Conversation Health and Wellbeing
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat


About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

Fears of the unvaxed

A new threat

1 2 Next   Last  

Blackjack

Blackjack  Male  South Yorkshire
20-Nov-2021 01:33 Message #4847405
The Spectator - has published an article, written by Lionel Shriver citing official data from Public Health England, which states that for the over 30’s, “the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.”

This is awkward for some people to accept – I have been telling everyone of the hoax they have been sold as cure by the criminal collusion between corporate interests and governments.

It points out that according to official data, vaccines only offer about 17 per cent protection for the over-fifties.
“As I observed then, this would mean the vaxxed and unvaxxed pose a comparable danger to each other,” writes Shriver.
“All Covid apartheid schemes are therefore insensible.”

She then clearly explains how the official data undermines the entire argument behind vaccine passports, which ban the unvaccinated from entering innumerable venues.

. In every age group over 30 in the UK, the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed. Indeed, in those aged between 40 and 79, infection rates among the vaccinated are more than twice as high as among the unvaccinated. The UK Health Security Agency, frantically clarifies that the data ‘should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness’,

Shriver then summarizes how that data demolishes the reason for implementing vaccine passport schemes.
The lie — that the unvaccinated riff-raff pose a far graver threat of communicable disease than the righteous who got the shot. In truth, the double-jabbed can be just as risky as the great unwashed.

Meanwhile, the Times reports the results of another study which “found the double-jabbed are just as likely to pass on Covid-19 as unvaccinated people.”

After Public Health England published the data, government bureaucrats begin to panic that people would use it to suggest vaccines were not that effective.

Office for Statistics Regulation director Ed Humpherson called an urgent meeting with U.K. Health Security Agency during which he worried about the data having “the potential to mislead.”

“We noted that these data have been used to argue that vaccines are ineffective,” Humpherson subsequently wrote.
Isn’t it strange how the government and associated regulatory bodies appear to be afraid of raw data?

If the vaccines are as effective as they tell us, why would they be worried?
Hierophant

Hierophant  Male  East Anglia
20-Nov-2021 07:49 Message #4847437
I often wonder why vaccinated people are so angry at people who choose not to go down that road.
I wonder if it's jealousy or envy that these people have used their own minds and are prepared to go against the grain?
Deep down do they actually have little faith in the vaccine and as time goes by is that faith declining further?
Of course, our leaders have stoked the flames of division between believers and non-believers and there's now a concerted effort to undermine anybody who isn't fully jabbed.

I was swept up in the "vaccination is the only solution" wave in the beginning, but as time has gone on I've realised I was sold a lie.
Like many I was naive and believed freedom lay on the other side of the jab, well that clearly isn't the case and the data shows things getting worse. If you believe the data, of course.
They told us 15 million jabs to freedom, now there have been 100 million in England alone and true freedom seems further away than ever.
Freedom is being pushed further down the road, now it's three jabs and even then there's no guarantee that's the end of it.

One thing is for sure, I've noticed more and more fully vaccinated people starting to question, ponder and wonder, but there are still many who say they are completely onboard.
For me it comes down to one basic question, why are our leaders so utterly determined to get this jab into every human being and why are they willing to use any means to do it?
Politicians who we know tell lies, fleece expenses and massage unemployment figures are apparently as straight as a die when it comes to this.....
capnblackbeard

capnblackbeard  Male  Hertfordshire
20-Nov-2021 11:01 Message #4847468
in every population there are leaders and then there are followers,
when getting on my flight the spanish girl asked to see my proof of vaccination,
when i said i dont have one ,i havent had it she stood back in amazment,
like i felt i was the only person she has come across flying without wings,


i do believe a lot of pressure is being put on people to conform ,
and lots think having the jab will just save a lot of trouble,
im amazed that anyone would actually volunteer to be a guniue pig,
but hey whatever people want to do im a live and let live type of guy,
capnblackbeard

capnblackbeard  Male  Hertfordshire
20-Nov-2021 11:03 Message #4847469
just to add i didnt have to show a negative test or proof to leave the uk
cause at the time the destination country didnt want it, they just said we are open now, please come,
thats changed now, you need to show proof of jab or negative test to go,
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
20-Nov-2021 12:41 Message #4847490
Blackjack: "The Spectator - has published an article, written by Lionel Shriver citing official data from Public Health England, which states that for the over 30's, 'the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.'"

You copy/pasted practically the whole of your post, without stating that, from extreme right-wing website https://americanfaith.com/official-public-health-england-data-says-covid-infection-rates-higher-in-vaxxed-than-unvaxxed/ or one of its clones. Such right-wing websites often have conspiracy theories and mislead people.

Lionel Shriver's article is "The absurd theatre of vaccine passports" (20-Nov-21) https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-absurd-theatre-of-vaccine-passports (I had to start a subscription just to read it). It should link to the original Public Health England Report, but it doesn't. In August 2021 Public Health England published "COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report" for weeks 31, 32, 33 & 34.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1008919/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_31.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1010472/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_32.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012420/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_33.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1013553/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_34.pdf
I don't have much time these days to research in detail many of your posts, but I have looked through all of those reports. None of them mention 100,000, but they all give reasons behind the calculations and details of various studies. Looking into this post has taken too much of my time, so (to support your post) could you (or anyone else) please give a link to exactly which PHE report Lionel Shriver is referring to.

The week 31 PHE report includes "Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that a single dose of either vaccine is between 55 and 70% effective against symptomatic disease, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalisation and death. Additional protection is seen after a second dose. There is now also evidence from a number of studies that the vaccines are effective at protecting against infection and transmission. ... The latest estimates indicate that the vaccination programme has directly averted over 66,900 hospitalisations. Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 21.3 and 22.9 million infections and between 57,500 and 62,700 deaths."
The week 32 PHE report includes "Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 22.9 and 23.8 million infections and between 81,300 and 87,800 deaths."
The week 33 PHE report includes "Estimates suggest that 95,200 deaths and 23,957,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, up to 13 August."
The week 34 PHE report includes "Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 97.7% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 18.7% that have antibodies from infection alone. Over 95% of adults aged 17 or older have antibodies from either infection or vaccination. The latest estimates indicate that the vaccination programme has directly averted over 82,100 hospitalisations. Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 23.8 and 24.4 million infections and between 102,500 and 109,500 deaths."

But Bl
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
20-Nov-2021 12:45 Message #4847491
But Blackjack continues his many posts that make misrepresentations, and, if followed, are likely to increase Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths.

So I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from. Maybe from someone who wrote falsehoods. In several threads I have pointed out that posts by Blackjack and some others have completely misrepresented official reports, and articles in some websites do the same.

Or maybe someone who fell into the same trap that into which you Blackjack fell in thread "Can a convicted pathological liar be found innocent?" https://www.midsummerseve.com/fora/thread.aspx?threadid=197011&page=1 where I explained several times how your logic and maths were faulty, by not considering the relevant populations.

If everyone were vaccinated, then everyone who catches Covid-19 would be vaccinated, but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19. Consider this example. Suppose that out of 100,000 people, 80% are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and 20% unvaccinated. (Here we'll ignore the complication of partly vaccinated, e.g. 1 jab).
(a) If 7% of the 80,000 vaccinated get Covid-19, and 3% of the 20,000 unvaccinated get Covid-19, then that would indicate that it is safer to be unvaccinated.
(a) If 7% vaccinated people of the 100,000 population get Covid-19, and 3% unvaccinated people of the 100,000 population get Covid-19, then a 10 year-old might say that 7% or 7,000 people is more than 3% or 3,000 people, so that indicates that it is safer to be unvaccinated - but that is wrong. One needs to consider 7,000 people who get Covid-19 out of 80,000 vaccinated, which is 8.75%, and 3,000 people who get Covid-19 out of 20,000 unvaccinated, which is 15%, and 15% is more than 8.75%, so it is safer to be vaccinated.
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
20-Nov-2021 13:04 Message #4847493
Heirophant: "I often wonder why vaccinated people are so angry at people who choose not to go down that road.
I wonder if it's jealousy or envy that these people have used their own minds and are prepared to go against the grain?
Deep down do they actually have little faith in the vaccine and as time goes by is that faith declining further?"

Read the evidence from numerous countries, and don't assign false motives to people.
Although the effectiveness of the vaccines has been found to decrease with time, they are still better at preventing hospitalisations and deaths than not being vaccinated.

Heirophant: "For me it comes down to one basic question, why are our leaders so utterly determined to get this jab into every human being and why are they willing to use any means to do it?"
My answer is: Because they have expert advisers on health who consider the evidence. That applies to most countries in the world, including Russia and China. Most governments don't want their people to die from Covid-19 - even if they don't care about their people, it isn't good for their country and it looks bad, and if there are free & fair elections then it reduces their chances of being elected in future.
If you disagree with my answer, would you or Blackjack or anyone else please answer your question.

Heirophant: "They told us 15 million jabs to freedom, now there have been 100 million in England alone and true freedom seems further away than ever."
Who told us "15 million jabs to freedom"?
The jabs aren't 100% effective.
It also depends on public behaviour, and that is hard to predict. Many (encouraged by Blackjack et al) have ignored or defied safety precautions such as wearing a mask and socially distancing, especially when indoors with strangers.
Unfortunately Coronavirus has variants, such as the Delta variant and possibly others in future, which are more difficult to prevent.
capnblackbeard

capnblackbeard  Male  Hertfordshire
20-Nov-2021 13:13 Message #4847494
and yet we are now told son of delta is milder and more people are asymptomatic, meaning the virus is mutating to kill less people
Blackjack

Blackjack  Male  South Yorkshire
20-Nov-2021 16:15 Message #4847501
Well WHO WOKE UP the propaganda CURATE who like DRACULA dares to intrude yet again – as his mantra is getting thinner as the evidence I predicted starts to make his stance on his ideological borrowings it regurgitates - is getting somewhat threadbare. But lets watch as the person who clings to the coattails of the official indoctrination slowly drowns in his cloak of chosen corruptions over the next few months - lets play the LONG GAME!.

The curate joker – the all knowing one with not a original idea of its own, asks the simplest of question one might expect from someone pretending to stand in for the SPANISH INQUISITION.


The curate asked - I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from.

But this particular brainwashed example is not interested in the question it asked – preferring to answer it himself - Maybe from someone who wrote falsehoods.

He is a believer, he trusts the official doctrine as he has not one idea of its own, as his complete history of posts glaringly exposes.

Lets remind the brainwashed one that the term VACCINE was changed to allow the criminal pharmaceutical corporate agenda to pass of its fake therapy as a vaccine – which incubates the virus. One could propose that the virus has in fact infected the mind of the curate, making it obey mindlessly the only official truth there is in the universe. It is obviously its no longer itself anymore, needing scapegoats to spits its bile upon, thus reinforcing its fake sense of individuality.

PROOF that the curate has become a victim of the virus is demonstrated by its infantile logic.

“If everyone were vaccinated, then everyone who catches Covid-19 would be vaccinated, but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19”.

NO!!! - Mr. Curate brain-dead - it appears the brainwashing has washed away far too may synaptic connections

If everyone were vaccinated, then everyone who catches Covid-19 would be vaccinated, 10 out of ten our resident genius. Thanks for the stating the bleedin obvious which to you is obviously divine wisdom. Seems you missed some medication.

Then the brainwashed curate goes further as it state -, “but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19”. Well not sure where that argument came from, or who suggested such nonsense, but brainwashed are apt to invent arguments as it disappears up its own limited thought processes.

It is near Christmas and being charitable person am thinking its time to start a collection for the seriously afflicted, or is that vaccine or virus damaged. It is obvious its has trotted along for its third jab, as somehow it woke up and attempted to reinstate its fake IDENTITY again. As it know the TRUTH the ONLY truth as its got divine influence – it has bee touched – and the curate can only go forward, making an incremental idiot of itself unaware that the mounting evidence will buy it once and for all.

So the collection is for its funeral – and maybe there might be a chance of a Damascene intervention in which the brainwashing might be realised, leaving a sad empty husk of what it was before it was inseminated with the indoctrination.

Hope this is found to be creatively funny by one and all.
NoSaint

NoSaint  Female  Devon
20-Nov-2021 16:20 Message #4847504
*Jeff Male East Sussex
20-Nov-2021 12:41 new Message #4847490
Blackjack: "The Spectator - has published an article, written by Lionel Shriver citing official data from Public Health England, which states that for the over 30's, 'the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.'"

You copy/pasted practically the whole of your post, without stating that, from extreme right-wing website https://americanfaith.com/official-public-health-england-data-says-covid-infection-rates-higher-in-vaxxed-than-unvaxxed/ or one of its clones. Such right-wing websites often have conspiracy theories and mislead people.

Lionel Shriver's article is "The absurd theatre of vaccine passports" (20-Nov-21) https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-absurd-theatre-of-vaccine-passports (I had to start a subscription just to read it). It should link to the original Public Health England Report, but it doesn't. In August 2021 Public Health England published "COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report" for weeks 31, 32, 33 & 34.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1008919/Vaccinesurveillancereport-week31.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1010472/Vaccinesurveillancereport-week32.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1012420/Vaccinesurveillancereport-week33.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1013553/Vaccinesurveillancereport-week34.pdf
I don't have much time these days to research in detail many of your posts, but I have looked through all of those reports. None of them mention 100,000, but they all give reasons behind the calculations and details of various studies. Looking into this post has taken too much of my time, so (to support your post) could you (or anyone else) please give a link to exactly which PHE report Lionel Shriver is referring to.

The week 31 PHE report includes "Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that a single dose of either vaccine is between 55 and 70% effective against symptomatic disease, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalisation and death. Additional protection is seen after a second dose. There is now also evidence from a number of studies that the vaccines are effective at protecting against infection and transmission. ... The latest estimates indicate that the vaccination programme has directly averted over 66,900 hospitalisations. Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 21.3 and 22.9 million infections and between 57,500 and 62,700 deaths."
The week 32 PHE report includes "Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality, suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 22.9 and 23.8 million infections and between 81,300 and 87,800 deaths."
The week 33 PHE report includes "Estimates suggest that 95,200 deaths and 23,957,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, up to 13 August."
The week 34 PHE report includes "Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 97.7% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 18.7% that have antibodies from infection alone. Over 95% of adults aged 17 or older have antibodies from either infection or vaccination. The latest estimates indicate that the vaccination programme has directly averted over 82,100 hospitalisations. Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 23.8 and 24.4 million infections and betwee
NoSaint

NoSaint  Female  Devon
20-Nov-2021 16:20 Message #4847505
Jeff Male East Sussex
20-Nov-2021 12:45 new Message #4847491
But Blackjack continues his many posts that make misrepresentations, and, if followed, are likely to increase Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths.

So I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from. Maybe from someone who wrote falsehoods. In several threads I have pointed out that posts by Blackjack and some others have completely misrepresented official reports, and articles in some websites do the same.

Or maybe someone who fell into the same trap that into which you Blackjack fell in thread "Can a convicted pathological liar be found innocent?" https://www.midsummerseve.com/fora/thread.aspx?threadid=197011&page=1 where I explained several times how your logic and maths were faulty, by not considering the relevant populations.

If everyone were vaccinated, then everyone who catches Covid-19 would be vaccinated, but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19. Consider this example. Suppose that out of 100,000 people, 80% are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and 20% unvaccinated. (Here we'll ignore the complication of partly vaccinated, e.g. 1 jab).
(a) If 7% of the 80,000 vaccinated get Covid-19, and 3% of the 20,000 unvaccinated get Covid-19, then that would indicate that it is safer to be unvaccinated.
(a) If 7% vaccinated people of the 100,000 population get Covid-19, and 3% unvaccinated people of the 100,000 population get Covid-19, then a 10 year-old might say that 7% or 7,000 people is more than 3% or 3,000 people, so that indicates that it is safer to be unvaccinated - but that is wrong. One needs to consider 7,000 people who get Covid-19 out of 80,000 vaccinated, which is 8.75%, and 3,000 people who get Covid-19 out of 20,000 unvaccinated, which is 15%, and 15% is more than 8.75%, so it is safer to be vaccinated.
NoSaint

NoSaint  Female  Devon
20-Nov-2021 16:21 Message #4847506
Good posts Jeff. A bit of sanity amongst the insanity.
Hierophant

Hierophant  Male  East Anglia
20-Nov-2021 16:26 Message #4847509
"My answer is: Because they have expert advisers on health who consider the evidence."

Well Jeff, the data doesn't square with the desperate need to jab people. If the vaccine was proved to be the silver bullet they promised, then I could understand the pressure on everybody to get jabbed. But it isn't, far from it and it seems the more we jab, the more infections appear.
Nobody seems able to explain why the situation is worse now than it was in 2020 when jabs were a forlorn hope.

As an aside, it's worth remembering that our leaders are elected but the expert health advisers are not. Ultimately, it's the elected leaders who make the decisions, so given what's happened, the next election will be fascinating.
I wonder what will happen with those who have been shut out from society because they don't want the jab? Surely, these people are not going to vote for the people that curtailed their freedom, so it would be logical to think they'll cause problems.
After all, the jailed are unlikely to vote for their jailer.
I wonder if voting will be limited to the vaccinated only. Now wouldn't that be a thing?

15 million jabs to freedom was a government mantra trotted out by Johnson and Hancock. A massive lie, obviously....
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-Nov-2021 10:59 Message #4847595
1. Blackjack: "the propaganda CURATE ... The curate joker ... But this particular brainwashed example ... the brainwashed one ... It is obviously its no longer itself anymore ... Mr. Curate brain-dead ... Seems you missed some medication ... the brainwashed curate ... attempted to reinstate its fake IDENTITY again ... making an incremental idiot of itself"
As usual, you respond to my post by false insults rather than facts, also you repeatedly call me "it". Although every day I watch numerous religious videos, that is to see what is advocated by people I disagree with, (since my youth I have always disbelieved religions), I have never been a curate or anything like it. I have never used a fake identity, not even in my MSE shortened name. (Incidentally, most people who have sent me a private message revealed their name, but you didn't.)

2. Jeff: "So I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from."
Blackjack: "But this particular brainwashed example is not interested in the question it asked"
That is false. I am always interested in getting answers to questions that I ask, but you hardly ever answer them, although I have answered practically all of your questions. In numerous threads, including this one, I have shown that I'm very interested in the sources of "information".
I wrote "Looking into this post has taken too much of my time, so (to support your post) could you (or anyone else) please give a link to exactly which PHE report Lionel Shriver is referring to."
I had to start a subscription to The Spectator just to read Shriver's article - did you read it in The Spectator? It includes "In August, Public Health England released data which shows that vaccination does not appreciably guard against Covid infection and transmission and protection worked out at around 17 per cent for the over-fifties." Shriver should have stated which report it was - I took the trouble to download, read, quote from and give links to 4 PHE articles in August 2021 so that anybody could check that I was quoting accurately. This morning I read more PHE reports from that month and that mention that month, but none of them show what Shriver says they contain.
As every PHE report that I have read about Covid-19 vaccines says that they are effective, I don't believe that there is a PHE report that says what Shriver claims it says. I think that this is yet another example of falsely stating what an official report says. But I'm willing to be proved wrong if you or anyone else can direct us all to that report. So if I'm wrong then why don't you support your case and show to all of us that Shriver is being truthful about a PHE report?

3. Blackjack: "He is a believer, he trusts the official doctrine as he has not one idea of its own, as his complete history of posts glaringly exposes."
You have written hundreds of falsehoods, as your complete history of posts glaringly exposes. Some of your falsehoods are misrepresentations of what official reports say, and what I have written. Whether or not you believe them and agree with them, it is wrong of you to misrepresent them.

4. Jeff: "If everyone were vaccinated, then everyone who catches Covid-19 would be vaccinated"
Blackjack: "Thanks for the stating the bleedin obvious which to you is obviously divine wisdom."
Correction: My 2nd "(a)" should have been "(b)", i.e. "(b) If 7% vaccinated people ...".
I stated that with the purpose of pointing out that you cannot simply look at the percentage of vaccinated people who get Covid-19, and claim that a large percentage indicates that vaccines are ineffective or increase the likelihood of getting Covid-19, and that immediately led to my logic & maths in subsections (a) & (b) (mistakenly labelled 2nd "(a)"). You need to look at which population is relevant. Those 2 subsections are my own reasoning, (not copied or adapted from anywhere), so if you disagree, then please point out the error in my logic &

Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-Nov-2021 11:07 Message #4847597
You need to look at which population is relevant. Those 2 subsections are my own reasoning, (not copied or adapted from anywhere), so if you disagree, then please point out the error in my logic & maths in those subsections.
You made a similar mistake in thread "Can a convicted pathological liar be found innocent?".

5. Jeff: (following my quote 4 above): "but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19."
Blackjack: "Well not sure where that argument came from, or who suggested such nonsense, but brainwashed are apt to invent arguments as it disappears up its own limited thought processes."
In various threads of you have stated that more vaccinated people catch Covid-19 than unvaccinated people catch it. For example, in this thread on 20-Nov-21 you quoted without criticism Shriver writing "the over 30's, 'the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.'" In thread "Can a convicted pathological liar be found innocent?" on 29-Aug-21 you wrote "Again the evidence is beginning to suggest that the vaccinated are more likely to die from a mutation than the unvaccinated which I have repeatedly stated for over a year. My repeated suggestions have been that not only are the EMERGENCY vaccines ineffective but assist the virus to infect people, which some suggest is the point of the global vaccination".


Hierophant,
Sorry about my sometimes accidentally misspelling your name as Heirophant.

6. Hierophant: "the data doesn't square with the desperate need to jab people."
Numerous studies and reports show that there is a desperate need to jab people. e.g. A Public Health England report that I quoted on 20-Nov-21 at 12:41 includes "the vaccination programme has directly averted over 82,100 hospitalisations. Analysis on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality suggests the vaccination programme has prevented between 23.8 and 24.4 million infections and between 102,500 and 109,500 deaths". You can look at the report to see the basis of its calculations and the sources of its data.

7. Hierophant: "If the vaccine was proved to be the silver bullet they promised, then I could understand the pressure on everybody to get jabbed."
The vaccines were never claimed to be 100% effective by the manufacturers or independent testers or in official reports. Although not 100% effective, up to 90% at the start and so worth getting vaccinated if you haven't been, or even as low as ~40% after some months, is better than nothing.
The pressure is on the hospitals, whose staff are even more overworked than usual. And the pressure is on people with other illnesses who have their hospital appointments postponed or cancelled because the hospitals have large numbers of Covid-19 patients.

8. Hierophant: "the silver bullet they promised ... But it isn't, far from it and it seems the more we jab, the more infections appear. Nobody seems able to explain why the situation is worse now than it was in 2020 when jabs were a forlorn hope."
I gave some reasons in my post of 20-Nov-21 at 13:03 last section.
Also see section 5 above about "but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19".

9. Hierophant: "our leaders are elected but the expert health advisers are not. Ultimately, it's the elected leaders who make the decisions"
That is correct. Leaders and experts are sometimes mistaken and sometimes they lie. But I prefer a leader who takes advice from experts who study a lot of evidence and have the interests of public health, rather than a leader who ignores them.

10. Hierophant: "15 million jabs to freedom was a government mantra trotted out by Johnson and Hancock A massive lie, obviously...."
I agree that they sometimes tell massive lies. But can you please give a link to where they said that. The opposite of them saying that is:-
- In YouTube video "Boris Johnson hails 15 million coronavirus vac
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-Nov-2021 11:08 Message #4847598
10. Hierophant: "15 million jabs to freedom was a government mantra trotted out by Johnson and Hancock A massive lie, obviously...."
I agree that they sometimes tell massive lies. But can you please give a link to where they said that. The opposite of them saying that is:-
- In YouTube video "Boris Johnson hails 15 million coronavirus vaccine jabs as 'significant milestone'" on 14-Feb-21 Johnson greatly praises 15 million jabs having been done, but at 2 minutes 23 seconds he says "We've still got a long way to go. And there will undoubtedly be bumps in the road."
- On 15-Feb-21 Sky News article "COVID-19: Phase two of vaccine roll-out under way as first target is hit" includes "Mr Hancock said the milestone was a 'little step towards freedom for us all', but there was 'no rest for the wicked' ... [Hancock said:] 'There is a huge programme under way rolling out to invite the next group of people to be vaccinated and, at the same time, from next month we have the second jabs of all the people who have come since January ... So there is still a huge amount of work to do' ... Mr Hancock said the number of coronavirus deaths is falling, but it is 'too early' to say whether this is a direct result of the UK's vaccination programme."
Blackjack

Blackjack  Male  South Yorkshire
21-Nov-2021 13:07 Message #4847616
5. Jeff: (following my quote 4 above): "but that doesn't indicate that the vaccine causes Covid-19."
Blackjack: "Well not sure where that argument came from, or who suggested such nonsense, but brainwashed are apt to invent arguments as it disappears up its own limited thought processes."

Covid is not caused by the jab – it appears increasingly to do the expected to facilitate its existence and evolutionary survival – which is the point as only through creating an ever evolving threat can one continuously SELL pretend cures for it.

This is a cynical marketing ploy using propaganda to make people willing lab rats for a pretend cure in which spouting it has saved millions is actually meaningless as its not a FACT that natural Immunity if far better then the pharmaceutical pop up products. It reminds me of the people walking freely into the gas chambers – taking on trust a product that is still being evaluated and the US government’s so confident of its properties it will take 70 years to disclose what the evidence is backing up this claim. It proves being open to peer reviewing all the evidence is not something anyone wants to happen.

Unlike your DEAR jeff who can only respond in a knee jerk way, serving up your fabricated nonsense thinking that shuts the door on the subject – I TAKE THE LONG VIEW – I let the evidence from the biggest experiment on humanity be revealed – and as in most vaccine development it takes well over a decade, and 40 years later there is no vaccine against AIDS is there jeff regardless of continuous research.

So to you the world is flat, and you like the morons before you will stick to this BELIEF till the evidence over time proves what idiots and narrow minded self interested fools they were.

Your absurd excuse is infantile the “”vaccine”” as you call it is not 100 % effective, and you are so amusing – its like watching someone in a leaky boat trying to lead the lemmings to the promised land, develop more leaks as the whole boat is rotten, and you are trying to prove someone floating is what appears to be turning into a sieve.

You cannot disseminate what is propaganda and what is not, in fact not sure you know how to identify it - Maybe its time for you to air your bigotry again about Trump as he is a significant player still – and a threat to going for the presidency again - while not realising that Boris and the government peddle little but lies continuously regardless of subject matter – as like you they share the indulgence of self interest and if you read my post on I am Terrified of knowledge have colluded if not consciously instigated mass murder. The doctors and nurses a involved are taking on trust government advice believing what they are told is in fact truthful and in the best interest of their charges. Maybe you dare to comment on that - if you dare!

It would be interesting to know you views - if you are capable of any that is - and maybe its time for you to catch up with what is actually going on and not rely on what you are told is going on.
Blackjack

Blackjack  Male  South Yorkshire
21-Nov-2021 16:34 Message #4847633
The regurgitating mindless cleric sticking to the OFFICIAL script, a fanatical believer in ONLY pure OFFICIAL CRAP -

When told the piece was from the Spectator and by a specify author who took the evidence from Public Health England confures ithe Cleric's raddled mind.

So it asked the question which was right in fron of his propaganda blinded eyes - - - JEFF: So I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from - If this is not an example of unalulterated idiocy - WHAT is?

Then further down the same page it was revealed the Times reports the results of another study which “found the double-jabbed are just as likely to pass on Covid-19 as unvaccinated people.”


This was obviously too much for the CURATE who decided it had to be ignored - too much touble and its the Times too - best not to slag off that one - so this creature spends it time watching videos on social media, which helps explain the need to be spoon fed nonsense - then its back to the safety of the imprint of the propaganda -


Please everyone give generously for the lost and disorientated, the misguided and them that attempt to be KLEVA they need your support - as fragile constitution, and sadly outside of the offical messages appear to be interested in little else - the remnants of teachers pet syndrome need support.
NoSaint

NoSaint  Female  Devon
21-Nov-2021 17:27 Message #4847648
Jeff Male East Sussex
20-Nov-2021 13:04 Message #4847493
Heirophant: "I often wonder why vaccinated people are so angry at people who choose not to go down that road.
I wonder if it's jealousy or envy that these people have used their own minds and are prepared to go against the grain?
Deep down do they actually have little faith in the vaccine and as time goes by is that faith declining further?"
Read the evidence from numerous countries, and don't assign false motives to people.
Although the effectiveness of the vaccines has been found to decrease with time, they are still better at preventing hospitalisations and deaths than not being vaccinated.

Heirophant: "For me it comes down to one basic question, why are our leaders so utterly determined to get this jab into every human being and why are they willing to use any means to do it?"
My answer is: Because they have expert advisers on health who consider the evidence. That applies to most countries in the world, including Russia and China. Most governments don't want their people to die from Covid-19 - even if they don't care about their people, it isn't good for their country and it looks bad, and if there are free & fair elections then it reduces their chances of being elected in future.
If you disagree with my answer, would you or Blackjack or anyone else please answer your question.

Heirophant: "They told us 15 million jabs to freedom, now there have been 100 million in England alone and true freedom seems further away than ever."
Who told us "15 million jabs to freedom"?
The jabs aren't 100% effective.
It also depends on public behaviour, and that is hard to predict. Many (encouraged by Blackjack et al) have ignored or defied safety precautions such as wearing a mask and socially distancing, especially when indoors with strangers.
Unfortunately Coronavirus has variants, such as the Delta variant and possibly others in future, which are more difficult to prevent.


Good post Jeff
NoSaint

NoSaint  Female  Devon
21-Nov-2021 17:29 Message #4847649
1. Blackjack: "the propaganda CURATE ... The curate joker ... But this particular brainwashed example ... the brainwashed one ... It is obviously its no longer itself anymore ... Mr. Curate brain-dead ... Seems you missed some medication ... the brainwashed curate ... attempted to reinstate its fake IDENTITY again ... making an incremental idiot of itself"
As usual, you respond to my post by false insults rather than facts, also you repeatedly call me "it". Although every day I watch numerous religious videos, that is to see what is advocated by people I disagree with, (since my youth I have always disbelieved religions), I have never been a curate or anything like it. I have never used a fake identity, not even in my MSE shortened name. (Incidentally, most people who have sent me a private message revealed their name, but you didn't.)

2. Jeff: "So I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from."
Blackjack: "But this particular brainwashed example is not interested in the question it asked"
That is false. I am always interested in getting answers to questions that I ask, but you hardly ever answer them, although I have answered practically all of your questions. In numerous threads, including this one, I have shown that I'm very interested in the sources of "information".
I wrote "Looking into this post has taken too much of my time, so (to support your post) could you (or anyone else) please give a link to exactly which PHE report Lionel Shriver is referring to."
I had to start a subscription to The Spectator just to read Shriver's article - did you read it in The Spectator? It includes "In August, Public Health England released data which shows that vaccination does not appreciably guard against Covid infection and transmission and protection worked out at around 17 per cent for the over-fifties." Shriver should have stated which report it was - I took the trouble to download, read, quote from and give links to 4 PHE articles in August 2021 so that anybody could check that I was quoting accurately. This morning I read more PHE reports from that month and that mention that month, but none of them show what Shriver says they contain.
As every PHE report that I have read about Covid-19 vaccines says that they are effective, I don't believe that there is a PHE report that says what Shriver claims it says. I think that this is yet another example of falsely stating what an official report says. But I'm willing to be proved wrong if you or anyone else can direct us all to that report. So if I'm wrong then why don't you support your case and show to all of us that Shriver is being truthful about a PHE report?

3. Blackjack: "He is a believer, he trusts the official doctrine as he has not one idea of its own, as his complete history of posts glaringly exposes."
You have written hundreds of falsehoods, as your complete history of posts glaringly exposes. Some of your falsehoods are misrepresentations of what official reports say, and what I have written. Whether or not you believe them and agree with them, it is wrong of you to misrepresent them.

4. Jeff: "If everyone were vaccinated, then everyone who catches Covid-19 would be vaccinated"
Blackjack: "Thanks for the stating the bleedin obvious which to you is obviously divine wisdom."
Correction: My 2nd "(a)" should have been "(b)", i.e. "(b) If 7% vaccinated people ...".
I stated that with the purpose of pointing out that you cannot simply look at the percentage of vaccinated people who get Covid-19, and claim that a large percentage indicates that vaccines are ineffective or increase the likelihood of getting Covid-19, and that immediately led to my logic & maths in subsections (a) & (b) (mistakenly labelled 2nd "(a)"). You need to look at which population is relevant. Those 2 subsections are my own reasoning, (not copied or adapted from anywhere), so if you disagree, then please point out the error in my logic


Blackjack does not have the necessary knowle
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
22-Nov-2021 18:00 Message #4847804
Lionel Shriver's article "The absurd theatre of vaccine passports" was published on 20-Nov-21, and includes "Fresher information has fortified this conclusion of the summer. In every age group over 30 in the UK, the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed. Indeed, in the cohorts aged between 40 and 79, infection rates among the vaccinated are more than twice as high as among the unvaccinated."
I have found what Shriver was referring to. In the UK Health Security Agency (previously called Public Health England) report "COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 46" (18-Nov-21), page 17 includes:-
"The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated (Table 6). This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns."

Notice the importance of the relevant population, as I illustrated on 20-Nov-21 at 12:45 in my subsections (a) and 2nd "(a)" (which should be (b)). I think that here "vaccinated" is ambiguous whether fully vaccinated, and the phrase "the rate of a positive COVID-19 test" is ambiguous about the population. To explain the latter, I'll skip 2 paragraphs, so the report continues:-
"These data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19."
[There are also other factors, with similar repeated several times, including:-]
"- people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace)
- many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues
- people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19
- people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks."

On page 24 Table 6 showing rates per 100,000 includes "The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data and there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 population groups", and repeats the above.

In case you're suspicious about my continuity of argument skipping 2 paragraphs, they are:-
"The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and **is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to va
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
22-Nov-2021 18:06 Message #4847805
In case you're suspicious about my continuity of argument skipping 2 paragraphs, they are:-
"The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals."

Lionel Shriver didn't mention that the report she referred to had those 2 paragraphs!

Nor did she mention that the report that she referred to includes:-
"Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalisation and death. There is some evidence of waning of protection against infection and symptomatic disease over time, though protection against severe disease remains high in most groups at least 5 months after the second dose. ...
several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also effective at preventing transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding)."

Whether or not you believe or agree with a report, if you are referring to it then you should represent it fairly.
Blackjack

Blackjack  Male  South Yorkshire
23-Nov-2021 01:05 Message #4847877
I am just making sure you are digging yourself into a hole you cannot escape from - as all my predictions are coming true, go and get your No3 jab Jeff, and continue to swallow the lies - as I mentioned before the mRNA jabs came out this pop up instant as opposed to final solution was tried years before, on children and lab animals with devastating results.

I explained how this little understood form of genetic manipulation aided the infection killing all the animals and many children. I also expect pregnancies to be aborted at an unusual level as well as the side effects and deaths to continue unlike any previous treatment of vaccine. But its only a year old, and the effects are just starting- the fall in birth rates should come in a couple of years, and the killing of people by variations of the virus should rocket as the fake vaccine assists infections as the whole design was predicated on it being self reinforcing money grabbing exercise and they have to prolong the EMERGENCY status otherwise as the legal profession will start to expose the corruption that created the whole fabrication of the pandemic.

I also explained in detail the Astra Zenica individual's ideological belief system long ago - which is shared and propagated by Boris - plus the massive expansion in super sized crematoriums being built all over the Uk by the private sector who obvious expect long term profits from mass deaths.

Look at the bigger picture jeff, the turning of people against each other to keep them occupied while behind the scenes a bigger game is being played not by the insignificant pawn like you and me.

To me you are one of the walking dead, the new Auschwitz recruits willing to believe the shower rooms are there to cleanse you, as the mRNA therapy is now its subtle substitute. What if in the next 5 -10 years the population of the Uk falls by 20% births down deaths up? Starting shortly after the introduction of the profit driven vaccine. Seen what is happening in Ireland 93% vaccinated jeff? Explain the deaths and hospitalisations of the vaccinated?

You represent a walking talking corpse if the emerging evidence continues - and who know things could end up heating up for you jeff - the ovens await their devotees jeff!!
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
23-Nov-2021 10:04 Message #4847932
Blackjack: "Your absurd excuse is infantile the 'vaccine' as you call it is not 100 % effective"
That is not an "absurd excuse" or "infantile". It happens to be true. I repeat:-
"The vaccines were never claimed to be 100% effective by the manufacturers or independent testers or in official reports. Although not 100% effective, up to 90% at the start and so worth getting vaccinated if you haven't been, or even as low as ~40% after some months, is better than nothing". ("90%" should be "~90%" (approx. 90%), as some studies showed some vaccines to be more than 90% effective.)

Blackjack: "JEFF: So I wonder where Lionel Shriver got her figures from - If this is not an example of unalulterated idiocy - WHAT is?"
Sources of "information" are extremely important. Your calling my wondering about the source "unalulterated idiocy" shows that you don't look into allegations when they disagree with what you advocate - which I have shown above to be twisting what the original report said.
I agree with Proverbs 18:17 that "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." and people should consider responses before rating untrue posts as Excellent.

Blackjack: "But this particular brainwashed example is not interested in the question it asked – preferring to answer it himself - Maybe from someone who wrote falsehoods."
I followed that with "Or maybe someone who fell into the same trap that into which you Blackjack fell in thread "Can a convicted pathological liar be found innocent?" ... where I explained several times how your logic and maths were faulty, by not considering the relevant populations."
Although at that stage I hadn't found Shriver's source, my 2nd "maybe" turned out to be the case.

Blackjack: "Maybe you dare to comment on that - if you dare!"
Maybe you dare to answer my questions - if you dare!

Blackjack: "What if in the next 5 -10 years the population of the Uk falls by 20% births down deaths up?"
What if in the next 1 year a sizeable proportion of the population of the UK falls because of following your advice against vaccines and safety precautions (especially when indoors with strangers)?

Blackjack: " Seen what is happening in Ireland 93% vaccinated jeff? Explain the deaths and hospitalisations of the vaccinated?"
I've read that many people are complacent at having been vaccinated, so they are ignoring the advice to continue to wear a mask and socially distance indoors. At present I don't have time to research it, such as how long ago people were vaccinated and didn't have a booster jab (because effectiveness wanes), and how closely they interact in pubs etc.

Blackjack: "Maybe its time for you to air your bigotry again about Trump"
Practically everything I write about Trump is facts, including videos of what Trump and his close supporters said. It seems that you are supporting Trump, as Russia did. YouTube TellTale (Owen Morgan) and others show numerous right-wing pastors breaking the law (Johnson Amendment tax code 501(c)(3)), some regarding Trump like Jesus, and getting their huge congregations to support Trump. YouTube "16 Problems with Divine Command Theory - Jonathan MS Pearce @A Tippling Philosopher" includes at 4 minutes 20 seconds:-
"Donald's middle name is John. The gospel of John, great gospel. John chapter 21 verse 22 ... [Jesus said] 'follow thou me'. Why don't you go into a voting booth and do as I would do. 'Follow me.' It's a simple election. You can stay home, but if you're a Christian you'd better not go in that booth and vote for the other candidate. because God is watching, and you will answer to Him one day. That's in bible, that's not my opinion. ... Which candidates are standing for free market Capitalism where they get to keep their capital, they get to keep their estate, those are the ones I'm going to vote for, not the ones that are into this Marxian Socialism which came up from a rebellious disobedient ba
Jeff

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
23-Nov-2021 10:11 Message #4847933
[In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-OlIuFZlY&t=401s after 4m20s the pastor said:]
"Which candidates are standing for free market Capitalism where they get to keep their capital, they get to keep their estate, those are the ones I'm going to vote for, not the ones that are into this Marxian Socialism which came up from a rebellious disobedient backsliding Jew that hated my father [God] and died in his sins and is burning in hell at this moment. ... [if I vote for] one of those D's (Democrats) who hates my father [God] and hates Israel and is for Communism, and kills little babies, my father is recording, watching, and will hold me accountable for that one day. You can't vote for a Democrat and be a Christian according to the bible. So what would happen, you know what He [Jesus] would do? He would vote for Donald Trump."
(Karl Marx's ancestors were Jews but he wasn't one, Jesus was a rebellious disobedient Jew, and I think that Joe Biden and his government have far more good Christian principles than Trump and his government.)

1 2 Next   Last  


 Back to top

 Help with conversations