On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 04:28:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
JimK addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"I really feel the quality of your trolling has dropped in the last few
months..."cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent Speed, the auto-contradicting
senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
MID:

On 03/04/2021 15:59, Steve Walker wrote:
On 03/04/2021 13:06, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Vir Campestris wrote:
I know a few people who've had the real thing. They are young, and
basically healthy. And have become real zealots for everyone possible
being immunized. It's not fun.

Quite. I have two friends who've had it, but not badly enough to have
been
hospitalised. Both have the so called Long Covid. I don't know anyone
out
of many who have had anything other than a mild reaction to the vaccine,
and the vast majority none at all.Â* But most, being old like me, have
had
Pfizer.

I've had the Oxford one - I'm also old

I had the Oxford/AZ vaccine on Thursday morning. On Friday I woke up
with a very slight headache and my left arm was slightly still. Neither

^^^^^

stiff

enough to affect my day. However, I did feel very tired for various
parts of the day.

I had less sleep than normal last night, but have been back to normal
still today.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:23:51 -0400, Paul
wrote:
snip

Oh sure, I was just wondering if anyone yet thought that there
actually was a link, or that it couldn't still be just coincidence
etc?

In the United States, there's already been one "coincidence"
that was ruled out. One of the other vaccines recorded some
cases, but their frequency is the same as the general population.

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...6536/1294.full

"A somewhat similar blood disorder, called immune thrombocytopenia (ITP),
has been seen in at least 40 people in the United States who received
the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19, but the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that syndrome did not
appear to be more common in vaccinated people."

In other words, ITP condition is in the general population, and
would have occurrences whether vaccinated or not vaccinated.
The vaccine did not increase the frequency.

Quite, if *those* instances were linked or not. Time will tell if
there *are* any actual links etc.

*******

This is a backgrounder for VIPIT.

vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...know-1.5370015

If VIPIT was a coincidence, they would have stated as much by now.
(That's if they'd seen a case in the general population,
in someone who had not had the AstraZenica jab.)

The incidence of people dying from it, may be reduced, as
treatment methods become more well-known by doctors.

*******

Yup.

They already have labs set up for sticky platelet conditions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...cine-1.5971270

"The lab runs specialized tests for different types of
platelet disorders, including screening for
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)."

There to seem to be more and more eyes on all this these days and that
can only be a good thing.

Especially so given the thought that the likes of Covid19 isn't going
to 'go away' as quickly as some.

Cheers, T i m

On 03/04/2021 18:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:45:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

And aren't
interested in actual risks.

One of the annoying things with an awful lot of reporting on these kinds
of things is the fact that they rarely quote actual risks and only
relative ones. Doing X makes you 50% more likely to suffer Y makes for a
better click bait headline, than highlighting that doing X makes changes
the odds of suffering Y from 1 in 10 million to 1 in 5 millon.

I'm not sure they are something as easy to define and any risk linked
to the vaccine itself.

Like, if you don't have any underlying health issues, don't go out or
allow anyone in or near ... and regularly wash your hands and clean
any delivered shopping, what are the chances of catching covid? In
fact you are likely to be at a higher than normal (for you) risk,
whilst going to get your jab, including getting knocked down or
getting something else, like the flu!

So, it's potentially possible (however unlikely) you *could* be at a
greater risk in general, from the jab (inc allergic reaction etc) than
without.

All that sitting about at home, probably makes you more likely to suffer
a thrombotic event :-)

I'm still not saying that you shouldn't get the jab, just that (*if*
there is an association with blood clots) and especially if you are in
the 'higher risk group (*if* there is an association with blood
clots), from having it compared with not.

No different, really, from gambling.

Agreed, if you do something that could put you at a higher than normal
risk.

Everyone knows the vast majority lose
overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Because they get 'fun' or 'a buzz' out of that risk. I'm not sure
direct life-and-death risks are quite the same. ;-)

eg. Until any links between the jab and death from blood clots are
disproved, if I were a middle aged woman with the specific know /

A negative burden of proof is frequently impossible to achieve.

suggested conditions ... and I didn't go out etc, I think I'd have to
think hard about having the AZ jab. So far the others not so.

You *might* be able to identify specific risk factors, and screen out
those people (much as those with a history of severe allergic reactions
are screen out of receiving the Pf vaccine)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 03/04/2021 18:54, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:59:46 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 03/04/2021 13:06, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
I know a few people who've had the real thing. They are young, and
basically healthy. And have become real zealots for everyone possible
being immunized. It's not fun.

Quite. I have two friends who've had it, but not badly enough to have been
hospitalised. Both have the so called Long Covid. I don't know anyone out
of many who have had anything other than a mild reaction to the vaccine,
and the vast majority none at all. But most, being old like me, have had
Pfizer.

I've had the Oxford one - I'm also old

I had the Oxford/AZ vaccine on Thursday morning. On Friday I woke up
with a very slight headache and my left arm was slightly still. Neither
enough to affect my day. However, I did feel very tired for various
parts of the day.

I think the potential for any *noticeable* side effects could be a
function of how much pain you may be in anyway?

The Mrs probably needs two new shoulders and is generally in pain from
them so wouldn't feel any 'new' low level pain from the injection
there.

If it made your ears ring I might not notice over my tinnitus.


I had less sleep than normal last night, but have been back to normal
still today.

Thanks for the feedback.

By way of update, my slight temperature and feeling a bit "off" lasted
about a day, was feeling mostly normal by thursday (had Jab on Tuesday
morning). Only residual now is the occasional itchy feeling near the
injection site, and slight sensitivity on about a square inch of arm if
I go prodding at it directly.

I took swmbo for hers on Thursday. She felt quite shivery and flue like
on the friday, and is still quaffing the occasional paracetamol today,
but generally feeling closer to normal. Says her arm is still quite
tender though.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 23:44:06 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

By way of update, my slight temperature and feeling a bit "off" lasted
about a day, was feeling mostly normal by thursday (had Jab on Tuesday
morning). Only residual now is the occasional itchy feeling near the
injection site, and slight sensitivity on about a square inch of arm if
I go prodding at it directly.

Don't do that then. ;-)

I took swmbo for hers on Thursday. She felt quite shivery and flue like
on the friday,

Yeah, they were amongst the symptoms my mates group experienced.

and is still quaffing the occasional paracetamol today,

Again. the Mrs (we don't have any of that 'obeying' of each other,
never signed up for that at the register office g) has to take
paracetamol fairly often for her general / shoulder aches and pains so
may well have suffered that without realising?

but generally feeling closer to normal. Says her arm is still quite
tender though.

Do either of you give blood and if so how does that compare for the
tenderness?

Cheers, T i m

On 04/04/2021 10:47, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 23:44:06 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

By way of update, my slight temperature and feeling a bit "off" lasted
about a day, was feeling mostly normal by thursday (had Jab on Tuesday
morning). Only residual now is the occasional itchy feeling near the
injection site, and slight sensitivity on about a square inch of arm if
I go prodding at it directly.

Don't do that then. ;-)

I took swmbo for hers on Thursday. She felt quite shivery and flue like
on the friday,

Yeah, they were amongst the symptoms my mates group experienced.

and is still quaffing the occasional paracetamol today,

Again. the Mrs (we don't have any of that 'obeying' of each other,
never signed up for that at the register office g) has to take
paracetamol fairly often for her general / shoulder aches and pains so
may well have suffered that without realising?

but generally feeling closer to normal. Says her arm is still quite
tender though.

Do either of you give blood and if so how does that compare for the
tenderness?

No (other than for blood tests!), so can't say...

(having said that, she has a poorer experience of those than I by virtue
of having veins that are apparently much harder to find!)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Only residual now is the occasional itchy feeling near the
injection site, and slight sensitivity on about a square inch of arm if
I go prodding at it directly.

If you haven't had your second shot, mention that to the
injection-person (nurse/doctor/pharmacist). An itchy feeling.

While medical personnel normally laugh off volunteered info,
you never know. They can do the interpretation bit.

Paul

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:45:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Sure. The *only* issue might be if you were in the specific 'could be
at higher risk of a fatal blood clot' *if* it's actually linked to the
AZ vaccine, group.

Everyone is at risk of a fatal blood clot vaccine or not. But the
percentages who get it, tiny.

Seems to me many look for any excuse not to have the vaccine. And aren't
interested in actual risks.

No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority lose
overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus is too low to bother with, just as I don't have any insurance apart from the one required by law (3rd party car). Insurance companies always make a profit, therefore it's the opposite of what you said about gambling. If you avoid gambling, you make and lose nothing. If you gamble, on average you lose money. If you avoid insurance, you have a tiny chance of losing a lot of money. If you take insurance, you are sure to lose money. I'll take a tiny risk over a certainty.

As for the virus:
In 1 year, 2.5 million died of it.
In that same year, 10 million (4 times more) dies of cancer.
In that same year, 80 million was added to the world population.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 12:58:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 12:11:03 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

So do we think there is a link between the OAZ jab and blood clots
(and not with PB) or is it that there may have been more doses of the
OAZ jab administered for some (potentially unlinked) 'link' being
formed?

I saw something of white blood cells / platelets mentioned on the news
earlier (like there was a link)?

Even if there is proved to be a link, it is still a tiny number compared
to the likelihood of being very ill with Covid.

Oh sure, I was just wondering if anyone yet thought that there
actually was a link, or that it couldn't still be just coincidence
etc?

Think of it like insurance. The vast majority never actually need their
house insurance. Yet happily pay it every year just in case of a serious
fire, etc.

Sure. The *only* issue might be if you were in the specific 'could be
at higher risk of a fatal blood clot' *if* it's actually linked to the
AZ vaccine, group.

If it's only 'middle aged women' then both of us here should be ok but
daughter is now 30 (so not middle aged but is a woman), but probably
won't be offered hers for a good while yet and by which time they
should have even more stats.

Just interested minds etc ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Don't bother. Let the softies get jabbed, then they reduce the risk to you and your family anyway. Then you do without the vaccine or the virus.

John Rumm wrote:


I took swmbo for hers on Thursday. She felt quite shivery and flue like
on the friday,


Long, tall, thin? Inclined to smoke? ;-)

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

--
*Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/04/2021 16:26, Paul wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Only residual now is the occasional itchy feeling near the injection
site, and slight sensitivity on about a square inch of arm if I go
prodding at it directly.

If you haven't had your second shot, mention that to the
injection-person (nurse/doctor/pharmacist). An itchy feeling.

It's supposed to be one of the most common side effects - on the
accompanying leaflet on side effects under the heading of :

"Very Common (may affect more than 1 in 10 people)"

the first entry is "tenderness, pain, warmth, redness, itching, swelling
and bruising where the injection is given"

While medical personnel normally laugh off volunteered info,
you never know. They can do the interpretation bit.

You can actually make direct submissions usingl "the yellow card
system", as a member of the public if you want:

https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 04/04/2021 22:38, Tim+ wrote:
John Rumm wrote:


I took swmbo for hers on Thursday. She felt quite shivery and flue like
on the friday,


Long, tall, thin? Inclined to smoke? ;-)

feeling exhausted? :-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

And a chance that the vaccine kills you all in 5 years and us lot will have huge amounts of land. It's about time the humans were culled a bit.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:15:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

I'm more likely to be run over by a bus. And actually 5 times more likely to die of cancer. So why worry about a little virus I'm probably immune to anyway?

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

80% of people don't even get symptoms, nevermind die. It's hardly going to wipe out the human race. But what it could have done without the vaccine or precautions is wipe out the ones with rubbish immune systems, guaranteeing a stronger next generation. But apparently somebody outlawed evolution. Lack of evolution, keeping the weak alive, that is what will eventually bring our downfall.

On 05/04/2021 18:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
*** Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong.* I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of
coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

80% of people don't even get symptoms, nevermind die.* It's hardly going
to wipe out the human race.* But what it could have done without the
vaccine or precautions is wipe out the ones with rubbish immune systems,
guaranteeing a stronger next generation.* But apparently somebody
outlawed evolution.* Lack of evolution, keeping the weak alive, that is
what will eventually bring our downfall.

Quite, the state supports people like you too lazy to work.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants,

That mangles the real story. The new variants are mostly
coming from those with severely compromised immune
systems who take months to get over the virus.

that have the potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us
all back to square one.

That isnt going to happen either given that the vaccines
can be tweaked much more quickly now that there doesnt
have to be the full phase 3 trial done for each tweak now.

And as long as there arent all that many refusenicks,
herd immunity should be seen regardless of them.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of
coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

And a chance that the vaccine kills you all in 5 years

Nope, no chance of that.

and us lot will have huge amounts of land. It's about time the humans
were culled a bit.

Even world wars don't do that enough to matter.

On 03/04/2021 12:58, T i m wrote:
If it's only 'middle aged women' then both of us here should be ok but
daughter is now 30 (so not middle aged but is a woman), but probably
won't be offered hers for a good while yet and by which time they
should have even more stats.

If she's on The Pill that's a much higher risk.

She won't of course have told her parents if she is...

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-cont...lood-clot-risk

"Blood clots are rare, even among birth control users. The rate for
getting clots is about 0.3% to 1% over 10 years for a woman on the pill.
You're much more likely to have blood clots during or after pregnancy."

Andy

On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 21:43:42 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 03/04/2021 12:58, T i m wrote:
If it's only 'middle aged women' then both of us here should be ok but
daughter is now 30 (so not middle aged but is a woman), but probably
won't be offered hers for a good while yet and by which time they
should have even more stats.

If she's on The Pill that's a much higher risk.

Ah, thanks for the heads up.

She won't of course have told her parents if she is...

This one would, if she was (if it was relevant in a conversation). ;-)

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-cont...lood-clot-risk

"Blood clots are rare, even among birth control users. The rate for
getting clots is about 0.3% to 1% over 10 years for a woman on the pill.
You're much more likely to have blood clots during or after pregnancy."

But is this in general, or just around the jab?

Cheers, T i m

On 05/04/2021 16:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong.Â* I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.



The ones that do that are people who already have compromised immune
systems who then get Covid-19. The NHS then keeps them 'alive' for a
few weeks /months before the inevitable happens but during that time
the virus uses its 'being kept alive' host to mutate.

On 05/04/2021 18:51, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong.Â* I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of
coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

And a chance that the vaccine kills you all in 5 years and us lot will
have huge amounts of land.Â* It's about time the humans were culled a bit.

But we need to cull the subhumans first, Commander.
The shower stall is this way, sir.

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 05/04/2021 21:43, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/04/2021 12:58, T i m wrote:
If it's only 'middle aged women' then both of us here should be ok but
daughter is now 30 (so not middle aged but is a woman), but probably
won't be offered hers for a good while yet and by which time they
should have even more stats.

If she's on The Pill that's a much higher risk.

She won't of course have told her parents if she is...

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-cont...lood-clot-risk


"Blood clots are rare, even among birth control users. The rate for
getting clots is about 0.3% to 1% over 10 years for a woman on the pill.
You're much more likely to have blood clots during or after pregnancy."

Andy
Or when using cocaine.

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 18:57:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 05/04/2021 18:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of
coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

80% of people don't even get symptoms, nevermind die. It's hardly going
to wipe out the human race. But what it could have done without the
vaccine or precautions is wipe out the ones with rubbish immune systems,
guaranteeing a stronger next generation. But apparently somebody
outlawed evolution. Lack of evolution, keeping the weak alive, that is
what will eventually bring our downfall.

Quite, the state supports people like you too lazy to work.

Your insult failed since you tell lies.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:14:08 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 05/04/2021 16:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

The ones that do that are people who already have compromised immune
systems who then get Covid-19. The NHS then keeps them 'alive' for a
few weeks /months before the inevitable happens but during that time
the virus uses its 'being kept alive' host to mutate.

Indeed, we should just isolate folk and see if they survive.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 02:07:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/04/2021 18:51, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:14:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/04/2021 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of
coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

all banter aside, there is the real problem that vaccine refuseniks will
continue spawn a never ending stream of new variants, that have the
potential to take many more lives, or possibly even take us all back to
square one.

And a chance that the vaccine kills you all in 5 years and us lot will
have huge amounts of land. It's about time the humans were culled a bit.

But we need to cull the subhumans first, Commander.
The shower stall is this way, sir.

I don't believe in god.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 18:49:58 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:45:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Sure. The *only* issue might be if you were in the specific 'could be
at higher risk of a fatal blood clot' *if* it's actually linked to the
AZ vaccine, group.

Everyone is at risk of a fatal blood clot vaccine or not.

Yes, but that's not what we are talking about here.

But the
percentages who get it, tiny.

Sure ... and once any risk is defined, typically not a problem, unless
it happens to be you or one of yours.

Seems to me many look for any excuse not to have the vaccine.

But that could depend if you are a glass half full or half empty
person.

And aren't
interested in actual risks.

I'm not sure they are something as easy to define and any risk linked
to the vaccine itself.

Like, if you don't have any underlying health issues, don't go out or
allow anyone in or near ... and regularly wash your hands and clean
any delivered shopping, what are the chances of catching covid? In
fact you are likely to be at a higher than normal (for you) risk,
whilst going to get your jab, including getting knocked down or
getting something else, like the flu!

So, it's potentially possible (however unlikely) you *could* be at a
greater risk in general, from the jab (inc allergic reaction etc) than
without.

I'm still not saying that you shouldn't get the jab, just that (*if*
there is an association with blood clots) and especially if you are in
the 'higher risk group (*if* there is an association with blood
clots), from having it compared with not.

No different, really, from gambling.

Agreed, if you do something that could put you at a higher than normal
risk.

Everyone knows the vast majority lose
overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Because they get 'fun' or 'a buzz' out of that risk. I'm not sure
direct life-and-death risks are quite the same. ;-)

eg. Until any links between the jab and death from blood clots are
disproved, if I were a middle aged woman with the specific know /
suggested conditions ... and I didn't go out etc, I think I'd have to
think hard about having the AZ jab. So far the others not so.


Wouldn't you suggest however that the person might try to ensure they
get the Pfizer instead. It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it? And
we don't yet seem to be getting any concerns about the Pfizer, the
only seem to be around AZ.


--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 18:52:34 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:15:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Commander Kinsey wrote:
No different, really, from gambling. Everyone knows the vast majority
lose overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Wrong. I will not be getting a vaccine, because the risk of coronavirus
is too low to bother with,

Good for you. Hope it works out OK. Your posts are so sought after here
I'm sure we'd all be very sorry to hear of your death.

I'm more likely to be run over by a bus. And actually 5 times more likely to die of cancer. So why worry about a little virus I'm probably immune to anyway?

Because, and heaven forbid it be true, people you come in contact with
probably won't be as invincible as you. But then you may just be the
sort of chap no-one comes in contact with hence you're safe.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 18:49:58 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:45:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Sure. The *only* issue might be if you were in the specific 'could be
at higher risk of a fatal blood clot' *if* it's actually linked to the
AZ vaccine, group.

Everyone is at risk of a fatal blood clot vaccine or not.

Yes, but that's not what we are talking about here.

But the
percentages who get it, tiny.

Sure ... and once any risk is defined, typically not a problem, unless
it happens to be you or one of yours.

Seems to me many look for any excuse not to have the vaccine.

But that could depend if you are a glass half full or half empty
person.

And aren't
interested in actual risks.

I'm not sure they are something as easy to define and any risk linked
to the vaccine itself.

Like, if you don't have any underlying health issues, don't go out or
allow anyone in or near ... and regularly wash your hands and clean
any delivered shopping, what are the chances of catching covid? In
fact you are likely to be at a higher than normal (for you) risk,
whilst going to get your jab, including getting knocked down or
getting something else, like the flu!

So, it's potentially possible (however unlikely) you *could* be at a
greater risk in general, from the jab (inc allergic reaction etc) than
without.

I'm still not saying that you shouldn't get the jab, just that (*if*
there is an association with blood clots) and especially if you are in
the 'higher risk group (*if* there is an association with blood
clots), from having it compared with not.

No different, really, from gambling.

Agreed, if you do something that could put you at a higher than normal
risk.

Everyone knows the vast majority lose
overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Because they get 'fun' or 'a buzz' out of that risk. I'm not sure
direct life-and-death risks are quite the same. ;-)

eg. Until any links between the jab and death from blood clots are
disproved, if I were a middle aged woman with the specific know /
suggested conditions ... and I didn't go out etc, I think I'd have to
think hard about having the AZ jab. So far the others not so.


Wouldn't you suggest however that the person might try to ensure they
get the Pfizer instead. It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it? And
we don't yet seem to be getting any concerns about the Pfizer, the
only seem to be around AZ.

There have in fact been a tiny number who got it with the Pfizer in the
USA. Less clear if that was actually due to the vaccine tho, blood clots
are surprisingly common. Not just a simple blood clot with the very
rare serious medical problem with the Pfizer in the USA tho.

On 05/04/2021 22:19, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 21:43:42 +0100, Vir Campestris

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-cont...lood-clot-risk

"Blood clots are rare, even among birth control users. The rate for
getting clots is about 0.3% to 1% over 10 years for a woman on the pill.
You're much more likely to have blood clots during or after pregnancy."

But is this in general, or just around the jab?

It's general. Read the link.

I knew about it when we were young enough to need it. Which is a few
years ago now.

Andy

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:46:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Wouldn't you suggest however that the person might try to ensure they
get the Pfizer instead. It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it? And
we don't yet seem to be getting any concerns about the Pfizer, the
only seem to be around AZ.

There have in fact been a tiny number who got it with the Pfizer

Yeah? Or are you only auto-contradicting yet again, you subnormal
sociopathic cretin! BG

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 19:29:04 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

eg. Until any links between the jab and death from blood clots are
disproved, if I were a middle aged woman with the specific know /
suggested conditions ... and I didn't go out etc, I think I'd have to
think hard about having the AZ jab. So far the others not so.


Wouldn't you suggest however that the person might try to ensure they
get the Pfizer instead.

As things stand, maybe it might.

It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it?

Not sure. I think we were *told* what we were going to get and there
was no mention of a choice (even if one could have been arranged).

And
we don't yet seem to be getting any concerns about the Pfizer, the
only seem to be around AZ.

Quite, but I wonder how many of each have been administered and should
we also consider the demographics of those receiving each as well?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:01:54 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 05/04/2021 22:19, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 21:43:42 +0100, Vir Campestris

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-cont...lood-clot-risk

"Blood clots are rare, even among birth control users. The rate for
getting clots is about 0.3% to 1% over 10 years for a woman on the pill.
You're much more likely to have blood clots during or after pregnancy."

But is this in general, or just around the jab?

It's general. Read the link.

Yes, I knew, my statement was sort of rhetorical.

I knew about it when we were young enough to need it. Which is a few
years ago now.

eg, Yes, there are risks to taking most medicines ... so I wasn't sure
if you were suggesting the risk was increased by taking the AZ jab
(with an un-yet formally linked increase of blood clots) or *just*
taking the pill?

If you / one were on the pill *anyway*, that risk would be already
there so would the potential risk be disproportionately higher if you
had the AZ jab as well (straight linear risk increase or compound /
exponential etc).

Cheers, T i m

On 06/04/2021 20:29, AnthonyL wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 18:49:58 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:45:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Sure. The *only* issue might be if you were in the specific 'could be
at higher risk of a fatal blood clot' *if* it's actually linked to the
AZ vaccine, group.

Everyone is at risk of a fatal blood clot vaccine or not.

Yes, but that's not what we are talking about here.

But the
percentages who get it, tiny.

Sure ... and once any risk is defined, typically not a problem, unless
it happens to be you or one of yours.

Seems to me many look for any excuse not to have the vaccine.

But that could depend if you are a glass half full or half empty
person.

And aren't
interested in actual risks.

I'm not sure they are something as easy to define and any risk linked
to the vaccine itself.

Like, if you don't have any underlying health issues, don't go out or
allow anyone in or near ... and regularly wash your hands and clean
any delivered shopping, what are the chances of catching covid? In
fact you are likely to be at a higher than normal (for you) risk,
whilst going to get your jab, including getting knocked down or
getting something else, like the flu!

So, it's potentially possible (however unlikely) you *could* be at a
greater risk in general, from the jab (inc allergic reaction etc) than
without.

I'm still not saying that you shouldn't get the jab, just that (*if*
there is an association with blood clots) and especially if you are in
the 'higher risk group (*if* there is an association with blood
clots), from having it compared with not.

No different, really, from gambling.

Agreed, if you do something that could put you at a higher than normal
risk.

Everyone knows the vast majority lose
overall, but plenty still do it regularly.

Because they get 'fun' or 'a buzz' out of that risk. I'm not sure
direct life-and-death risks are quite the same. ;-)

eg. Until any links between the jab and death from blood clots are
disproved, if I were a middle aged woman with the specific know /
suggested conditions ... and I didn't go out etc, I think I'd have to
think hard about having the AZ jab. So far the others not so.


Wouldn't you suggest however that the person might try to ensure they
get the Pfizer instead. It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it? And
we don't yet seem to be getting any concerns about the Pfizer, the
only seem to be around AZ.


Pfizer use brown envelopes to ensure people recommend it.

I can't believe you haven't seen a deliberate media ****storm for purely
political and commercial reasons, before.

The two main problems with AZ - apart from naïveté - are that it is
British, and it its being sold at cost.

That is completely unacceptable to the main large pharma companies, and
the EU.


--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 19:29:04 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it?

Not sure. I think we were *told* what we were going to get and there
was no mention of a choice (even if one could have been arranged).

To some extent, that could be determined by how many
refrigerators you have, and where they're deployed.

Pharmacies here (not all of them), are giving jabs as part
of the effort, but only offer AZ. And that's because
they won't have the refrigeration for Pfizer.

If you wanted AZ, the easiest way to get it is at a
pharmacy.

The mass injection sites won't be mixing them, and
offering both. The needles used are different for the
two, as the Pfizer needs the "different needle that
sucks the last drops out of the vial" :-) That's how
they get an "extra dose" out of the vial. Too funny.
I;m surprised there isn't an option for the customers
to lick the outside of the vial ("every little bit counts").

Paul

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:54:38 -0400, Paul
wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 19:29:04 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it?

Not sure. I think we were *told* what we were going to get and there
was no mention of a choice (even if one could have been arranged).

To some extent, that could be determined by how many
refrigerators you have, and where they're deployed.

Good point,even though I think they are thawed and diluted before
final distribution?

Pharmacies here (not all of them), are giving jabs as part
of the effort, but only offer AZ.

Yeah, mine was at a chemists now mostly Jab centre. ;-)

And that's because
they won't have the refrigeration for Pfizer.

Sure, especially in it's 'raw / bulk' state.

If you wanted AZ, the easiest way to get it is at a
pharmacy.

Or most of the local medical centres and surgeries it seems. In fact,
I don't know anyone personally who have had anything other than the AZ
vaccine.

The mass injection sites won't be mixing them, and
offering both. The needles used are different for the
two, as the Pfizer needs the "different needle that
sucks the last drops out of the vial" :-)

Oh?

That's how
they get an "extra dose" out of the vial. Too funny.
I;m surprised there isn't an option for the customers
to lick the outside of the vial ("every little bit counts").

;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:54:38 -0400, Paul
wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 19:29:04 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

It isn't a choice vaccine or not is it?

Not sure. I think we were *told* what we were going to get and there
was no mention of a choice (even if one could have been arranged).

To some extent, that could be determined by how many
refrigerators you have, and where they're deployed.

Good point,even though I think they are thawed and diluted before
final distribution?

Pharmacies here (not all of them), are giving jabs as part
of the effort, but only offer AZ.

Yeah, mine was at a chemists now mostly Jab centre. ;-)

And that's because
they won't have the refrigeration for Pfizer.

Sure, especially in it's 'raw / bulk' state.

If you wanted AZ, the easiest way to get it is at a
pharmacy.

Or most of the local medical centres and surgeries it seems. In fact,
I don't know anyone personally who have had anything other than the AZ
vaccine.

SWMBO had the Pfizer one.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle