Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Lionator]

This is VERY funny. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Not true. Anyone healthy and/or relatively young had a close to zero chance of dying of Covid. The whole hoo-ha, as you well know, was coercing healthy, zero risk people to take 'vaccines' (a vaccine, I may add, that u like measles or smallpox or TB, didn't actually prevent you from getting the illness) for the greater good of society. Not for individual safety. 

 

 

The evidence and numbers we have disagree with this assertion.

 

If you want me to show the numbers to prove it, then I shall upon request.

 

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

It is patronising, you’re reading it right. I find it very difficult not to be patronising toward people who choose to ignore the science on this in favour of plopping themselves and then knuckling down because of some pseudo nonsense from a Facebook feed. Literally so much has been discussed on this, openly, freely and reasonably. It’s almost at levels of flat Earthery to me now.

Welcome to the world of science communication, friend.

 

2 hours ago, Soup said:

Don't be frustrated man, people are different and will always look at things differently. I don't happen to trust these companies pushing these drugs, that's all. If you do then fine. Take it easy and good night 

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinions. They're not, however, entitled to their own facts. Sometimes, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, the Universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old and Ade Akinbiyi is the biggest waste of 5 million quid outside of decisions made in the Houses of Parliament.

 

A talking shop is mostly fine. Sometimes it isn't, and sometimes, due to various factors, it's actually lethally counterproductive.

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Lionator said:

This is VERY funny. 
 

 

Mr Tate already qualifies for this thread, but if the allegations he's been arrested for turn out to be true, then he occupies very rare company on it.

[grobyfox1990]

47 minutes ago, Lionator said:

This is VERY funny. 
 

 

There is no way he’ll be able to accurately quantify his scope 1 for his made up number of cars.

[Heathrow fox]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The evidence and numbers we have disagree with this assertion.

 

If you want me to show the numbers to prove it, then I shall upon request.

 

Welcome to the world of science communication, friend.

 

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinions. They're not, however, entitled to their own facts. Sometimes, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, the Universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old and Ade Akinbiyi is the biggest waste of 5 million quid outside of decisions made in the Houses of Parliament.

 

A talking shop is mostly fine. Sometimes it isn't, and sometimes, due to various factors, it's actually lethally counterproductive.

I’ve just done some back of a fag packet mathematics using the ONS.So fully prepared to be shot down for this.For the under 65s without any underlying health conditions the odds of death were roughly12000/1.For England and Wales up to June 2021.I’ve divided 40 million into 3300.Even if you half that,it’s still pretty good odds.Would be interested to know what your figures say.
I appreciate that this may be the wrong thread to discuss this.

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I’ve just done some back of a fag packet mathematics using the ONS.So fully prepared to be shot down for this.For the under 65s without any underlying health conditions the odds of death were roughly12000/1.For England and Wales up to June 2021.I’ve divided 40 million into 3300.Even if you half that,it’s still pretty good odds.Would be interested to know what your figures say.
I appreciate that this may be the wrong thread to discuss this.

I'll take those figures at face value.

 

And on the other side, using a FOI request regarding deaths caused by adverse vaccine reactions...

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsandadversereactionsfromacovid19vaccination

 

As of March 2022, there have been 24 deaths directly attributed to an adverse reaction. Given there have been over 150 million doses administered in the UK (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations), that gives odds of roughly 1/6250000.

 

That is rather better odds than dying of Covid, which was the original point made.

 

Edit: of course, it's possible the government could be full of it regarding how many deaths there have been due to adverse reactions, but in the absence of compelling evidence for this, I'm given to take the 24 at face value too. Even if it was a hundred times that, it would still be better odds.

 

Edited 30 December 2022 by leicsmac

[RoboFox]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

This is VERY funny. 
 

 

I keep reading about this **** and thought I’d recognised him. Turns out he tried to get famous by appearing on Big Brother? . Really got into that series.

 

I know next to nothing about him, but it seems like he’s a self-proclaimed “alpha male” who runs some dogshit pyramid scheme / MLM scam?

 

“Influencers” are right up with the worst things about modern internet culture, TBH. Why are so many lonely and disenfranchised people on the fringes of society gravitating to gobshites like this? Why do teenagers think this shit is something to aspire to?

With this and the brain dead nonsense with the energy drink today, I genuinely despair. We’re in the end game for society. 
 

Edited 30 December 2022 by RoboFox

[Heathrow fox]

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'll take those figures at face value.

 

And on the other side, using a FOI request regarding deaths caused by adverse vaccine reactions...

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsandadversereactionsfromacovid19vaccination

 

As of March 2022, there have been 24 deaths directly attributed to an adverse reaction. Given there have been over 150 million doses administered in the UK (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations), that gives odds of roughly 1/6250000.

 

That is rather better odds than dying of Covid, which was the original point made.

 

Edit: of course, it's possible the government could be full of it regarding how many deaths there have been due to adverse reactions, but in the absence of compelling evidence for this, I'm given to take the 24 at face value too. Even if it was a hundred times that, it would still be better odds.

 

I’ll take the 24 as I have no reason to dispute it.Just asking the question.I would point out that bringing the age bracket down to the under 35’s ie the young fit and healthy would change those odds dramatically.The difference on paper between the two will be hundreds.On the whole the young got vaccinated for the greater good.Which is the point I think Pannistickers was making.

 

 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I’ll take the 24 as I have no reason to dispute it.Just asking the question.I would point out that bringing the age bracket down to the under 35’s ie the young fit and healthy would change those odds dramatically.The difference on paper between the two will be hundreds.On the whole the young got vaccinated for the greater good.Which is the point I think Pannistickers was making.

 

 

Hmm.

 

According to that link, and I quote, " there are no deaths registered under the age of 30" when it comes to adverse vaccine reactions. Of course it could be BS and there may be a difference between such things at age 30 and age 35, but...

 

I'd agree that the younger folks did get vaccinated for other people's benefit as well as their own, but it's a rather evident statistical fact that the virus itself is more dangerous to each and every age group than the vaccine by at least an order of magnitude, so long as the data we have can be relied upon.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Hmm.

 

According to that link, and I quote, " there are no deaths registered under the age of 30" when it comes to adverse vaccine reactions. Of course it could be BS and there may be a difference between such things at age 30 and age 35, but...

 

I'd agree that the younger folks did get vaccinated for other people's benefit as well as their own, but it's a rather evident statistical fact that the virus itself is more dangerous to each and every age group than the vaccine by at least an order of magnitude, so long as the data we have can be relied upon.

 

2 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

I’ll take the 24 as I have no reason to dispute it.Just asking the question.I would point out that bringing the age bracket down to the under 35’s ie the young fit and healthy would change those odds dramatically.The difference on paper between the two will be hundreds.On the whole the young got vaccinated for the greater good.Which is the point I think Pannistickers was making.

 

 

Appreciate the maths, both. We may as well though be  debating the odds of whether you are more likely to die of a plane crash or being struck by lightning. 

 

It goes back to @Dungewho claimed it was 'dangerous nonsense' to call out the vaccine (that, really isn't a vaccine at all. It's a treatment) . It isn't and never was dangerous for the healthy to have it or not to have it

 

 

 

[Soup]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinions. They're not, however, entitled to their own facts. Sometimes, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, the Universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old and Ade Akinbiyi is the biggest waste of 5 million quid outside of decisions made in the Houses of Parliament.

 

A talking shop is mostly fine. Sometimes it isn't, and sometimes, due to various factors, it's actually lethally counterproductive.

Oh well you win again with your wise words of wisdom. I'm wrong again of course, as usual. 

 

I'll carry on taking personal control of my health and I'll see where that gets me. You of course can continue to read out the narrative set by these people in power. It's weird isn't though, if the message was about personal health, exercise and wellbeing then we perhaps wouldn't need these huge pharma companies half as much and imagine the money we could spend on other things in life, especially now. Not gonna happen though is it, we got shareholders to think about.

[Lionator]

14 minutes ago, Soup said:

Oh well you win again with your wise words of wisdom. I'm wrong again of course, as usual. 

 

I'll carry on taking personal control of my health and I'll see where that gets me. You of course can continue to read out the narrative set by these people in power. It's weird isn't though, if the message was about personal health, exercise and wellbeing then we perhaps wouldn't need these huge pharma companies half as much and imagine the money we could spend on other things in life, especially now. Not gonna happen though is it, we got shareholders to think about.

It’s easy to look back now but I and several others on here work in healthcare and pre-vaccine were seeing healthy people in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s hooked up to ventilators en masse due to covid. Now I appreciate there has been harms linked to the vaccine but it was really, really bleak pre-vaccine. From the scientists I follow, you always wanted your first exposure to the virus to be the vaccine. Once you’ve had the first two vaccines then young people probably shouldn’t be having any more. But I just want to throw in there how appalling the situation was pre-vaccination. 

[EastAnglianFox]

I'm starting to like her 

 

 

[taupe]

Yes, I too see science as a narrative. That's not to disrespect it, and I by-and-large trust it and invariably follow it, but I am aware of the paradigm. To express it as a pithy one-liner (and as I've mentioned before) if you're one of the 0.0001%, it's of limited consolation to be a statistical unlikelihood. 

 

I can understand the frustrations of scientists (and their communicators) when there is blatent misinformation trotted out but I feel the answer is more sensitive and nuanced communication, and not doubling down on the 'we are scientists, we know' rhetoric. I can certainly appreciate why Gove's infamous "people are fed up with experts" pronouncement struck a chord with many. 

 

 

Edited 30 December 2022 by taupe
reword for clarity

[taupe]

10 hours ago, Lionator said:

This is VERY funny

I need more context on that. I shall maybe do a bit of a Web search. 

[Voll Blau]

10 hours ago, Lionator said:

This is VERY funny. 
 

 

Sadly it's also not quite true...

 

He posted four days ago that he was in Romania.

[ozleicester]

The world is flat and Peter Taylor is Leicesters greatest ever manager... but if you disagree, hey ho thats cool

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

 

Appreciate the maths, both. We may as well though be  debating the odds of whether you are more likely to die of a plane crash or being struck by lightning. 

 

It goes back to @Dungewho claimed it was 'dangerous nonsense' to call out the vaccine (that, really isn't a vaccine at all. It's a treatment) . It isn't and never was dangerous for the healthy to have it or not to have it

 

 

 

 

That's a fair argument to make, both situations are reasonably unlikely for a particular age group. It's just that one is still less likely than the other.

 

1 hour ago, Soup said:

Oh well you win again with your wise words of wisdom. I'm wrong again of course, as usual. 

 

I'll carry on taking personal control of my health and I'll see where that gets me. You of course can continue to read out the narrative set by these people in power. It's weird isn't though, if the message was about personal health, exercise and wellbeing then we perhaps wouldn't need these huge pharma companies half as much and imagine the money we could spend on other things in life, especially now. Not gonna happen though is it, we got shareholders to think about.

I'm as sceptical of those with power who seek to abuse it as anyone and I think I've made that clear in posts in the past...I just don't think that the scientific corpus as a whole has a reason to abuse the (relatively small) power they have because they know that such abuses will rebound on them too, because on such matters involving natural events the Earth doesn't entertain denial or falsehoods.

 

I also certainly agree that people could make better personal choices to reduce the odds of bad things happening to them, but it would only reduce the odds. At some point, no matter how well you take care of your body, an external event will leave you needing the science of medicine for help.

 

15 minutes ago, taupe said:

Yes, I too see science as a narrative. That's not to disrespect it, and I by-and-large trust it and invariably follow it, but I am aware of the paradigm. To express it as a pithy one-liner (and as I've mentioned before) if you're one of the 0.0001%, it's of limited consolation to be a statistical unlikelihood. 

 

I can understand the frustrations of scientists (and their communicators) when there is blatent misinformation trotted out but I feel the answer is more sensitive and nuanced communication, and not doubling down on the 'we are scientists, we know' rhetoric. I can certainly appreciate why Gove's infamous "people are fed up with experts" pronouncement struck a chord with many. 

 

 

It is frustrating, because that sensitive and nuanced communication is (IMO) happening, but it is still being drowned out by misinformation that serves purely base purposes of those who purport it. Now, we could say "well, in that case science communicators need to try harder" and that'd be a fair thing to say, but it would be nice if those communicators were more met in the middle in terms of trust rather than having to do most of the running themselves.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's a fair argument to make, both situations are reasonably unlikely for a particular age group. It's just that one is still less likely than the other.

 

I'm as sceptical of those with power who seek to abuse it as anyone and I think I've made that clear in posts in the past...I just don't think that the scientific corpus as a whole has a reason to abuse the (relatively small) power they have because they know that such abuses will rebound on them too, because on such matters involving natural events the Earth doesn't entertain denial or falsehoods.

 

I also certainly agree that people could make better personal choices to reduce the odds of bad things happening to them, but it would only reduce the odds. At some point, no matter how well you take care of your body, an external event will leave you needing the science of medicine for help.

 

It is frustrating, because that sensitive and nuanced communication is (IMO) happening, but it is still being drowned out by misinformation that serves purely base purposes of those who purport it. Now, we could say "well, in that case science communicators need to try harder" and that'd be a fair thing to say, but it would be nice if those communicators were more met in the middle in terms of trust rather than having to do most of the running themselves.

I was about to make your last point. All the information is out there, but it's not always easy to find, which is why discussions like this are important. Stay in your echo chamber and you're never going to see both sides. 

 

I do wonder about the motivations of the disinformationists. Do they really believe it or is it just an extension of click bait/trolling and they don't care about the message just the clicks and traffic. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I was about to make your last point. All the information is out there, but it's not always easy to find, which is why discussions like this are important. Stay in your echo chamber and you're never going to see both sides. 

 

I do wonder about the motivations of the disinformationists. Do they really believe it or is it just an extension of click bait/trolling and they don't care about the message just the clicks and traffic. 

I think it comes down to base purposes mostly, as per above. Clicks and traffic = revenue. Revenue = income. Income = power.

 

Now, I've no issue with someone trying to make a buck (mostly), but the issue with that in this particular case and a couple of others is it becomes everyone's business because the misinformation causes real harm, potentially and sometimes literally.

[leicsmac]

All the above being said, snake oil salesmen looking to blind other people for a profit is hardly a new thing, it's been done for millenia. It's just that technology has made the process much more streamlined and far reaching these days.

[kenny]

59 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Sadly it's also not quite true...

 

He posted four days ago that he was in Romania.

But it was on twitter, it must be true?

[Paninistickers]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All the above being said, snake oil salesmen looking to blind other people for a profit is hardly a new thing, it's been done for millenia. It's just that technology has made the process much more streamlined and far reaching these days.

Largely we are on a similar page. I have no truck with scientists and have little time for conspiracy theorists. But our opinion of who the snake oil salesmen were/are differs. 

 

I had the 2  jabs. Not because I wanted them nor gave me any particular health benefit (miniscule benefit at best, as your numbers prove)  but I was bullied by the 'snake oil salesman'  government/s. Basically we were placed under a de facto house arrest and my passport rendered useless until we had the jabs. Propaganda - and that's what it was - on radio, TV, online and bus stops to take the jab. I couldn't then - nor still now - believe how compliant the public was. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Largely we are on a similar page. I have no truck with scientists and have little time for conspiracy theorists. But our opinion of who the snake oil salesmen were/are differs. 

 

I had the 2  jabs. Not because I wanted them nor gave me any particular health benefit (miniscule benefit at best, as your numbers prove)  but I was bullied by the 'snake oil salesman'  government/s. Basically we were placed under a de facto house arrest and my passport rendered useless until we had the jabs. Propaganda - and that's what it was - on radio, TV, online and bus stops to take the jab. I couldn't then - nor still now - believe how compliant the public was. 

Evidently we do disagree on who the snake oil salesmen were, and I think that's because we also disagree on what snake oil is.

 

Other parties may have enacted restrictions regarding the Covid vaccines, but it is a matter of statistical fact that the vaccine itself was both necessary and effective (if only slightly in some cases) at preventing a much worse crisis than the world had. They really were not "snake oil".

 

As per above, I share some scepticism regarding those with power. But as I said on the Covid thread many times, I don't share such scepticism when the opposition is a proven harmful force of nature that cannot and will not stop unless it is stopped by human effort and cognition.

Edited 30 December 2022 by leicsmac

[ozleicester]

14 minutes ago, kenny said:

But it was on twitter, it must be true?

either way...Tates uber childish response is one of the funniest things ive see for a while.