Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?

[Ashfordian]

67Dino said:

Hospitalisation rate in England now growing again at 19% per week due to Delta variant. 100% better than it would have been without vaccination programme, but still awful.

Genuinely curious how those who argue it’s just a flu respond to this. Duff data? Doesn’t matter?

Are you going to supply context to your fearmongering?

100-119 is a 19% increase (meh)
10000-11900 is a 19% increase (bad)

There really is no help for people if they just accept the stat without interepting it with the underlying data (which has been the case since March 2020 by the fearmongerers)

[67Dino]

Ashfordian said:

67Dino said:

Hospitalisation rate in England now growing again at 19% per week due to Delta variant. 100% better than it would have been without vaccination programme, but still awful.

Genuinely curious how those who argue it’s just a flu respond to this. Duff data? Doesn’t matter?

Are you going to supply context to your fearmongering?

100-119 is a 19% increase (meh)
10000-11900 is a 19% increase (bad)

There really is no help for people if they just accept the stat without interepting it with the underlying data (which has been the case since March 2020 by the fearmongerers)

You’re right to note that one week’s increase at this rate doesn’t seem too bad, especially from a low base. However, what makes viruses so bad is that this rate is likely to persist, giving exponential growth. 19% repeated for 10 weeks is a 600% increase, for 20 weeks is 3200% increase. That’s what I find concerning.

However, you’ve answered my question: this doesn’t worry you because (a) it’s a low base so not a high absolute number, and (b) you don’t believe it will persist. Got it.

[Captain Raymond Holt]

[redacted]

[witko999]

67Dino said:

Ashfordian said:

67Dino said:

Hospitalisation rate in England now growing again at 19% per week due to Delta variant. 100% better than it would have been without vaccination programme, but still awful.

Genuinely curious how those who argue it’s just a flu respond to this. Duff data? Doesn’t matter?

Are you going to supply context to your fearmongering?

100-119 is a 19% increase (meh)
10000-11900 is a 19% increase (bad)

There really is no help for people if they just accept the stat without interepting it with the underlying data (which has been the case since March 2020 by the fearmongerers)

You’re right to note that one week’s increase at this rate doesn’t seem too bad, especially from a low base. However, what makes viruses so bad is that this rate is likely to persist, giving exponential growth. 19% repeated for 10 weeks is a 600% increase, for 20 weeks is 3200% increase. That’s what I find concerning.

However, you’ve answered my question: this doesn’t worry you because (a) it’s a low base so not a high absolute number, and (b) you don’t believe it will persist. Got it.

Are you Chris Whitty? We can all pointlessly extrapolate slopes on a graph over x number of weeks. We could have said look at the rate of decrease since February. If that continues for 30 weeks we will have -7000 deaths/week. I would hope you could use your intelligence to work out the likelihood of said events happening.

[MYOB]

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Indeed, I'm waiting for more research and data on the vaccines personally. I haven't said no or yes and am waiting until I can make an informed and educated decision based on data over a period of time.

In the real world, this is the characteristics of a humanist. But in this dystopian world of lemmings, it's called an anti vaxxer.

944,235,132 (12.0% of the human race) has been vaccinated, and safety follow up is conducted as matter of course, and data collected of potential ADRs etc. If ever in human history there was proof of the safety safety of a product, it's already happened.

The data you want already exists. More studies will happen, but they're going to be conducted and overseen, by the same people who are already telling you it is safe to take the vaccine, and you're ignoring them. So why will you suddenly change your mind?

People cannot see your reasoning, that is why you appear a complete fool. You veracious arguing of a strawman, and postulating everyone is an idiot but you, just compounds it further.

I'm waiting for longer term data thank you. That's my prerogative.

For someone who claim they are an educated expert, resorting to personal insults is extremely disappointing and weakens your stance.

All I'm doing to setting out my position. I'm not bullying, controlling or coercing others to follow my position.

Such a shame you're not coming across in a positive manner. I maybe a fool but that's my choice. You shouldn't call me a fool for that.

Big Pharma has been proven not to be trusted. Even the American PH pharmaceuticals were selective about who they were testing the vaccines on last year. They were using far more younger people than elderly people on the trials. There has been massive fines imposed in recent years for various reasons.

I've made a personal choice, which I'm free to do so without the likes of you resorting to personal insults, controlling and coercing behaviour.

You may know best with regards to short term effects but you certainly don't know best when it comes to longer term effects.

Nor do I.

Bye, I've no need to talk to you any further on this this topic.

[smn159]

MYOB said:

I'm waiting for longer term data thank you. That's my prerogative.

For someone who claim they are an educated expert, resorting to personal insults is extremely disappointing and weakens your stance.

All I'm doing to setting out my position. I'm not bullying, controlling or coercing others to follow my position.

Such a shame you're not coming across in a positive manner. I maybe a fool but that's my choice. You shouldn't call me a fool for that.

Big Pharma has been proven not to be trusted. Even the American PH pharmaceuticals were selective about who they were testing the vaccines on last year. They were using far more younger people than elderly people on the trials. There has been massive fines imposed in recent years for various reasons.

I've made a personal choice, which I'm free to do so without the likes of you resorting to personal insults, controlling and coercing behaviour.

You may know best with regards to short term effects but you certainly don't know best when it comes to longer term effects.

Nor do I.

Bye, I've no need to talk to you any further on this this topic.

Meh, I've seen better flounces 2/10

[Captain Raymond Holt]

All the more intriguing given the pack mentality, shouting down and abuse in the Covid thread(s) in NP&E.

[Prof Prolapse]

[redacted]

[Captain Raymond Holt]

paulguitar said:

monkfish1 said:

Really? I need to explain this?

None of this is greater knowledge. Money buys influence and power. Thats how the world works.

If you think someone having "influence" over MHRA is OK, then i guess you wont see an issue.

At no point have i said his agenda is bad. Or good. Just dont want someone with any agenda, having influence over something as critical as drug approvals. They should be fully independant.

If you want to believe the people involved have your best interests at heart, im not going to try and convince you otherwise.

What is it you think Bill Gates wants?

I’d suggest you stop asking questions like that…

[anonymous-user]

MYOB said:

I'm waiting for longer term data thank you. That's my prerogative.

At what arbitrary point do you have ‘longer term data’ - a year, 5 years... before you get to the point of actually believing what people are telling you now ?

[98elise]

Scabutz said:

98elise said:

monkfish1 said:

V6 Pushfit said:

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

monkfish1 said:

V6 Pushfit said:

monkfish1 said:

Is the MHRA one of your "leading independant bodies"? The one in reciept of funding from Bill Gates? You dont think that might just compromise it just a teeny bit.

Don’t you just love your conspiracies

Hardly a conspiracy. Its on the governments own website.

I doubt very much it’s on the Government website but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s not your own bizarre conspiracy if you could post a link to a page that says the MHRA is compromised due to funding by Bill Gates.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-responses-from-the-mhra-week-commencing-4-january-2021/freedom-of-information-request-on-emails-with-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-foi-20-534

Whether it means the MHRA is compromised is another discussion.

What I would find much more interesting is what percentage of the overall cost of running the MHRA is funded by similar contributors and the pharmaceutical industry.

It’s doesn’t say that the MHRA is compromised, so it must be one of Monkfish1’s misleading conspiracy theories.

Its hardly going to admit to being compromised is it?

Do you really think someone donates money to an organisation without getting something in return? Really? Id love to be that naive!

So what do YOU think one of the world richest men is getting out of it?

Massive tax break
Smugness for donating his wealth to good causes
Fulfilling a sense of moral duty

Just because he is rich, doesn't mean he is evil and certainly doesn't mean he is bribing a health regulatory to push is vaccines and microchips.

Rich people cant win. Get st for making a load of money, then get a load of different shti when they decide to give it to charity for causes they believe in

What's the point of a tax break on money you give away? Cut out the middle man and stop giving it away.

Also it might surprise you but money isn't a big motivator for very rich people. They've already made more then they can ever spend and have the option to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it.

[anonymous-user]

98elise said:

Scabutz said:

98elise said:

monkfish1 said:

V6 Pushfit said:

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

monkfish1 said:

V6 Pushfit said:

monkfish1 said:

Is the MHRA one of your "leading independant bodies"? The one in reciept of funding from Bill Gates? You dont think that might just compromise it just a teeny bit.

Don’t you just love your conspiracies

Hardly a conspiracy. Its on the governments own website.

I doubt very much it’s on the Government website but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s not your own bizarre conspiracy if you could post a link to a page that says the MHRA is compromised due to funding by Bill Gates.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-responses-from-the-mhra-week-commencing-4-january-2021/freedom-of-information-request-on-emails-with-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-foi-20-534

Whether it means the MHRA is compromised is another discussion.

What I would find much more interesting is what percentage of the overall cost of running the MHRA is funded by similar contributors and the pharmaceutical industry.

It’s doesn’t say that the MHRA is compromised, so it must be one of Monkfish1’s misleading conspiracy theories.

Its hardly going to admit to being compromised is it?

Do you really think someone donates money to an organisation without getting something in return? Really? Id love to be that naive!

So what do YOU think one of the world richest men is getting out of it?

Massive tax break
Smugness for donating his wealth to good causes
Fulfilling a sense of moral duty

Just because he is rich, doesn't mean he is evil and certainly doesn't mean he is bribing a health regulatory to push is vaccines and microchips.

Rich people cant win. Get st for making a load of money, then get a load of different shti when they decide to give it to charity for causes they believe in

What's the point of a tax break on money you give away? Cut out the middle man and stop giving it away.

Also it might surprise you but money isn't a big motivator for very rich people. They've already made more then they can ever spend and have the option to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it.

Bang-on there. Gates isn’t interested in hidden motives he just wants to use his wealth to generate good. I don’t understand why people don’t get this.

[MYOB]

V6 Pushfit said:

At what arbitrary point do you have ‘longer term data’ - a year, 5 years... before you get to the point of actually believing what people are telling you now ?

It makes no odd to you when I decide.

[anonymous-user]

MYOB said:

It makes no odd to you when I decide.

The one thing we agree on. Do let us know though so we can all have a chuckle....

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 11th June 15:51

[anonymous-user]

Today’s news:

The Delta variant... fly under the radar and run rampant among younger, partially unvaccinated people :

https://youtu.be/OHBua3aXQ7c

[MYOB]

V6 Pushfit said:

The one thing we agree on. Do let us know though so we can all have a chuckle....

Edited by V6 Pushfit on Friday 11th June 15:51

And why would you have a chuckle?

[67Dino]

witko999 said:

67Dino said:

You’re right to note that one week’s increase at this rate doesn’t seem too bad, especially from a low base. However, what makes viruses so bad is that this rate is likely to persist, giving exponential growth. 19% repeated for 10 weeks is a 600% increase, for 20 weeks is 3200% increase. That’s what I find concerning.

However, you’ve answered my question: this doesn’t worry you because (a) it’s a low base so not a high absolute number, and (b) you don’t believe it will persist. Got it.

Are you Chris Whitty? We can all pointlessly extrapolate slopes on a graph over x number of weeks. We could have said look at the rate of decrease since February. If that continues for 30 weeks we will have -7000 deaths/week. I would hope you could use your intelligence to work out the likelihood of said events happening.

Funny you say that, because I used to make a living doing just that - I founded a company that builds flight simulators to calculate movements of global markets over months and years. Guesswork is rarely right, you have to have the right range of (often competing) factors.

Whitty and co do have excellent models, especially on the R number which is an absolute wotsit to calculate, and they’ve been impressively accurate (if you don’t like the decisions, blame the politicians, not the models).

Negative deaths are possible, of course, but you’re right they are not the most likely outcome in the next few weeks.

Edited by 67Dino on Friday 11th June 18:35

[survivalist]

V6 Pushfit said:

Today’s news:

The Delta variant... fly under the radar and run rampant among younger, partially unvaccinated people :

https://youtu.be/OHBua3aXQ7c

Not really an issue if those at risk of hospitalisation and death have been vaccinated, surely?

[anonymous-user]

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

Today’s news:

The Delta variant... fly under the radar and run rampant among younger, partially unvaccinated people :

https://youtu.be/OHBua3aXQ7c

Not really an issue if those at risk of hospitalisation and death have been vaccinated, surely?

I don’t want to be laid up feeling rough and off work, and don’t know if I’m susceptible or at risk of pegging it, do you?

[Harrison Bergeron]

67Dino said:

You’re right to note that one week’s increase at this rate doesn’t seem too bad, especially from a low base. However, what makes viruses so bad is that this rate is likely to persist, giving exponential growth. 19% repeated for 10 weeks is a 600% increase, for 20 weeks is 3200% increase. That’s what I find concerning.

However, you’ve answered my question: this doesn’t worry you because (a) it’s a low base so not a high absolute number, and (b) you don’t believe it will persist. Got it.

With practically all the vulnerable vaccinated who else is left to end up in hospital?