serrac

I suspect it was very much the intention of the Jab designers that it would prevent infection and transmission, however since testing did not show this to be the case the next best selling point was it appeared to show a reduction in the severity of Covid symptoms in the Jabbed test cohort. And you may be clear on the point - others not so much 😄 "Most vaccines reduce chance of infection by 85% to 95% so in round figures you are only a 10th likely to get infected Most vaccines reduce chance of onward transmitting by 40% to 60% so in round figures you are only then half as likely to pass it on."

Or the timeframe you examine. What we are looking at in your graphic is likely the drop off in infections as the Delta wave passes its peak. For this to be meaningful you'd need to show the curves for the low vaccination rate regions as well.

Hi, could you post the links to your references on the WHO site please? The pre emergency approval testing of the pfizer and moderna vaccines claimed ~90% relative risk reduction but this was against the likelihood of developing moderate to severe symptoms - it was not claimed they reduced the risk of infection by that amount. If this is now the claim I would like to see the data supporting that claim. Again I'd like to see the data supporting the claim the current crop of vaccines reduces the chance of onward transmission by 40% to 60%. If the vaxxed are 20 times more likely to catch and pass on the virus why do cases appear to be surging most in the more highly vaccinated countries?

To be fair, I qualified my statement with "the jab is not fit for purpose if the purpose is to prevent infection or transmission". What I was trying to get across is that if the Jab cannot be proven to prevent infection or transmission then it is hard to see a valid rationale for Covid Passports to reference whether someone has been jabbed or not. Only a recent test using an accurate method could indicate whether someone is currently carrying a viral load likely to be a threat to others or might develop symptoms likely to require medical intervention on foreign soil. Much of the rhetoric around the unvaxxed is that they are selfish people who pose an extraordinary threat to others, which seems to be based on the false belief that the Jab is somehow an obstacle to transmission.

Well yes, businesses will respond to the coercion in whatever way allows them to continue to operate. My inferred point is this: You already established for us that the jab is not fit for purpose if the purpose is to prevent infection or tranmission. Only a recent clear Covid test result is a (somewhat) reliable indicator that one is not infectious. Therefore conditioning air travel or other activities on being double jabbed is not "following the science". So one has to wonder why there seems to be a concerted drive worldwide to implement exactly that. Actually.... Having read your reply to Vince above I think we're mostly coming from the same place - I'll shut up now 😄

If this is the case, why should it ever be necessary to prove that one has had the vaccine to access any public area or service? Why would RyanAir or the operator of your local pub, restaurant or hip nightclub care whether you are nominally less likely to be a burden to the NHS?

Nope IT Operations Engineer

Not something you can reasonably accuse me of...

And I hope you never catch Covid or suffer any side affects from the vaccine

"Evidence Based Medicine" implies only double blind placebo controlled trials would be considered and I'm not aware of any currently completed so I guess their statement will remain true at least until the currently ongoing clinical trials are completed. It does not however prove there is no benefit to Vitamin D. Since the cost and risk associated with Vitamin-D is so low it seems negligent to not promote it as a precautionary measure. Fortunately there are moves in that direction though the content of the article is more cautious than the title implies: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2020/dec/vulnerable-and-elderly-to-receive-free-vitamin-d-to-help-fight-covid-19.html

I don't recall my FEO asking about my views on the covid vaccine. I suspect they'd be more concerned about the passive aggression shown by people who go directly to personal insults when they come across a point of view they don't agree with.

The vaccine is supposed to reduce transmission which implies the rise in cases should mostly affect the unvaccinated. So how did the vaccine prevent a rise in deaths among the unvaccinated?

Did you notice in your graphs how the trend of reduction in deaths from around Feb 2021 almost exactly mirrors that from April 2020 when there was no vaccine in play? It is absolutely ambiguous whether any part of the downward trend in deaths in 2021 was due to the vaccine. The same trends are evident in the cases graph but the scale is distorted by the ramp-up in testing.

Challenge accepted. It is not sound logic to try to determine whether a given death rate for a vaccine is acceptable simply by comparing the number of deaths with the number of doses given. If I whacked 1 million people over the head with a baseball bat and only two died from a brain haemorrhage those deaths would not be acceptable would they? The proper metric is the number of deaths caused by the vaccine versus the number of deaths prevented (or more precisely the number of life-years lost to, versus preserved by the vaccine). The vaccine was given emergency use authorisation on the basis of the rather meagre benefit of reducing the possibility of developing mild to moderate symptoms by <1% in absolute terms. It is hoped and assumed this will translate into a reduction in severe illness and deaths, however at present there is no unequivocal data that the vaccine has prevented any deaths whatsoever. There are also indications the desired outcome may be achieved simply by maintaining Vitamin D levels at the optimum level which carries zero risk of death. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z Conclusion Vitamin D deficiency markedly increases the chance of having severe disease after infection with SARS Cov-2. The intensity of inflammatory response is also higher in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients. This all translates to increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients who are deficient in vitamin D. Keeping the current COVID-19 pandemic in view authors recommend administration of vitamin D supplements to population at risk for COVID-19. NO deaths from the covid vaccine are acceptable until and unless it can be shown the net reduction in deaths is higher than alternative approaches such as Vitamin D supplementation.

No mention of how startled the poor deer was...

Strangely enough my brother had this exact procedure done last week. NHS - had waited about a year then got a cancellation. Says all went well and the nurses and docs were first class. He's going to be off normal duties at work for about six weeks though as his job is somewhat physical.

An enforcement action by OSHA against an employer who required an employee to take a vaccine experimental therapy which then resulted in an injury or death could be presented to a court as evidence that the the employer had caused that outcome and is thus liable. The change in guidance obviates this possibility.

The rules are being actively changed to ensure they have no case against an employer who requires the vaccine - fancy that. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/osha-shifts-position-on-recordability-9254437 So, should employers be legally liable for the deaths and injuries that will result from receiving vaccines mandated as a condition of employment?

Don't presume our noble leaders up here are capable of setting aside political idealism in favour of coherent thought. Even the police chiefs came out and said don't do it - not an issue and will just create unnecessary work for us. But I remember some SNP numpty rambling on about how passing the law would give Scotland some of the the world's most "progressive" gun laws. So it had to be done - never mind it probably instantly criminalised numerous families with an old Relum lying forgotten at the back of a cupboard. As I recall the number of licenses issued and airguns surrendered was a small fraction of the number believed to be in circulation prior to licensing.

Hmm interesting - the impression I got from him was he had researched it and found it was a common problem. The 2nd time around he got a replacement engine fitted at no cost because they couldn't demonstrate that the first replacement engine had been fitted with the revised timing belt kit, so you're probably right about that.

That's assuming the snapping timing belt issue doesn't trash if first. Happened twice to my son's qashqai, the second time after they had allegedly fitted the new improved timing belt kit with the factory fix.

No it isn't... When a group of scientists ask for evidence they do so expecting a data-set and details of the methodology used so they can run the scenario again and determine if the asserted conclusions are sound (you know, ala Wakefield). In the case (2) of the endothelial cells which you cited the EMA reply did not even name the clinical and non-clinical studies they relied upon to come to their conclusions. Even allowing for the possibility that some reference is made to the endothelial cell question in the links provided in response to question 6 is it too much to ask that for the avoidance of doubt they explicitly state which studies formed their conclusions for Q2? Further, this admission (q6) indicates a thorough review of all the studies relied upon by the EMA for its various decisions is warranted. "No evidence of thrombocytopenia or coagulation disorders was detected in clinical trials for any of the COVID-19 vaccines so far authorised. Cases of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events have recently been reported for the 3 vaccines from real-life use." Ok so I indulged in a little bit of hyperbole there - let's call it "safe" and "95% effective" But how many out there in the general public are aware that the word "safe" in the world of vaccines (and I suppose medicines in general) has a different meaning than in most other contexts. Or that a vaccine considered safe under that definition in a group at high risk to the target condition can be simultaneously very dangerous for a group at low or negligible risk i.e. teens and children in the case of covid. No we are told the covid vaccine is "safe" and it's rolled as if equally safe for all. Can we say without doubt that the vaccine is the better option for the vast VAST majority of children under 18 given that the pre-approval trials excluded anyone under 18? It will be interesting to see if cases of "covid" among under 18s sees any statistical change once the vaccine is rolled out to them in substantial numbers.

More gaslighting Ever consider why so many You wouldn't expect them to shout it from the rooftops would you? After all - every vaccine ever produced is 100% safe and effective... On the other hand there are a number of reports of a significant increase in "covid" deaths following the rollout of the vaccine in various locations around the world.

Gasllighting... The website makes no bones about their position - what "balance" would you expect them to provide? Why don't you provide some examples of scientifically incorrect information on there for our education? I care... My daughter developed epilepsy a few months after receiving the Gardisil Vaccine. Was that the cause? I guess we'll never know but you can be sure the official position is "of course not - don't be silly". Will the covid vaccine exacerbate her epilepsy? Will it make her infertile? Of course not - don't be silly...