after two months, so as it progresses they will get more information. Which, I seem to remember, is the same argument you used for the vaccines. Hospitalisations have dropped and the death rate from Omicron is very low. I would guess it is now lower than previous year's influenza/pneumonia deaths. Vaccine induced immunity wanes over time and become less effective with each successive vaccine. Natural immunity is the only way forward! That's a whole range of confused arguments. "Building long term immunity" is a phrase with no data to back it up. So actually it's a completely different and meaningless comparison to actual data. You remember poorly. 65% of the population is triple vaccinated and Omicron is, happily, less deadly. You are somehow able to deduce that the reduction in hospitalisations is therefore due to natural immunity? Because? Natural vaccination also wanes with the unfortunate problem of having to catch the disease at which point you have a much higher chance of being seriously ill or dying. You understand that, right? The second vaccine increased levels of immunity, as you know. The booster was less effective against all symptoms due to the virus mutation. A tailored booster, or a wider ranging one will be more effective. Luckily, we don't have to rely on your guesses. There is real data analysed by competent people to look at instead. Every dataset has to start somewhere. As days and weeks go by, more data about natural immunity will be recorded. Didn't the COVID vaccine data have to start from zero? You were gushing over the stats from studies on 6 dogs in a lab for a few months so it is surprising to see you dismissing other studies in their early stages. Second thoughts, it's not
As another poster has said, CDC studies in the US already demonstrate natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity.
The second vaccine's efficacy may have boosted immunity, but this too has now waned. If vaccines worked, why aren't there 4th and 5th doses against Omicron?
Omicron is, as you correctly say, less deadly. So everyone, as you also say, has a much higher chance of being seriously ill or dying.
Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make.
A tailored booster, or a wider ranging one, will not be needed."So, with no data you don't know what's happening. We were, apparently, "building" natural immunity over the first four waves. It may well happen eventually or we may get another mutation that allows it to continue. So far, so nothing. Hospitalisation rates fell for all of the previous waves too. Then what happened? Again, natural immunity requires you to catch the disease with the higher chance of serious illness, death and long-Covid. The studies also indicate that the immune response is far more variable than for vaccines. You already know this. Do you understand that means that some people will have very strong natural immunity if they survive and some will not whereas vaccines give a reliably good outcome? Natural immunity also wanes. You understand that too, don't you? If there is a wide spectrum vaccination or a tailored booster then it will significantly reduce the chance of me catching Covid or passing it on. Just like the flu jab I take every year to not get sick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious!" You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?"I have made no accusations. Only you have. I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check. Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to. If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you. I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others. I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations. If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos. So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches. If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying. The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated. The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority. Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see. It's complicated. You still did not respond to the substantive point. Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. " YES I KNOW THAT IS WHY I SAID “natural immunity from previous infection“ YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVIOUS MEANS RIGHT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?"I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across. With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? "its the 2nd one ask a question if u dont answer how he wants you to then asks another and another and another use the green arrow all will become clear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you all should accept that you know nothing and all this carrying on back and forth is making you all look a bit silly " I've acknowledged that I know less than people who work on the topic. Others however... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? "Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many? Is there a reason? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? its the 2nd one ask a question if u dont answer how he wants you to then asks another and another and another use the green arrow all will become clear"Answer any way that you like. However, please answer without accusing me of all manner of things which you are choosing to project | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you all should accept that you know nothing and all this carrying on back and forth is making you all look a bit silly I've acknowledged that I know less than people who work on the topic. Others however..." Have also acknowledged they know less than the experts in a specific field (in this case vaccines/Covid) but have commented on other areas that the co-sigs expertise have no specific bearing on (such as coercive nudge techniques and the underlying reasons for the loss of trust in authority). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? its the 2nd one ask a question if u dont answer how he wants you to then asks another and another and another use the green arrow all will become clear
Answer any way that you like. However, please answer without accusing me of all manner of things which you are choosing to project "Easy Easy Easy glasshouses and stone throwing and all that! In your last post you accused me as follows... “If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect.” I mean really!!!???
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. YES I KNOW THAT IS WHY I SAID “natural immunity from previous infection“ YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVIOUS MEANS RIGHT?" That's fine, but as the point being made is that vaccination is unnecessary because natural immunity is "better" then the fact that you have to catch Covid first is absolutely relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. YES I KNOW THAT IS WHY I SAID “natural immunity from previous infection“ YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVIOUS MEANS RIGHT? That's fine, but as the point being made is that vaccination is unnecessary because natural immunity is "better" then the fact that you have to catch Covid first is absolutely relevant." Wasn’t my point though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can patients refuse treatment from unvaccinated staff? I'm just curious because it seems like it should be allowed. I'm fully vaccinated had to be for work, and I wouldn't care who did or didn't treat me. But, it's an interesting conundrum" Everyone has a right to refuse treatment and to be honest I don’t care. I’m vaccinated and so would not worry about it if the front facing person catches it and gets really sick that’s their problem not mine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
It’s about giving yourself the best chance of not getting seriously sick from it.
There’s no guarantee in anything if you get a flu vaccine it does not guarantee your not going to get it but it would lessen the affects if you do.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? its the 2nd one ask a question if u dont answer how he wants you to then asks another and another and another use the green arrow all will become clear
Answer any way that you like. However, please answer without accusing me of all manner of things which you are choosing to project
Easy Easy Easy glasshouses and stone throwing and all that!
In your last post you accused me as follows...
“If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect.”
I mean really!!!???
"It is not be an "accusation". You have implied that booster vaccinations were being rolled out for financial gain and you have offered your opinion that this letter is "coercive". Reinterpreting data which is not really understood is not helpful to anyone. What, "really"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. YES I KNOW THAT IS WHY I SAID “natural immunity from previous infection“ YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVIOUS MEANS RIGHT? That's fine, but as the point being made is that vaccination is unnecessary because natural immunity is "better" then the fact that you have to catch Covid first is absolutely relevant. Wasn’t my point though "Then not pertinent to the discussion that you intervened in. Nobody was disputing the results of that particular study. The conclusion of that report was still that vaccination remains the best course of action. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? its the 2nd one ask a question if u dont answer how he wants you to then asks another and another and another use the green arrow all will become clear
Answer any way that you like. However, please answer without accusing me of all manner of things which you are choosing to project
Easy Easy Easy glasshouses and stone throwing and all that!
In your last post you accused me as follows...
“If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect.”
I mean really!!!???
It is not be an "accusation". You have implied that booster vaccinations were being rolled out for financial gain and you have offered your opinion that this letter is "coercive".
Reinterpreting data which is not really understood is not helpful to anyone.
What, "really"?"And there it is again! Selective and reinterpreting. I didn’t imply anything (on a different thread) about booster being about financial gain. I was explicit that it was financially beneficial for the relevant pharma and anyone connected to them. Doesn’t mean booster wasn’t necessary but the financial rewards are huge. Do you deny the financial implications? My view on the letter being coercive is more than opinion. It is _ased on professional experience and expertise. Once again look back at my very first post. Which data have I reinterpreted? Can you show me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. YES I KNOW THAT IS WHY I SAID “natural immunity from previous infection“ YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVIOUS MEANS RIGHT? That's fine, but as the point being made is that vaccination is unnecessary because natural immunity is "better" then the fact that you have to catch Covid first is absolutely relevant. Wasn’t my point though
Then not pertinent to the discussion that you intervened in. Nobody was disputing the results of that particular study.
The conclusion of that report was still that vaccination remains the best course of action."So you have final say over what is and isn’t pertinent and can determine whether it is ok to intervene? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a study in Israel being carried out. The main stream media even wrote about it . I'm sure if you search you'll find the study. Make of it what you will. " Yes was reading about that but surely the implication is that once you have caught it you do get antibodies is correct. But having a vaccine reduces the severity of it and enables your body to build up antibodies in a safer way ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wrote the thread. I'm not diverting from anything
You told me that I should have written my post differently before explaining how important democracy and free speech was.
Then you explained that a politely written letter intended to persuade NHS staff to do something should not be edited to be persuasive as that is coerscive. By implication, far better to be not persuasive.
Finally having criticised my post for asking why anyone should listen to unqualified opinions instead of knowledgeable analysis of data you accused me of diverting.
You still haven't answered that, I notice.
Nor will you I imagine.
Ah the old “It’s my thread I can do what I want” argument. Yeah fair enough you can but your approach across the forum is getting very obvious, ie “you’re all thick luddites and have no ability or credibility to do anything except accept and agree with the prevailing narrative because the people behind the narrative are all much cleverer than you...so shut up”
Yes I criticised the manner of your OP and stand by that. Posting the letter as is would have achieved more than your insulting addition. But you know that and you know exactly what you are doing!
And now the word switcheroo to “persuasive” which sounds oh so reasonable to move away from “coercive” which doesn’t. Are you following a decision tree to design your responses?
The main issue here is that (as I have said) there has been a loss of trust in “authority” for various current and historical reasons. So it is no longer possible for these obviously highly qualified (most qualified) co-sigs to simply say “we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine”.
Many people’s views are entrenched and as per my first post, THIS letter won’t change that. In fact it could have the reverse affect.
Actually they would be better to acknowledge the reasons for loss of trust and explain why things are different now. They are different right?
I have made no accusations. Only you have.
I have remained on topic. You can scroll up to check.
Diversions have come from others, some of which I have responded to.
If you feel that your intelligence is being criticised on some way, that is on you.
I am comfortable acknowledging that I am less well informed in many areas than others.
I will agree and accept the existing data if it makes sense. On the whole, it does. At the most simple level, just look at the graphs of deaths and illness and compare them to lockdowns and vaccinations.
If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect. Pretending that vaccine hesitancy is not influenced by unfounded opinion is rather disingenuos.
So having agreed that senior scientists and medics cannot just say "we want you/we strongly advise you to have the vaccine" they also should not try any other approaches.
If writing a letter doesn't work, it doesn't work. They wish to try and if it persuades a few then so much to the better. Good for them to keep trying.
The vast majority of NHS staff and the wider population are vaccinated.
The implication that scepticism is a widespread and deeply rooted problem does not appear to be true, does it? We can look at the, false MMR scare and the echo chambers of internet conspiracy theories as much as any other source for scepticism. We can look at the behaviour of our politicians and government for lack of trust in authority.
Medics and scientists cannot fix that by altering the data. Of course, the fact that it is possible to find some studies that suit contrary points in isolation rather goes against the narrative that information is being suppressed. At the same time taking one study in conjunction with many others will tell a different story which someone looking to justify their position will not see.
It's complicated.
You still did not respond to the substantive point.
Why should I hold the opinion of someone inexperienced and with minimal understanding of the topic over that of many experts in multiple related fields? Why even take the view of one or two over the combined knowledge of many?
I can guarantee you that I do not feel any challenge to my intelligence. Very comfortable with my knowledge and experience ta v much. It was more a comment on the way your post came across.
With the rest of what you said, man oh man you do like to reinterpret and misrepresent what people say! It really is tiresome. I stand by what I said, you will continue to argue against points I have not actually made. Still cannot quite fathom if it is a deliberate strategy to undermine others or if you actually just don’t actually understand or read what people say? its the 2nd one ask a question if u dont answer how he wants you to then asks another and another and another use the green arrow all will become clear
Answer any way that you like. However, please answer without accusing me of all manner of things which you are choosing to project
Easy Easy Easy glasshouses and stone throwing and all that!
In your last post you accused me as follows...
“If you choose to introduce hypothetical conspiracies to make money, or start to discuss "coercive" narratives then it is subjective opinion. You can get as angry as you like about that. I'm not bothered. Reinterpreting data which is not really understood to try to "prove" a point or just raise doubts have a more insidious effect.”
I mean really!!!???
It is not be an "accusation". You have implied that booster vaccinations were being rolled out for financial gain and you have offered your opinion that this letter is "coercive".
Reinterpreting data which is not really understood is not helpful to anyone.
What, "really"?
And there it is again! Selective and reinterpreting.
I didn’t imply anything (on a different thread) about booster being about financial gain. I was explicit that it was financially beneficial for the relevant pharma and anyone connected to them. Doesn’t mean booster wasn’t necessary but the financial rewards are huge. Do you deny the financial implications?
My view on the letter being coercive is more than opinion. It is _ased on professional experience and expertise. Once again look back at my very first post.
Which data have I reinterpreted? Can you show me?"I wrote this. "All more qualified and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. If this is not acceptable, they are who you are arguing against with whatever information you do have from whatever limited sources. The vaccine mandate was a political decision. The medical advice is still to get vaccinated." You decided that it was unacceptable although it was not addressed solely to you but to all those who believe that they know better. I am referring to all those reinterpret information to suit their own arguments. You did not actually say what was wrong with the statement. You still haven't, nor answered the rewriting of it as a direct question. I have never denied any financial implications from vaccines being widely deployed, but you did suggest, very clearly that the timing of the booster was introduced in suspicious circumstances due to the financial benefits that would result. You may be correct that the letter was edited or even written by a group of people who are trying to make it more persuasive and that may well be within your professional experience. So what? It's supposed to be persuasive. I have not denied that. It is, however, just your personal opinion that it is coerscive. There are certainly no threats or force, actual or implied. Your definition is, perhaps, different. Perhaps this is just me questioning the "orthodoxy" that because we can Google bits of information we are as well informed as those who are genuinely knowledgeable? That we are qualified to "make our own minds up" on complex topics. That our uninformed opinions on complex topics are equal in status to those of genuine experts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my god ! Just stop it. Of course wearing a a mask restricts exhalation and collects pathogenic bacteria. The vaccine has not been properly tested. Chris Whitty, Boris and his chums have not listened to any views other than the safe option. Natural immunity is better than vaccinated " immunity " with no possible side effects. This happens about twice every century and this one is fuelled by algorithms, computer modelling and reliance on health and safety. The price we will pay is immeasurable. Stop this. A mask collects your "pathogenic bacteria" and virus aerosol and prevents it being passed to others. That is the point. Natural immunity is not "better" than vaccinated immunity. It's a nonsensical statement to start with as they are both "immunity". The difference being vaccinated immunity is more consistently effective. That is apart from the very obvious fact that you have to catch the disease with a chance of severe illness and death enormously higher than that of vaccination. These events have happened about twice a century and previously multiple millions have died. Not this time, because of coordinated control measures and vaccination. The algorithms are driving the antivax cul-de-sacs rather more than the actual science. However, once you are in the realms of belief rather than data there's little to be done. If immunity was consistent people would be getting a consistent severity of illness across the board. They are not. The only time you can use consistent to describe the COVID vaccines is "consistently inconsistent"! The mRNA vaccine is triggered by the host catching Covid. The vaccine then learns how to attack the virus. You said something to that effect in another thread. You are struggling with understanding the word "more" again. Please think what that means. Neither the mRNA vaccines or vector vaccines make you "catch Covid". That is the entire point. You have had this explained to you multiple times. There is a very simple explanation here at 1:10 https://youtu.be/yrm9RsBlCUw Where did I say they make you catch Covid? Natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. Omicron is showing this. To quote a Ugandan doctor, "Omicron is the vaccine we've failed to make." There is no evidence as yet that natural immunity is more consistently effective than vaccine immunity. If a vaccine had the death rate of omicron then it wouldn't get through testing and licensing. Yes, people die from Omicron. But people are building long term natural immunity because of Omicron. This is far better than vaccine immunity because you cannot keep vaccinating forever. Natural immunity doesn't go through testing and licensing because it doesn't need to. How do you know that they have "long term" natural immunity? Based on what data after two months? You have made a statement without foundation. So what if naturally immunity is not tested or licensed if many more people get severely ill or die? It's a dubious benefit to be attempting to highlight. I can’t talk for Scrabble obviously, but some of the natural immunity from previous infection discussion has been fed by the CDC research... “Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” ...and you have to catch the disease to develop immunity. You are many times more likely to be severely ill or die if you catch the disease unvaccinated. Hospitals are overloaded. More people die of other medical conditions because they cannot be treated. Is that understandable? So despite me saying “natural immunity from previous infection“ you felt the need to restate the obvious! You Have To CATCH Covid To Get Natural Immunity This is a big deal. Reducing catching the disease and running the risk of severe illness and death is the entire point of the exercise. The strongest immunity with the lowest risk is from vaccination followed by a break-through infection, which wasn't possible until the Omicron variant as the vaccines were so effective against previous ones. YES I KNOW THAT IS WHY I SAID “natural immunity from previous infection“ YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PREVIOUS MEANS RIGHT? That's fine, but as the point being made is that vaccination is unnecessary because natural immunity is "better" then the fact that you have to catch Covid first is absolutely relevant. Wasn’t my point though
Then not pertinent to the discussion that you intervened in. Nobody was disputing the results of that particular study.
The conclusion of that report was still that vaccination remains the best course of action.
So you have final say over what is and isn’t pertinent and can determine whether it is ok to intervene?"Nope. Just pointing out, again, that your contribution was not disputed, but it was irrelevant to the actual discussion. Now, must leave some space so that chap can come back and ramble on about something for post 175 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
