Has anyone noticed Covid spikes after gatherings

[Shamal]

Believe in what you want.

Belief is a wonderful thing and no mans belief is any less valid than his brothers.

 

Tolerance is also a wonderful thing. Just remember someone is tolerating you!

 

So just shut the FUCK UP!

and enjoy whats left of 🎄  🙂🙂🙂

 

Regards 😉

 

[colinjallen]

7 hours ago, AirSniper said:

Scoff all you like. At some point in the future, the funnies you make will backfire on you.

 

Try this 

 
Seems that the Aussies have more of a clue than we do here...

Then go down the rabbit hole and see a growing body of evidence of a cover up by the CCP.

So I say again, scoff and laugh all you like as you are the fools. Just sayin'.

While it is very likely that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab, it shows no evidence of having been man made.  It does show all the characteristics of being a naturally occurring virus.

I am not a virologist, but have a friend who is.  Similarly to many virologists around the world, his team have been studying this thing from the start; there is no evidence whatever that it is man made.

Incidentally, I was in Wuhan in December 2019; there were reports of a cluster of pneumonia cases in the days before I flew home on 17th December.

As for Omicron being "trucked in" to Africa, that is not at all supported by any of the evidence; the same is true of your bizarre claim that Tredos (I assume you mean Tedros) is a member of the CCP (actually the CPC) as he is neither Chinese nor a citizen of the PRC.

Given your apparent deep knowledge of China, I assume that you have travelled extensively in that country and can talk with the locals.

28 minutes ago, Shamal said:

Believe in what you want.

Belief is a wonderful thing and no mans belief is any less valid than his brothers.

 

Tolerance is also a wonderful thing. Just remember someone is tolerating you!

 

So just shut the FUCK UP!

and enjoy whats left of 🎄  🙂🙂🙂

 

Regards 😉

 

Belief is less valid when it is not based on facts and is based on delusional conspiracy theories.

Why should those who propagate conspiracy theory nonsense be tolerated?

[Shamal]

Well I think belief is just what it is. It doesn’t need to be backed up by proof or facts.

And if a person is strong in their particular belief then they have no need to try and change someone else's belief to theirs. That shows me that they are not sure and need to reinforce their belief by making others join them. 

 

If someone spouts off about their particular theory about something then thats fine,it's their thoughts and ideas coming from an individual entity,it may not align with your thoughts and ideas but we are all capable of independent thought which makes us different.

 

Why not tolerate folk with different viewpoints if they are not harming you directly.🙂

 

Regards 

[colinjallen]

17 minutes ago, Shamal said:

Well I think belief is just what it is. It doesn’t need to be backed up by proof or facts.

And if a person is strong in their particular belief then they have no need to try and change someone else's belief to theirs. That shows me that they are not sure and need to reinforce their belief by making others join them. 

 

If someone spouts off about their particular theory about something then thats fine,it's their thoughts and ideas coming from an individual entity,it may not align with your thoughts and ideas but we are all capable of independent thought which makes us different.

 

Why not tolerate folk with different viewpoints if they are not harming you directly.🙂

 

Regards 

When those viewpoints are clearly delusional and are damaging to our understanding of, for example, the nature and spread of this virus, that is potentially harming all of us.  It is somewhat similar to the deluded fools who "believe" in Q, that Trump won the election and who attacked the Capitol.

Based on your comment, I can only conclude that you have no problem with, for example, those who "believe" that the Holocaust did not happen or who believe that their religion requires them to kill gay people, apostates and women who dare to break the rules.  After all, those are just their beliefs and viewpoints.

I know someone who believes that COVID does not exist and that the vaccines are designed to enable "them" to monitor and control us.  Consequently, he refuses to get vaccinated or to wear a mask. But, hey, those are just his beliefs; that he could quite easily be spreading the virus is irrelevant,

 

[Shamal]

So are you saying that nobody has a right to a belief? Or that they can have a belief if its the same as yours?

 

[Adolf Hamster]

belief is fine, believe whatever you want no matter how stupid and it can and should be tolerated.

 

sure there can be debates or attempts to convince out of it, indeed it can be fun to do so.

 

but when that belief affects others then that's where the line must be drawn.

[Rogerborg]

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

All the data shows that vaccines work to reduce the risk of infection and transmission of the virus.

 

Genuinely: what data?

 

Real talk, my day job is data analytics.  But that needs input, and I can't find any.

 

I'm struggling to think how you'd even measure a reduction in community transmissibility given the near impossibility of finding control groups or making like-for-like comparisons across nations and populations.

 

 

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

Does it give 100% protection? No

 

Does it reduce transmissible infection at a community level?  I mean, "it's just common sense" that it must, but that's for any given individual.

 

But remember that the big problem with SARS-COV-2 is asymptomatic transmission, and that super-spreaders are a thing.  I could make a "common sense" argument that having a viral load just high enough to be transmissible, but not high enough to be symptomatic, might be the worse case for community transmission in a highly vaccinated population.

 

You can look at the continuing spread in (e.g.) highly vaccinated Gibraltar, or on highly/fully vaccinated and negative-tested cruise ships, and declare that it would obviously be worse with a lower rate of vaccination.  But that's just assertion.  Against what would you compare them to determine whether...

 

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

it significantly reduces the chance of infection

 

Triggered.  "Significantly" has a specific statistical meaning, and I've yet to find anything approaching data for it.

 

 

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

and if you do get infected the chances of being hospitalised are far lower. 

 

Now, there I fully agree.  Since I can't find the evidence for transmissibility, and since at this point the "we're all in it together" argument has clearly failed to convince the last unvaccinated, I'd hammer on the purely selfish benefits of it.

 

"Do it to protect me" isn't having much traction with the screw-you hold-outs, and may be entrenching their resistance.

 

 

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

All I'm hearing from the anti vaxx crowd is that it's a attack on their freedoms and other such nonsense.

 

For some, that's the concern.  I'm not anti vaccine, but I do have some specific concerns about why vaccine passports are being introduced, and what they might mutate into.  I very much hope to be wrong about that.

 

And there are people who are genuinely more scared of vaccine reactions than of covid.

 

In younger, haler age groups, for non-flabbies with no-comorbidities, they may even have a point.

 

Remember that the JCVI has not recommended general vaccination for healthy under 18s, but we've gone ahead anyway.

 

Tin-foil hat firmly off, I make it 1164 AZ deaths, 666 Pfizer deaths (oof), 23 Moderna deaths, 36 unspecified.  No, not from a conspiracy site, from gov.uk

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

 

Strong caveat, that's with vaccines, not from vaccines, but of course that also applies to with/from covid.

 

 

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

Nobody is being descriminated against

 

Care home workers have already been fired for being unvaccinated, with NHS workers to follow.  Nightclubs and large venues are denying entry by law, and some smaller venues by policy.

 

You can argue that's not "discrimination", but that's a semantic argument that will be cold comfort to those out of a job.

 

By the plain meaning of the word, it is segregation.  Now, you may view that as a good thing, and I'm not even necessarily going to disagree, but we should strive to be honest about language, goals and intentions.

 

 

On 24/12/2021 at 18:49, Cannonfodder said:

its worth remembering that your rights end when your actions affect others.

 

Not unconditionally or absolutely.

 

I'm seeing a lot of "Debate over" / "end of argument" / "you can't question The Science" / "you don't even need to think about it, dude" and similar statements, and they make me rather uncomfortable.  I prefer nuanced analysis of relative risk, constant questioning, and honest, evidenced answers to those questions.  If the evidence is there, then the questions should be easy to answer, right?

 

But if you can't show a healthy 18 year old the evidence that being vaccinated will reduce their transmissibility (I'd genuinely love to see it); nor that it will lower their own personal risk (JCVI says not), then what argument would you give in favour of them getting vaccinated, let alone forcing them to do so?

[colinjallen]

21 minutes ago, Shamal said:

So are you saying that nobody has a right to a belief? Or that they can have a belief if its the same as yours?

 

No, I am not: I am not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion from my posts.  I have no problem with anyone believing anything that is:

1. Not potentially harmful to others.
2. Not contradicted by all know relevant facts.

Now, based on your post, I am almost convinced that you should have no problem with, for example, those who "believe" that the Holocaust did not happen or who believe that their religion requires them to kill gay people, apostates and women who dare to break the rules.  After all, those are just their beliefs and viewpoints.

[Shamal]

See there you go again confusing belief with facts.

Not the same thing mate.

 

Correct I have no problem with those who believe the holocaust never happened. I know it did and that is all that matters to me. What someone else thinks is their concern.

 

It's a big bad,sad world fella and I can't help but think that with a different set of circumstance you could have been born into one of these cultures that you hate so much and your views would have been different. 

 

Regards 

 

 

[colinjallen]

16 minutes ago, Shamal said:

See there you go again confusing belief with facts.

Not the same thing mate.

 

Correct I have no problem with those who believe the holocaust never happened. I know it did and that is all that matters to me. What someone else thinks is their concern.

 

It's a big bad,sad world fella and I can't help but think that with a different set of circumstance you could have been born into one of these cultures that you hate so much and your views would have been different. 

 

Regards 

 

 

I cannot quite work out whether you are just looking for an argument or whether you are somewhat dense.  At the moment, based on the evidence, I am tending towards the latter.

Come back when you can string together a reasonable argument without making unsupported assumptions.  I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

 

[Shamal]

3 hours ago, colinjallen said:

I cannot quite work out whether you are just looking for an argument or whether you are somewhat dense.  At the moment, based on the evidence, I am tending towards the latter.

Come back when you can string together a reasonable argument without making unsupported assumptions.  I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

 

Ahh there it is.

I was wondering when the personal attacks would materialise. 

You don't dissapoint do you lol

 

🙂

Regards 

 

 

[colinjallen]

26 minutes ago, Shamal said:

Ahh there it is.

I was wondering when the personal attacks would materialise. 

You don't dissapoint do you lol

 

🙂

Regards 

 

 

No personal attacks; just my belief and my viewpoint, based on your posts, especially the one that assumes that I hate a culture ;).

 

[Shamal]

14 minutes ago, colinjallen said:

No personal attacks; just my belief and my viewpoint, based on your posts, especially the one that assumes that I hate a culture ;).

 

Personal attacks fella. Be a man and admit it 😉

 

Regards 

[colinjallen]

2 minutes ago, Shamal said:

Personal attacks fella. Be a man and admit it 😉

 

Regards 

Are you really that overly sensitive that you perceive someone else's view of you as a personal attack?  You do seem very insecure.

[Shamal]

@colinjallen.

What A Nice Kind Erudite peRson. 😉

 

Regards 

[Cannonfodder]

On 26/12/2021 at 03:10, AirSniper said:

Scoff all you like. At some point in the future, the funnies you make will backfire on you.

 

Try this 

 

So your source is a YouTube video? 😂😂😂 Try again I need a good laugh

13 hours ago, Shamal said:

@colinjallen.

What A Nice Kind Erudite peRson. 😉

 

Regards 

Says the one complaining about "personal attacks" 

 

19 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

Care home workers have already been fired for being unvaccinated, with NHS workers to follow.  Nightclubs and large venues are denying entry by law, and some smaller venues by policy.

So they should be. Care workers are generally looking after the more vulnerable members of society and by refusing to be vaccinated are placing those in their care at greater risk. Nightclubs etc also have a duty of care towards their staff

[colinjallen]

26 minutes ago, Cannonfodder said:

So your source is a YouTube video? 😂😂😂 Try again I need a good laugh

Says the one complaining about "personal attacks" 

 

So they should be. Care workers are generally looking after the more vulnerable members of society and by refusing to be vaccinated are placing those in their care at greater risk. Nightclubs etc also have a duty of care towards their staff

To be fair, 60 Minutes is a well respected current affairs programme in Australia.  However, it can be somewhat sensationalist.

[colinjallen]

14 hours ago, Shamal said:

@colinjallen.

What A Nice Kind Erudite peRson. 😉

 

Regards 

Come back and have the discussion when you have grown up.

[Shamal]

13 minutes ago, colinjallen said:

Come back and have the discussion when you have grown up.

Get a life and take the broomstick out of ya arse. Mr Stiff. 

 

[colinjallen]

1 hour ago, Shamal said:

Get a life and take the broomstick out of ya arse. Mr Stiff. 

 

Yawn...keep going.  

[Adolf Hamster]

i'm all for a bit of good ol' fashioned internet debating, but it's much less fun when instead of using proper arguments to counter each other's points we just end up slinging mud.

 

i get this is an issue we feel strongly about, i have some pretty damn strong opinions of my own and can see the temptation (hence mostly abstaining from the detail arguments), but i'd like to think this place has a decent enough caliber of user that we can be a bit more adult about this.

[Rogerborg]

3 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

So they should be. Care workers are generally looking after the more vulnerable members of society and by refusing to be vaccinated are placing those in their care at greater risk.

 

Maybe.  Or maybe by being vaccinated they're raising their likelihood of becoming asymptomatic spreaders, as per the multiple fully-vaccinated cruise ship outbreaks (ibid).  See whooping cough for an example of asymptomatic spread despite near universal vaccination (and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not an anti-vaccine position, it's actually an argument for even earlier vaccination).

 

I'm really struggling to find any data for reduction in infections or transmission.  Remember, all of the current vaccines only claim to reduce death and severe illness in the recipient.  None of them made any claim, or even attempted to collect evidence, regarding reduction of infection or transmission.  As far as I can tell, we just assumed that, and it's become asserted as a tenet of faith.

 

The policy for care home staff is one PCR test a week, lateral flows every two days or on a change of location.  This is current advice, 23rd December 2021, with what should now be fully vaccinated staff.

 

This is a tacit acknowledgement that vaccination is not sufficient, as supported by the cruise ship examples.  So why is it necessary?

 

I know, precautionary principle, you can't be too careful, every little helps.  Absent any evidence though, it seems more like ritual than science. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

Nightclubs etc also have a duty of care towards their staff

 

And there's the other curious thing: patrons are required to be vaccinated, but staff aren't.

 

Why have opposite policies for care homes and nightclubs?  The few-to-many relationship applies in either case.  It gives me a pain in all the logic diodes down my left side.

 

I'm minded of an anecdote that I saw on social media (100% guaranteed factually true, and anecdote is the singular of data, right?) about a technician working the club and theatre circuit claiming that staff physically recoil from him when he presents a recent negative test result rather than evidence of prior vaccination.

 

I'll leave parsing the rationality of that as an exercise for the reader.

[colinjallen]

18 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Maybe.  Or maybe by being vaccinated they're raising their likelihood of becoming asymptomatic spreaders, as per the multiple fully-vaccinated cruise ship outbreaks (ibid).  See whooping cough for an example of asymptomatic spread despite near universal vaccination (and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not an anti-vaccine position, it's actually an argument for even earlier vaccination).

 

I'm really struggling to find any data for reduction in infections or transmission.  Remember, all of the current vaccines only claim to reduce death and severe illness in the recipient.  None of them made any claim, or even attempted to collect evidence, regarding reduction of infection or transmission.  As far as I can tell, we just assumed that, and it's become asserted as a tenet of faith.

 

The policy for care home staff is one PCR test a week, lateral flows every two days or on a change of location.  This is current advice, 23rd December 2021, with what should now be fully vaccinated staff.

 

This is a tacit acknowledgement that vaccination is not sufficient, as supported by the cruise ship examples.  So why is it necessary?

 

I know, precautionary principle, you can't be too careful, every little helps.  Absent any evidence though, it seems more like ritual than science. 

 

 

 

And there's the other curious thing: patrons are required to be vaccinated, but staff aren't.

 

Why have opposite policies for care homes and nightclubs?  The few-to-many relationship applies in either case.  It gives me a pain in all the logic diodes down my left side.

 

I'm minded of an anecdote that I saw on social media (100% guaranteed factually true, and anecdote is the singular of data, right?) about a technician working the club and theatre circuit claiming that staff physically recoil from him when he presents a recent negative test result rather than evidence of prior vaccination.

 

I'll leave parsing the rationality of that as an exercise for the reader.

Given that data (rather than assumptions, politically inspired talking points or moonbat conspiracy theories, none of which I am suggesting that you are using) strongly indicate that those who have received the vaccinations are far less likely to end up in hospital or dead, vaccination is far more than just a ritual.

However, many people do seem to believe that vaccination will prevent them catching the virus or passing it on.  Given that the official messaging has suggested, although not actually stated, that vaccination does indeed prevent spread, despite none of the manufacturers making that claim, it is not surprising that many believe that.

Do we really expect logical and coherent policies from politicians?

Edited December 27, 2021 by colinjallen

[Cannonfodder]

Going to a pub or nightclub to get pissed is a choice, whereas living in care usually isn't. 

[colinjallen]

35 minutes ago, Cannonfodder said:

Going to a pub or nightclub to get pissed is a choice, whereas living in care usually isn't. 

Would you care to expand on that and how that difference between choice and necessity should impact on policy?