timps

I would never post my certificate off to an unknown either, and in all my posts on this thread I have never said you should post it off or it was a good idea. I have only stated that the seller must fill in the cert not the RFD handing it over. How anyone facilitates that bit of the transaction is up to them, I know my cert stays with me. But if you want a remote sale then the seller needs to fill in your cert somehow. Your FEO’s response is exactly why I posted on an earlier post not to ring or email the FEO for clarification. His first answer would have seen you breaking the law had you taken it and not shown him the wording. My points to potential buyers or sellers were: 1: As a buyer just take 5 mins to read the instructions on your certificate, they are legally binding to both you and the seller, and if it states “if you are selling shotgun(s) which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the shotgun(s) should not complete the table or notify the police” Or words to that effect then you need the seller to complete table 2 by law so just figure a way that you are both comfortable with. 2: As a seller you must comply with the instructions on the buyer’s certificate, if you don’t see the certificate how do you know you have complied with all the instructions? My 2021 cert has more instructions than my old cert hence the move from clause 3 to 4 b. Other forces might have more or less, I don't know and neither do you until you seen it. As far as posting it off, I wouldn't but that's up to the individual.

Well if you have that instruction written on your certificate I’m not to sure what you want him to say? The options are yes you have to comply or no you don’t …..The latter response would beg the question why is it written on your certificate and why does the firearms act state you must comply. Exactly, which is why I tell people just to read their own certificate instructions and point them to the legislation that states they must comply.

If your certificate is issued in England or Wales I already know the answer as the The Firearms Rules which is law in England and Wales stipulates the wording for certificates issued. Yes people are breaking the law, all they need to do is read their own certificate instructions in the guidance section of their certificate. But as you have pointed out it’s not the easiest transgression for an FEO to pick up on, and that instruction wasn’t added until 1998. However GMP have had an audit and hauled over the coals with them re looking at every licence issued and sticking to and enforcing the act like glue now. Other forces maybe more lax.

Rewulf I’m am not to sure of your point. It is the whole clause posted for clarity and not bits posted out of context, it relates to the transfer of firearms, some parts are appertaining to this thread some not, I’m quite happy to discard the bits that don’t concern us but I never actually said they did just posted the whole clause for clarity and context. You are correct the act doesn’t mention seller but it states you must follow the instructions on your certificate. “(b) the transferor must comply with any instructions contained in the certificate or permit produced the transferee;” Now please go and look at you own certificate (Clause 3 or now 4b on my last two certs) and read the instruction that says. “If you are selling shotgun(s) which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the shotgun(s) should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above).” Which clearly states that it RFD should not complete the table but the seller should. There is no ambiguity in that statement. If you don’t send your certificate to the seller how do they fill it out? Then read 3) A failure by the transferor or transferee to comply with subsection (2) above shall be an offence. Which because you have let the RFD complete table 2 which is against your certificate instructions means you have just broke the law as well as the seller and the RFD. The above is NOT guidelines it’s law, if you have a certificate that does not have that instruction on it then you could argue the point but if it’s on there I really don’t see your angle. please read this link written by BASC https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/08/REMOTE-FIREARMS-TRANSACTIONS2.pdf

It is simply how the firearms act is worded and to make the seller accountable in law. If you are selling a firearm/shotgun you need to see the the other persons certificate and follow the instructions on it. Ultimately it is the sellers responsibility to check everything is in order you cannot pass the blame solely on to the transferring RFD should you not comply with a condition or instruction by saying well I never saw it and RFD filled it in so it’s the RFD’s fault not mine. On the various threads that pop up on here over the years people still think that the firearms department can countermand an act of parliament and it’s their rules that govern. It is ultimately your responsibility in law and laws require an act of parliament and can only be changed by parliament not by a phone call or email to your FEO . Clause (3) of the firearms act listed below should leave anyone in no doubt, it is a punishable offence not to comply. 32 Transfers of firearms etc. to be in person. (1) This section applies where, in Great Britain— (a) a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies is sold, let on hire, lent or given by any person, or (b) a shot gun is sold, let on hire or given, or lent for a period of more than 72 hours by any person, to another person who is neither a registered firearms dealer nor a person who is entitled to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition without holding a firearm or shot gun certificate or a visitor’s firearm or shot gun permit. (2) Where a transfer to which this section applies takes place— (a) the transferee must produce to the transferor the certificate or permit entitling him to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition being transferred; (b) the transferor must comply with any instructions contained in the certificate or permit produced by the transferee; (c) the transferor must hand the firearm or ammunition to the transferee, and the transferee must receive it, in person. (3) A failure by the transferor or transferee to comply with subsection (2) above shall be an offence.

Hence why I was very careful to mention only England and Wales and not Scotland. But I doubt any police force is going to tell you to ignore the legally binding instructions written on your certificate to follow a process that would be illegal in the eyes of the firearms act. Other processes such as compulsory medical reports etc. are open to interpretation as the act does not expressly forbid them. But the act does forbid the dealer handing over the gun from filling out table 2 if they are not the seller and this is written clear as day on your certificate.

That is not correct, In this case it’s covered by The Firearms Rules 1998; (Rule 1(6), Part II of Schedule 1, Rule 5(6) and Part II of Schedule 2): All certificate instructions provided by the Firearms Rules 1998 are legally binding throughout England and Wales, Regional police forces have no say in it whatsoever. These instructions have a common wording which all forces must use, it was update 2021, I believe, so the clause is either 4(b) on my new certificate 2021 or clause (3) if pre 2021 my old certificate. If you don’t believe me look at your own certificate, I’ve quoted it before, it quite clearly tells you the seller has to fill in table 2 not the dealer handing it over. It doesn’t need any more explanation than that. The only grey area is can the dealer handing it over pretend to be the seller. The answer is yes as long as he/she doesn’t get caught and hauled over the coals for it. The variation comes as some forces are now rigidly enforcing it and making it quite clear it’s against the law. Others probably don’t even check but make no mistake it’s against the law for anyone other than the genuine seller to fill in table 2 in England and Wales. The chances of getting caught is the only thing open for debate.

I know there are plenty still doing it, but it doesn’t alter the fact it is a statutory offence that you could face prosecution for. Even you as the buyer are not following the guidance on your own certificate so are not in the clear if some jobs worth goes to town on it. As I always say it is your choice as an individual but trying to claim ignorance of something that is written on your own certificate is a hard sell so be aware of the potential risks if you didn’t actually pay the final RFD for your gun. Buying and selling numerous guns for 1p and not showing a profit is a sure fire way to get HMRC taking a very serious interest in your affairs. They are not that stupid and a normal business would not operate in that way. When they investigate further and find that you have just bought and sold numerous guns valued at between £1K to 3k for 1p and no profit, the true answer of not its not a tax fraud or money laundering but I was trying to cheat the Firearms act maybe isn’t the answer as a RFD that you want to give a government employee.

Of course the conditions have been met, you have just bought the gun off the final RFD and as they are now the seller they have to fill out table 2 as stated. Lucky you as you now have the protection from The Consumer Rights Act 2015 on your new gun rather than caveat emptor buying from a private individual. Chances of being caught depends on the paper trail, if one of the RFD enters it as a transfer for the purposes of HMRC, VAT or just stocktaking purposes then the books don’t match up. If this is spotted and from what I have been told, anecdotally of course, is some forces have spotted this type of discrepancy and they are warned do it again and bye bye RFD cert. If you can find a final RFD in the chain that is prepared to risk his business and write SOLD on table 2 when they are taking no payment for the gun itself, issuing no receipt or invoice, paying no VAT or tax and denying the Consumer Rights Act 2015 should a fault develop then go for it. I know when HMRC audited my company they left no stone unturned and I wouldn’t be writing sold in any ledger for something I hadn’t actually sold and collected the appropriate tax for. Just be mindful that doing it the way you state and not actually selling means you are breaking the statutory guidance on your cert which does have consequences should you be caught, whether it can easily be proved or not is something for all the parties involved to decide. The first questions I would ask if i suspected anything, were is the receipt and who did you pay? I certainly wouldn’t risk a business over it that’s for sure.

There is no confusion just look at “the guidance to anybody who sells…. to the holder of this certificate” on your very own certificate which says. “If you are selling shotgun(s) which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the shotgun(s) should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above).” All certificate instructions provided by the Firearms Rules 1998 are legally binding therefore the seller would be in breach if they did not comply the ones written on your certificate which clearly state the seller has to fill table 2 in.

That unfortunately won’t work in Greater Manchester as it covers every borough in Greater Manchester which is 493 sq miles. As soon as as I walk out of my door and I live in village I have to pay unless I buy a euro 6 compliant vehicle. We even voted against having a mayor and a congestion charge but apparently democracy only works when it gives the answer they want in greater Manchester as I now have a mayor and congestion charge by another name.

Ok fair enough, but in that case maybe we should also stick to the CIP warning we have always used written on every box of HP steel “High Performance Steel ammunition can only be used in shotguns bearing a CIP Fleur de Lys proof mark.” 🤷‍♂️ You might know what you are on about, but plenty of other people on this forum are confused and think just because the proof pressure listed are the same the gun is tested the same. I am just trying to help clarify, just stating the proof pressure is trying to compare apples with oranges, its not the same spec of cartridge, it is not the same test, it’s not the same pressures involved so any comparisons are completely flawed without some form of clarification or caveats. So we will stick with term proof pressure and also the warning HP steel should not be used, that’s the end of debate for me. 👍

I am so used to dealing with burst pressure at work, and I totally accept burst wasn’t the correct word.When we are pressure testing at the lab the vessel or pipe is subjected to the same pressure throughout its length. With the proof testing of shotguns this not the case, the pressure is measured at the chamber (or as near as damn it) this pressure would most likely burst the rest of the barrel. For both HP steel and PSF**1370 the chamber pressure is the same, however, as the proof pressure is designed to test the whole of the barrel as well even though chamber pressure is the only one quoted. Seeing as the barrel pressure is some 30% greater for HP steel, then proof pressure also isn’t the correct word, I guess we should stick to chamber pressure and barrel pressure. I am not getting into the safety aspects as that is for the CIP to champion, I am just pointing out the two test are not the same pressure on the barrel, if this bothers you get it HP steel proofed, if it doesn’t then carry on. I also know that I am discussing this with very knowledgeable people on steel but try and write my posts so the less knowledgeable of the forum can understand my ramblings and make their own decision so I’m in no way intimating that you don’t know how steel works.

They are not stating it is going to fail or be unsafe just that it hasn’t been tested to the same service pressure therefore they cannot say it is safe. For them to say it is safe they have to test, for them to say it is unsafe they also have to test, as it hasn’t been tested they are just saying it hasn’t been proven safe. I have no idea on the exact numbers but brand new guns do fail in sufficient numbers at the proof house due to a variety of reasons hence why they wait until a gun has passed proof before engraving, fitting the stock and finishing etc. Once it is proofed you know that it has been subjected to pressures that exceed any commercially available cartridge and should accommodate slight mistakes in loading to accommodate “if everything that could go wrong did go wrong”. With HP steel, CIP believe you need a 30% increase in service pressure to accommodate “if everything that could go wrong did go wrong”. Now obviously your un-proofed gun may accommodate this easily but you wont know until it happens, however, with a HP steel proofed gun you know it has been tested to that pressure already so should accommodate, a nitro gun you still don’t know. That is the increased risk, you would rather any failure happened in the safety of the proof house rather than a few inches from your face/hand. That is CIP’s logic on the increased risk to the shooter not anything that happens in the proof house.

I have had long debates on PW in this in the past and not going down that road again but for some info. Someone did contact CIP directly and got an official response which was posted on here some time back. According to CIP the HP steel/steel-like shot proof uses three cartridges containing large steel pellets and generating some 30% greater service pressure (not burst pressure) per barrel than the standard PSF** 1370 lead shot test. The gun is then marked “Steel Shot” and with Fleur-de-Lys. Meaning that while the chamber pressures are the same for both steel and lead, the pressure in the rest of the barrel is some 30% greater for HP steel proof test due to the harder steel shot. In the eyes of CIP a gun not subjected to the steel proof test would be deemed not to have passed steel shot proof and so not suitable/safe to fire HP steel/steel-like cartridges. That is not to say that such a gun would necessarily be damaged but CIP would maintain that the risk of its being so is increased. The proof test is designed to take into consideration if everything that could go wrong did go wrong (faulty load etc) the gun would survive. The increased risk is because there is always a remote possibility that your gun could fail the HP steel proof load but would have survive the standard PSF** 1370. This mythical gun could quite happily survive on HP steel but one slightly different cart (faulty) or change in brand and there could be a failure. God knows the odds on that scenario but I thought I would point it out all the same, there is an increase in risk, if you are happy with this risk then go for it, if not then don’t. However, it is only responsible to point out that CIP see an increase in risk however remote.

If you have trees at the ground just be aware steel shot can play havoc with chainsaws should any of your staff need to do woodland management. So much so that it is banned in some woodland areas.

By posting “YOU were the one obsessed with making Malone sound like a boastful quack,” “you dismissed him as unimportant “ “Does he claim to be the sole inventor” Where have I ever said he was the sole inventor, boastful quack or unimportant, I was in fact responding to a post that said “which even the inventor does not reccommend how we have used it and he was the Expert who developed it” I was only stating that there was other co contributors involved with different opinions. You have translated this into a personal attack on him that never existed. Again what do you think I mean by this?? Why is it false??? You keep on posting what was written and not explaining your point, that is still not explaining it no matter how many times you post it. Let’s break it down: The Jabs don’t stop you getting the virus …… This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies ….. This means I was saying they do stop you getting the virus therefore protect. The Jabs don't stop you transmitting the virus…… This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies….. This means I was saying they do stop you transmitting the virus therefore protect. I’ll just leave that there….. This means I was saying I’m not going to the trouble of posting links So how is the above any different from “When I said vaccines protect from infection and transmission” I clearly don’t know what your point is? And you accuse me of being pedantic so how does 100’s instead of many many change the context of my post ?? What different source? I used one source not wikipedia. I didn’t try to discredit him in a personal attack, I said “his other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will”. Am I not allowed to say that? Is it a personal attack? Are you trying to discredit his other co contributors because you don’t like what they have to say? I’ve posted several links to papers proving my point and you have dismissed them with no proof. Yes I did… "People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 are less likely to spread the virus even if they become infected, a new study finds, adding to a growing body of evidence that vaccines can reduce transmission of the delta variant. British scientists at the University of Oxford examined national records of nearly 150,000 contacts that were traced from roughly 100,000 initial cases. The samples included people who were fully or partially vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as people who were unvaccinated.” … “It’s the highest quality study we have so far on the question of infectiousness of vaccinated people infected with delta,” said Dr. Aaron Richterman, an infectious disease physician at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the research.” Well if there is no Conspiracy then what was your problem with peer review? I have no intention of watching Dr. John Campbell off youtube however I didn’t think you liked peer reviewing of the papers like those that the BBC relied on? Not at all but you have to have some proof, debate requires that otherwise why should I believe you? Just saying stuff without it is pointless and not debate, you must have something otherwise why do you believe what you believe? I'm quite happy to debate but at the moment it is me saying vaccines protect offering proof and links and you saying they don't but not posting any proof or source, I would not class as a debate.

Rewulf, what exactly have you challenged me on ? Every time I ask for clarification from you to understand what you are challenging me on you make things up and insert words into my post or take it completely out of context in relation to point I was responding to, I am still non the wiser what your challenge is. I have not changed my stance once once. When I said vaccines protect from infection and transmission you said it was clearly false. So I posted proof that they do, you have yet to challenge that proof or offer any proof to the contrary however you are quite happy to say it is clearly false based on your beliefs alone. I have never said you were stupid or misinformed however you quoted my posts and stated that they were “Clearly false”. You can believe what you wish without proof, however, I am going to ask you to back up the statement I am wrong (how this debate started) which is something you never do. As for being pedantic you started that with “many many” is not 100’s this was irrelevant to the point being made and also the fact you kept claiming I had said things I never typed. So yes I got sarcastic, quote me by all means but don’t make things up. This debate was whether the vaccine offers protection from infection and transmission, I have never got into the political side of whether the vaccination program being used is the best strategy or not so I have no idea why you keep bring it up on our posts. There could be 10 studies posted on this thread, 9 state that the vaccine protects and 1 that doesn’t. You would discount the 9 and just accept the 1. I have already stated that if the Israeli study that disproves my point is peer reviewed and stands scrutiny I will accept it. When I asked if you would accept the Oxford university one that backs my stance you never responded. Your bias is unwavering to prove a big pharma conspiracy. The scientific peer reviewed proof at the moment is that vaccines protect from infection and transmission, however they are not 100% effective at that, therefore as long as they are above the % threshold needed they will do their job to protect the wider community. If new scientific peer reviewed proof comes to the conclusion that they no longer offer protection I will accept it. You however will not accept any proof at all unless it confirms your belief in a conspiracy of some sorts. At least I take the time to read your posted links or search out your quoted text and actually post a critique of them, you just say mine are wrong / false with no reasoning so hardly a debate.

In the post I was replying too. “As far as I can tell you are claiming this to be 100% true except the 40% of the time when it isn't.” If I”m claiming my statement is true 100% of the time then I’d have to also be claiming the vaccine is 100% effective.

Where do I say a vaccine is a 100% effective? Another one who makes things up and claims I said it, I keep saying the vaccine is NOT 100% effective 🙄. 40% 🤔 how does 65 %to 90% protection from infection equate to 40% and 60% isn’t zero protection as you actually claimed but hey ho why let facts get in the way of a good sound bite.

What do you think it means? Scientific studies show that the vaccine stops the transmission and stops you getting the virus… I am really struggling what your point is on this. What evidence or research have you ever produce? can you prove it wasn’t in the 100’s? you saying “many many” can’t mean a 100? You have already admitted that if you count every researcher it could get to the hundreds in your last post so now it’s not? make your mind up. As you don’t know how many worked on it you can’t say it wasn’t in the 100’s, you have no idea, it certainly wasn’t 7. But it doesn’t detract from my point if it’s 50 99 or even 7 more disagree with him than agree. Where did I dismiss him as unimportant? You are putting words in my text AGAIN and making things up. I said “His other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will.” So are you dismissing these other PRINCIPAL researchers into MRNA ? All I’m saying is they disagree with him so don’t take his word as gospel and seeing as you admit he’s not the sole inventor maybe they have a point? How so? You state the article claims there were only 7 that worked on it when it clearly shows there were more. If you want to correct me on 100’s then be prepared to be corrected on 7 which your article actually proves was incorrect. What is your obsession with pharma profits? Do you think everything is a conspiracy? If your research is sound it will withstand peer review, if someone can poke holes in it then maybe it’s not up to scratch, it’s not hard to understand. Or are you stating we should accept all papers regardless of inaccuracies ? So will you accept the Oxford university paper that says vaccination prevents infection and transmission now we are just accepting stuff without reviewing it? I won’t even though it suits my narrative but as you feel things shouldn’t be peer reviewed then surely you must accept it or is it only the ones that suit your narrative that get that treatment ?

Well seeing as we are no longer debating and just kind of in a childish argument I’ll play. Ah I see, you miss understood what was written then tried to be clever, I did leave it there on that particular post, the whole point, so you were wrong, I never said I’d leave it there on the entire thread you just assumed. Then you quoted the whole sentence but only wanted to mention the bit in bold as some kind of childish dig. I wasn’t talking to you on that post sweetie so I assumed you were meaning the whole sentence since you quoted it hence the reply, maybe next time make it clear you are just having a personal dig, I do find them quite funny petal. All I said was “The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone.” So what part of that is clearly false as you first claimed?? Where in my original post did I say PRINCIPAL researchers? Where did I say he was a boastful quack ? Where did I say he was the sole inventor? You have multiple times but I didn’t. My point was others involved in its invention disagree with him, yours was LA Times is the sole arbiter of how many people worked on it and it’s 7. So again what is your point? But I guess you missed in the article “Some familiar names in San Diego science and business have played a role in Vical. Among them:” which mentions more than the 7 you quoted. And “Researchers spent several months longer trying to find flaws in their methods or their conclusions.” Or do these people not count? Unfortunately they did in my reply and in the scientific community. No I didn’t say I didn’t agree with it I said it wasn’t peer reviewed so cannot trump work that already is. You really do have a hard time comprehending that don’t you. Some people that are peer reviewing it in the comments section of her blog disagree with her so what’s your opinion on them? No point in answering as you only look at work that proves your views you never accept views that might go against it you are so biased it is untrue. You have decided she is right and no one can disagree as they are biased even though they make valid provable points. I’ve already stated that I will accept the Israeli research if it stands peer review and discount the Oxford one if it doesn’t so I’m hardly biased, I’m just looking for proper research, just not from the LA Times on the number 7. I await your comment about the “I thought you were bowing out” but that was about the vaccination debate not this little game we are playing now. Much love x

Seriously I am lost with your ramblings, how am I backing up your claim that jabs DON’T stop you getting the virus or transmitting the virus with my evidence that they DO stop you from getting the virus and transmitting it?? Is effectiveness against infection raging between at 65% to 95% stoping people getting infected with the virus or not? No vaccine is 100% effective EVERYONE agrees on that and herd immunity starts at 60% protection so could well achieve it depending what percentage is needed for the COVID variants. I have seriously no idea what your hang up with Robert Malone is, you are again taking my post out of context I was replying to the comment. “even the inventor does not recommend how we use it and he was the expert that developed it” I was saying the development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of 100’s of RESEARCHERS that disagree with him. The people quoted in the article you posted have their own researchers and teams and there is more than 8 names in the article you posted so I guess you made it up as well then? There are more than 8 researchers working on this as stated on recorded its “many many” not 8. However many it is they still disagree with him be it 7 or 100’s so your point is? Regarding your BMJ blog you posted .They are both from a blog by by one lecturer, an opinion piece not a scientific peer reviewed study but nice try. To render something inaccurate needs a lot more than this. I can show you loads like this for either side of the argument hence why we go for the peer review studies. The fact there are posters commenting on the end of the blog pointing out the Issues with it and her conclusions means it cannot in anyway seen as rendering any argument inaccurate. I’m bowing out of this now as it just isn’t worth debating with you but no hard feelings Big hugs xx

It clearly isn’t and I’m not making the claim,I could post 100’s more. But feel free to contact the authors and tell them they are wrong. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html “First indication of reduction in disease transmission of up to 67%” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1013553/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_34.pdf “With the Pfizer-BioNTech, estimates of effectiveness against infection range from around 55 to 70%, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine they range from around 60 to 70% (5, 13, 14, 15). With 2 of 2 doses of either vaccine effectiveness against infection is estimated at around 65 to 90%” Again it’s clearly not, one quick search of Google and fact checking sites will prove that, but in every thread whatever I post, whatever evidence, you just ignore and stick to one source or some unproven conspiracy theory so I’ve kind of given up on that now. Why is it a ridiculous comment are you saying we should only vaccinate retired people(my dad still works in his 80’s) and people of ill health. That was the context of my comment in its original post. Why is my comment false ? Nope never use Wikipedia however I did quote people that work in the field and were part of it, biochemist Katalin Karikó said “many many scientists” contributed, I just changed that to 100’s but “many many” isn’t a ‘small team’ would you like to quote who said small team? I also never said Robert Malone was the sole inventor the person I was responding to did hence my response. However Robert Malone does claim to be the inventor on his personal LinkedIn profile “Inventor of mRNA vaccines and DNA vaccines” and It’s in his Twitter bio. “I literally invented mRNA technology when I was 28,” so maybe tell him personally to stop calming to be the inventor rather than me who’s just quoting him. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rwmalonemd Really? I can back what I say with multiple independent sources can you say the same? I’ve never called anyone an idiot but stating things are fact when that are disproven or out of context is something I will always do. Anyway I’ve just invented the cure I have no proof, tests or research but with your logic you cannot say I am wrong…

I wrote about this in depth on many other posts. However as repeatedly stated by every study the vaccine is not 100% effective. The current COVID vaccines are not 100% sterilising (protection from infection) in how they work. If a vaccine is 95% effective in preventing death only a percentage of that will be by sterilising (protection from infection). Some vaccines are 100% sterilising in how they work, the COVID ones aren’t that type. So for a COVID vaccine it is broken down like something like this. 95% protection from death - protection from disease 90% protection from serious illness - protection from disease with mild or moderate symptoms. 60% protection from infection - sterilising. (All the current vaccines are broken down like the above just the percentages vary depending on which one you look at and the COVID variant ) Hence if the percentage protected from infection meets the threshold for herd immunity, then you have herd immunity and the chances of an unprotected person catching the disease is diminished greatly protecting them. Herd immunity is known to start at 60% sterilising protection for other diseases however it is not known what the percentages for Covid are yet. Therefore I’m never going to say it’s achievable until that figure is actually known. Also a percentage of those that are vaccinated but not protected from infection still have the blueprint to fight COVID and instead of being infectious for 10 days with a bad cough they are infectious for a greatly reduced amount of time with mild symptoms (less or no coughing). This statistically reduces the chance of transmission (r number) and ultimately lowers the % threshold needed for herd Immunity, so it does play a part in herd immunity via vaccines. A vaccine does not have to be 100% effective to work and achieve herd immunity. I know someone who has tested positive twice and doesn’t have the vaccine. So do I now state catching & recovering from COVID offers no protection? However, no one I know that is double jabbed has caught it yet so make of that what you will. Seeing as the scientific studies state a percentage will always test positive regardless of vaccination status renders your argument : “I know enough people that have caught covid even though they have been double jabbed to be able to say your peer reviewed scientific studies are complete rubbish.” Completely wrong.