Slarti

Is the first one Oaky?

How many times do you have to lose all your money before you learn, ya numpty?

He's quite right, though. All those people claiming things are "fact" without any reliable evidence to back it up.

Now, THAT'S funny. [emoji1787]

There should be a mandatory two weeks off work, on full pay, for anyone who has to clear their throat at any time of the year. You know it makes sense.

One says "new admissions THIS week", the other says "new admissions LAST week".

The 2 weeks that they're talking about, obviously. That should be obvious, do keep up.

Just saving him the bother. [emoji16]

I thought I'd let you go first. Still waiting. [emoji14]

Was it about biscuits?

There really should be a comma after "alert", you know.

Our current stadium's not big enough to hold those sizes of crowds.

Knowing you, it was obtuse. [emoji16]

Over 90% of journalists won't be writing anything at all related to covid, so they must be talking about different nutters.

I know, all those anti-vaxers and anti-boosters calling everyone else nazis, bullies, elitist, etc. It has to stop.

I don't like language that implies the virus "wants" something, it doesn't, it just "is" and "does", there is no intent. Other than that, yeah.

I agree with most of that. I don't necessarily agree that "Most likely the virus will become decreasingly severe each year." There is no evidence to support that. It doesn't mean it isn't true, just that there is nothing to point that way yet.

But you did. Maybe it's not what you meant to say, but it is what you said. As I said, your "point" has changed (a few times), or maybe you have the same point but just aren't phrasing it properly. Statistically, it doesn't look like that at all. That's not what's being "spun". "Offers protection from" is not the same as "you won't get it". Whatever the accurate numbers are, it's clear that the unvaccinated are "over represented" in ICU and death numbers. I've already commented on the transmission.

And if your doctor said that more of the same will work? Would you say/think that you don't believe them and not take it? Or would you say/think that you don't believe them but take it anyway? Your point has changed though, you were claiming earlier that having the booster make you more likely to get omicron. A lot of them are nutters and conspiracy theorists, though. It's a bit like being a Sevco supporter and objecting to being labelled orange. If you "associate" with them, you tend to get tarred with the same brush. If it was just the UK government that was pushing this then people would be right to ask questions, but it's most (if not all) governments, governments who are getting their info and recommendations from their own (different) scientists and medical experts. Do I think that there are some politicians and their cronies (and maybe even scientists and medical experts) making lots of money out of this? Yes, but that is something to be dealt with later. Would you advocate the sacking of health workers who refused to wash their hands?

Oh, there are plenty I wish I didn't remember. [emoji1787]

It was at Love Street, that's all I remember. At least, that's the first one I remember.

That just depends on your definition of "alive", it doesn't alter how you deal with it.

I'll stop when it's safe to do so. When that will be, I have no idea at the moment. If there weren't scientists disagreeing with each other, that's when I would be worried. I tend to go with what the current "consensus" is, if you can call it that. If the vast majority of experts in a field are leaning one way then that is probably the right way. It could be wrong but it's more likely to be right. Otherwise I would just be picking what "feels right" to me or agrees with what I already think - but I know I'm not an expert, so that would be silly. It would be like the way lots of people decide what version of Christianity to follow - they go with the one that agrees with how they already think. The moral argument, while I see where you're coming from, doesn't really hold water. There's plenty vaccine out there and you taking it doesn't prevent someone in, say, Botswana getting it. It's the stockpiling by first world countries that's the issue there and that's a different argument that I'm sure we would be on the same side of. If your doctor gave you antibiotics for something but it didn't clear up properly, then he prescribed you more of the same, you wouldn't take them? If you got chemotherapy and were then told you had to go back for another round you wouldn't go? If St Mirren didn't win any trophies one season you wouldn't bother with them again? [emoji849]

But if it protects the person receiving it then it does protect others by extension, as that person's immune system can kill the virus quicker meaning that they are contagious for a shorter period - and that is the way we get out of all this. The less time the virus has to spread, either within a person or between people, the less chance of it mutating and the more chance we have of developing a vaccine that will do for a longer time. We can be more proactive rather than always having to be reactive. Mutations are why it isn't a false narrative that the unvaccinated are endangering others. Why did you get two doses? Would one not have been enough? If not, why would you think a third wouldn't be beneficial?

Here's a table that was posted by someone commenting on that guys twitter. Shows the calibre of his "followers" when they highlight the least important stat on the table to back up their "point". So, a person is approximately 3 times more likely to die within 60 days of a positive test if they are unvaccinated. That doesn't necessarily mean that those deaths are directly attributable to covid but if everything else is equal (a reasonable assumption I think), it probably does. Yes, I know these figures do not include the "boosted" but it is what the person presented so I'm just working with that.