In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Andrew wrote:

some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than catching
Covid. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd need some pretty
specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

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

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:19:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than catching
Covid. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd need some pretty
specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

Isn't the comparison (for the individual) more between any potential
risk from any vaccine versus the risk of any *illness / death*
resulting from catching something that the vaccine may have prevented,
not actually catching Covid19 (in this case) itself?

The extension of that would be any advantages re herd immunity, if
there was such from the vaccine (not the case with the Covid19
vaccines as I understand it)?

Eg, Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

If the vaccine prevented them from carrying the virus
(asymptomatically especially) then it would make sense to vaccinate
them, but again, I don't believe it's the case (meaning social
distancing between them and their parents / grandparents is the safest
bet and let them get herd immunity 'naturally' and so no risks from
the vaccine)?

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

Looking at the demographics (which only seem to be available for
England, not the UK as whole, or for the other nations individually)

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-cases_by_specimen_date_age_demographics

It seems the people most likely to test positive at the moment are 10-14
year olds, so highly likely related to the return to school, though
possibly also the less accurate results from LFD compared to PCR tests.

You can also see the Oct/Nov surge started in 15-24 year olds, so likely
related to return to university.

Those above retirement age, or below school age are now the least likely
within society to catch covid, though it may well still be more serious
for them if they do.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:30:04 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-cases_by_specimen_date_age_demographics

It seems the people most likely to test positive at the moment are 10-14
year olds, so highly likely related to the return to school, though
possibly also the less accurate results from LFD compared to PCR tests.

And because of a planned dog_walk_to_Toolstation and back (~6 miles)
was 'modified' by some park groundworks, we had to deviate past a
secondary school at emptying out time and we felt like salmon swimming
up a Covid stream.[1] ;-(

You can also see the Oct/Nov surge started in 15-24 year olds, so likely
related to return to university.

Yeah.

Those above retirement age, or below school age are now the least likely
within society to catch covid, though it may well still be more serious
for them if they do.

Something I'm feeling slightly more comfortable about after having the
jab (or jabs in her case), for both us and my Mum (now 91).

Cheers, T i m

[1] What helped slightly us because we had the dog with us and a large
percentage of the kids were black (many of whom seem to have an issue
with dogs [2]), the dog acted a bit like a snowplough, clearing a path
for us. ;-)

[2] This was previously demonstrated when approaching a fair sized
group of mostly black school lads spread across the pavement outside a
chicken shop. As we approached with the dog in front and about to step
into the access road to walk around them, one spotted the dog, shouted
'Dog!' and the majority instantly ran in different directions like a
starburst firework going off! The couple that were left joined us in
the grinning ...

And it's only a mid sized terrier, not a wolf! ;-)

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

Looking at the demographics (which only seem to be available for
England, not the UK as whole, or for the other nations individually)

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-cases_by_specimen_date_age_demographics

It seems the people most likely to test positive at the moment are 10-14
year olds, so highly likely related to the return to school, though
possibly also the less accurate results from LFD compared to PCR tests.

You can also see the Oct/Nov surge started in 15-24 year olds, so likely
related to return to university.

Those above retirement age, or below school age are now the least likely
within society to catch covid, though it may well still be more serious
for them if they do.

Yes. We need to 'control' the virus itself before we can return to
normality. In practice by immunising everyone, and re-doing that for any
new strain not covered by the present vaccines. Much cheaper to do than
having a lock down every once in a while. It's not rocket science. Plenty
take medication every day for other things. To vaccinate the entire
country once a year isn't going to be impossible.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

Looking at the demographics (which only seem to be available for
England, not the UK as whole, or for the other nations individually)

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-cases_by_specimen_date_age_demographics

It seems the people most likely to test positive at the moment are
10-14 year olds, so highly likely related to the return to school,
though possibly also the less accurate results from LFD compared to
PCR tests.

You can also see the Oct/Nov surge started in 15-24 year olds, so
likely related to return to university.

Those above retirement age, or below school age are now the least
likely within society to catch covid, though it may well still be more
serious for them if they do.

Yes. We need to 'control' the virus itself before we can return to
normality. In practice by immunising everyone, and re-doing that for any
new strain not covered by the present vaccines. Much cheaper to do than
having a lock down every once in a while. It's not rocket science. Plenty
take medication every day for other things. To vaccinate the entire
country once a year isn't going to be impossible.

it is if people refuse the vaccine

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

On 06/04/2021 15:28, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

Looking at the demographics (which only seem to be available for
England, not the UK as whole, or for the other nations individually)

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-cases_by_specimen_date_age_demographics

It seems the people most likely to test positive at the moment are
10-14 year olds, so highly likely related to the return to school,
though possibly also the less accurate results from LFD compared to
PCR tests.

You can also see the Oct/Nov surge started in 15-24 year olds, so
likely related to return to university.

Those above retirement age, or below school age are now the least
likely within society to catch covid, though it may well still be more
serious for them if they do.

Yes. We need to 'control' the virus itself before we can return to
normality. In practice by immunising everyone, and re-doing that for any
new strain not covered by the present vaccines. Much cheaper to do than
having a lock down every once in a while. It's not rocket science. Plenty
take medication every day for other things. To vaccinate the entire
country once a year isn't going to be impossible.

it is if people refuse the vaccine

Most people will take the vaccine, if not just for themselves, but for
others too.

Refuseniks annoy me greatly, and so I would be in favour of Covid
Passports being required to attend any gathering.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Refuseniks annoy me greatly, and so I would be in favour of Covid
Passports being required to attend any gathering.

I agree. Seems to be pub managers objecting to this - but they already
check young people's age via documentation, so surely not much more work?
And night clubs usually have a doorman. To keep out undesirables.

--
*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?

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

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:19:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than catching
Covid. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd need some pretty
specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

Isn't the comparison (for the individual) more between any potential
risk from any vaccine versus the risk of any *illness / death*
resulting from catching something that the vaccine may have prevented,
not actually catching Covid19 (in this case) itself?

Of course. By catching Covid, I'm assuming you'd know this by the
symptoms. Until we have exhaustive regular testing, we're not going to
know how many have it but have no symptoms. Whereas we do have figures for
those with symptoms bad enough to go to a doctor. And we also have figures
for any reactions to the vaccine - to date. Obviously long term side
effects from either will have to wait for time to pass.

The extension of that would be any advantages re herd immunity, if
there was such from the vaccine (not the case with the Covid19
vaccines as I understand it)?

Herd immunity generally means letting the weak die and the strong survive.
Maybe OK in the wild, but with mankind and civilisation the 'brain' can be
more important than 'muscle', as it were.

Eg, Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

Yes - even more so where generations tend to live together.

If the vaccine prevented them from carrying the virus
(asymptomatically especially) then it would make sense to vaccinate
them, but again, I don't believe it's the case (meaning social
distancing between them and their parents / grandparents is the safest
bet and let them get herd immunity 'naturally' and so no risks from
the vaccine)?

The normal way with vaccines is to immunise (near) everyone. So the virus
doesn't get transmitted and dies out. Not of course for ever. But that was
the theory with other vaccinations.

Cheers, T i m

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:19:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than
catching
Covid. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd need some pretty
specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

Isn't the comparison (for the individual) more between any potential
risk from any vaccine versus the risk of any *illness / death*
resulting from catching something that the vaccine may have prevented,
not actually catching Covid19 (in this case) itself?

Of course. By catching Covid, I'm assuming you'd know this by the
symptoms. Until we have exhaustive regular testing, we're not going to
know how many have it but have no symptoms. Whereas we do have figures for
those with symptoms bad enough to go to a doctor. And we also have figures
for any reactions to the vaccine - to date. Obviously long term side
effects from either will have to wait for time to pass.

The extension of that would be any advantages re herd immunity, if
there was such from the vaccine (not the case with the Covid19
vaccines as I understand it)?

Herd immunity generally means letting the weak die and the strong survive.

Nope, it works just as well with non fatal infections.

Maybe OK in the wild, but with mankind and civilisation
the 'brain' can be more important than 'muscle', as it were.

Eg, Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

Yes - even more so where generations tend to live together.

If the vaccine prevented them from carrying the virus
(asymptomatically especially) then it would make sense to vaccinate
them, but again, I don't believe it's the case (meaning social
distancing between them and their parents / grandparents is the safest
bet and let them get herd immunity 'naturally' and so no risks from
the vaccine)?

The normal way with vaccines is to immunise (near) everyone.

That’s not true either. Some of the viruses that are
more of a nuisance don’t get anything like that result.

So the virus doesn't get transmitted and dies out.
Not of course for ever.

It has with smallpox.

But that was the theory with other vaccinations.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 04:39:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:19:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than catching
Covid. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd need some pretty
specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

Isn't the comparison (for the individual) more between any potential
risk from any vaccine versus the risk of any *illness / death*
resulting from catching something that the vaccine may have
prevented, not actually catching Covid19 (in this case) itself?

Try that sentence again in english, even google
translate doesn't do gobbledegook yet.

The extension of that would be any advantages re herd
immunity, if there was such from the vaccine (not the
case with the Covid19 vaccines as I understand it)?

You have that wrong. The vaccines do prevent infection.
The phase 3 trials didn't test that question because its
harder to do than the other question of preventing
severe disease and death due to the virus. That question
of preventing infection is now being tested and has
been announced with some of them already.

Eg, Whilst I understand on a few hundred otherwise healthy youngsters
have died from Covid19, there is a very good chance many have carried
and passed it onto their parents or grandparents who have died.

That's a different question to herd immunity.

If the vaccine prevented them from carrying the virus
(asymptomatically especially) then it would make sense
to vaccinate them, but again, I don't believe it's the case

It is actually.

(meaning social distancing between them and
their parents / grandparents is the safest bet

Nope. And that doesn't work with aerosols
which are in fact the main problem with
transmission of this virus in the home.

and let them get herd immunity 'naturally'
and so no risks from the vaccine)?

But the risk with getting infected is still higher
than with the vaccine.

Individuals can end up with a lower risk by always
isolating and having what they need delivered but
that isnt really that viable for most young people.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 04:10:57 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

Dave Plowman wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than catching
Covid.

No, it means I'm not in the groups that start with a higher blood-clot
risk, which the az vaccine may (or may not) exacerbate, therefore I
didn't let a factor which is trivial for me as an individual, deter me
from getting the vaccine.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?
You'd need some pretty
specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Andrew wrote:

some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to
measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple
statistics?

I'm not female, I'm not on the pill, I don't smoke ... so I took my
chances ...

Which means you must think the risks from a vaccine greater than
catching Covid. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd need
some pretty specialist knowledge do it with any accuracy.

Nope, just realise that choosing to isolate and have what
you need delivered would work for you.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 03:52:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Nope

ROTFLOL!

****ing stupid idiot!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: