Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

[CharonY]

It is slightly off-topic but I think it is worthwhile highlighting that terms like immunity, tolerance and resistance are often used in slightly different ways depending on context.

In "classic" microbiology, which includes non-medical contexts we often use the terms tolerance to define a host-pathogen interaction which does not negatively affect host health but is also not being detrimental to pathogen fitness. Resistance on the other hand typically refers to direct limitation of the pathogen burden (and can include passive and active elimination of it). Unfortunately this is about the most consistent definitions you can find in literature and after that things get muddied up, depending on the sub-discipline.

Immunity is then generally often referred to as a resistance mechanism, which can include our immune system, but sometimes also refers to other mechanisms which are employed to defend against parasitic interactions (it can be used in the context of bacterial mechanisms to fend off bacteriophages, for example). 

But unfortunately when it moves into the medical area, language can get a bit vague as the focus there is less on the direct interactions between host and pathogen (and underlying mechanisms) but is typically (and perhaps unsurprisingly) based on health outcome, such as disease development. Moreover, typically there is little consideration with regard of infection in the process. 

Infections are mostly considered in the context of host range but rarely (to my knowledge at least) extends to individuals.

Individuals who get infected, but never develop symptoms would under the classic definition considered to be tolerant, but sometimes are also called immune, for example. But then, this is also used to describe a situation when an individual has the ability to clear the pathogen before disease manifests (which would be a resistance mechanisms). 

It also does not help that those terms are sometimes are not used consistently within a field, in part because mechanisms often overlap or are linked. That being said, natural immunity rarely is used (at least from what I have seen) to describe a situation where an individual cannot be infected by whatever reasons.

Rather it does refer to immunity (in terms of resistance) due to exposure to a pathogen and is contrasted to vaccine-induced immunity. Neither of them meaning that one cannot get infected, but rather describing a situation where resistance is enhanced, if that makes sense.

Time makes it even more complicated, as at this point we would need to look at the time dependent response of the immune system (where fast responses wane but slower long term responses have to take over) but also new variants play a role.

[Mark78L]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Name what evidence we could share that would change your mind on this topic. You’ll likely ask for something that’s already been shared, but if it’s a new request it surely could be. 

Okay, it's good to start afresh. The evidence that may change my mind on this topic, if you can find it, would be this:

1. Please provide the evidence that the Pfizer vaccine isn't experimental, that all relevant long term safety testing has been complete and that it's Phase 3 trial phase has finished.
2. Please provide the evidence confirming that longitudinal safety testing has been complete and shows no significant risk of accelerated dementia, myocarditis, or infertility for healthy people between the age of 40-50.
3. Policy is being driven by positive case numbers, which is provided by PCR testing - all positive cases are deemed infectious. No attempt has been made by SAGE or government officials to differentiate between infectious and non-infectious PCR cases. Please provide evidence that this is incorrect and that either the gov are checking CT values and adjusting the figures accordingly or that all PCR positive cases are infectious to justify the lockdown, mask wearing and social distancing measures being pursued.
4. Please provide the Infection Fatality Rate for my age range between 40-50
5. Please provide the risk of adverse reactions from the vaccine for 40-50 year olds.
6. Please confirm the endpoints of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms and hospitalisation, and then provide the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine for 40-50 age range of healthy individuals, taken from their trail data in 2020. We all know the Relative risk figure of 95%, but what is the Absolute Risk Reduction figure of the Pfizer vaccine and what does this mean in context?
7. How many people died WITH covid in 2020 and 2021, and how many died OF covid in the same two years?

Only from this data can anyone make an informed decision and convince me I've developed the wrong impression and that government policy (lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine mandates) are justified.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

How many people died WITH covid in 2020 and 2021, and how many died OF covid in the same two years?

Please clarify. Are you suggesting here that when a diabetic gets covid and dies it was really the diabetes that killed them?

[StringJunky]

39 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

1. How many people died WITH covid in 2020 and 2021, and how many died OF covid in the same two years?

It doesn't matter that covid finished them off... it's not covid's fault? You really are licking the bottom of the barrel.

[Mark78L]

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please clarify. Are you suggesting here that when a diabetic gets covid and dies it was really the diabetes that killed them?

A death certificate will state what a person died OF (primary cause of death), and what they died WITH (other conditions that were also present but were not the primary cause of death). For instance, we hear each year that between 15,000 to 25,000 people in the UK die OF the flu/pnuemonia each year. The government also keeps data on people who've died WITH flu mentioned anywhere on their death certificate, but this figure is rarely presented as clearly this will skew the death figures as many people have several other conditions. Another hyperthetical example would be person may die of a heart attack after a prolonged operation, or from a stroke, but during their time in hospital they may contract covid, but covid didn't kill them, the heart attack or stroke did. Therefore they died OF a heart attack, WITH covid mentioned on the death certificate, Covid was not the cause of death.

I'm just asking for both sets of the government figures as this will cover all angles of your question to prevent confusion. Thanks.

 

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It doesn't matter that covid finished them off... it's not covid's fault? You really are licking the bottom of the barrel.

You misunderstand. The government provides statistics for deaths cataloguing where people died OF a disease and WITH a disease if applicable, because some people also have co-morbidities - this is government policy. If you have an issue with it take it up with the government. It has nothing to do with me, I didn't design the system. I'm just asking for the statistics the government provides - people dying WITH covid mentioned anywhere on the death certificate and people dying OF covid directly, they do this for all other diseases.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Mark78L

[TheVat]

Bit of a confusion here.  Comorbidities are not the cause of death.  Death certificates may show a chain of events, but the cause of death is that which sets in motion a cascade of organ failures that otherwise would not have happened.  A patient with treatable T2 diabetes and COPD and some CV disease may be more susceptible to certain organ failures, but those are not the COD.  Pretty much every study I've seen finds COVID-19, when listed as the COD, as the primary cause and not something that just happens to be hanging out in the throat while the patient had pneumonia followed by respiratory failure followed by heart failure.  I think Reuters recently had a useful fact check on this.

 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-comorbidities-coviddeaths-idUSL1N2TU22X 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

The government provides statistics for deaths cataloguing where people died OF a disease and WITH a disease if applicable, because some people also have co-morbidities - this is government policy

Which government? Covid is a global problem, aka a pandemic. 

[mistermack]

This is getting silly. The real cause of death is being born. Nothing to do with covid. Everybody knows that. 

Anyway, the figures are probably a good approximation. There must be people who died without getting tested, who were given the final push by covid. They would balance out any that died of something else, who got included in the figures. It's not a perfect world, the figures are the best we have.

[Mark78L]

On 2/13/2022 at 3:08 AM, iNow said:

Which government? Covid is a global problem, aka a pandemic. 

The UK government.

18 hours ago, mistermack said:

This is getting silly. The real cause of death is being born. Nothing to do with covid. Everybody knows that. 

Anyway, the figures are probably a good approximation. There must be people who died without getting tested, who were given the final push by covid. They would balance out any that died of something else, who got included in the figures. It's not a perfect world, the figures are the best we have.

Let's just allow iNow to answer the questions...

On 2/13/2022 at 2:31 AM, TheVat said:

Bit of a confusion here.  Comorbidities are not the cause of death.  Death certificates may show a chain of events, but the cause of death is that which sets in motion a cascade of organ failures that otherwise would not have happened.  A patient with treatable T2 diabetes and COPD and some CV disease may be more susceptible to certain organ failures, but those are not the COD.  Pretty much every study I've seen finds COVID-19, when listed as the COD, as the primary cause and not something that just happens to be hanging out in the throat while the patient had pneumonia followed by respiratory failure followed by heart failure.  I think Reuters recently had a useful fact check on this.

 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-comorbidities-coviddeaths-idUSL1N2TU22X 

No confusion, just asking for the two figures that are provided regarding death certificates.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

Let's just allow iNow to answer the questions...

 

Is that you excuse for not answering the technical questions I have asked you ?

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Mark78L said:

Let's just allow iNow to answer the questions...

To be clear, I never said I would, nor is there any onus on me to do so.

All I did was ask what it would take to change your mind. I never said I would bother trying to change it myself.

Given the ludicrously tight questions you've asked, I see this as a complete and total waste of my time. You're the type of poster who will just dismiss any answers, misrepresent them, and instead pivot to some other justification for your preferred conclusion. 

Cheers. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by iNow

[Mark78L]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

To be clear, I never said I would, nor is there any onus on me to do so.

All I did was ask what it would take to change your mind. I never said I would bother trying to change it myself.

Given the ludicrously tight questions you've asked, I see this as a complete and total waste of my time. You're the type of poster who will just dismiss any answers, misrepresent them, and instead pivot to some other justification for your preferred conclusion. 

Cheers. 

Ha ha ha... so predictable. I think the reason why you refuse to attempt to answer even one of those points is because each one of them proves that the narrative you champion is wrong... and the cognitive dissonance would be far too great for you to be able to deal with...

"Ludicrously tight questions"... oh dear, a poor excuse. If I didn't ask 'clear-cut questions' you would complain they weren't specific enough. "I see this as a complete and total waste of my time"... yes because it would prove you wrong, and you can't be seen to be wrong in an echo chamber, you have an ego to protect after-all.

Let me express why you refuse to answer these questions -  :
 

1. You can't prove the vaccine trials have finished because the Pfizer phase III clinical trial for the covid vaccine (long-term safety data) doesn't finish until March 2023 - you would therefore have to admit that the vaccine is experimental which goes against the narrative you are presenting.
2. You can't prove the long-term safety of the vaccine because you know the phase III trial doesn't finish until March 2023 - but you refuse to answer this simple question because you'd have to admit that the vaccine cannot be classed as safe, which goes against the narrative you are presenting.
3. You know that PCR testing is being misused and that a positive 'case' does not confirm it is an infectious case - but this would expose the nefarious narrative being presented and would destroy your argument. Hence your refusal to even comment on it.
4. It takes 10 seconds to find the Infection Fatality Rate, particularly the paper accepted by the WHO and written by John Ioannidis - which shows the IFR to be 0.05% (half that of the flu) for people under 65 - but you know this makes a mockery of the mainstream narrative you support - so better to keep silent.
5. Providing the adverse reaction risk for the vaccine for a specific age group is pivotal to making an informed decision - if this risk is higher than the IFR risk for covid, then mandatory vaccination is not justified - but to admit this would be to go against the narrative you support.
6. To highlight the Absolute risk reduction figure of the vaccine would be to show that the vaccine provides a miniscule 0.8% absolute benefit (Pfizers own trial data) - and this would expose the way in which Pfizer have used the 95% Relative figure to mislead the public into thinking the vaccine is far more effective than it actually is. Such a small improvement in a reduction of symptoms only, again would not justify mandatory vaccines - showing that this challenges your preferred narrative.
7. Highlighting the difference between people dying WITH covid and OF covid would also highlight that the threat of covid has been greatly exaggerated and intentionally misconstrued - this goes against the fearful narrative you have chosen to support.

The thing is, knowing the data above is CRITICAL when it comes to making an informed decision on whether to take the vaccine, and whether it's justified in mandating a vaccine for others. If you aren't aware of this data then you're opinion is worthless and holds no credibility - you cannot make a credible judgement unless you know this data.

Your narrative runs contrary to this data, which indicates that you are either greatly misinformed, or your intention here is to misinform others. Is this why you refuse to answer these critical questions?

Cue demeaning responses and further excuses as to why you don't have to answer any of them, or the presentation of questionable data and misrepresentation of that data similar to the approach taken by Arete. Then watch as the other components within this echo chamber give this a negative rating and are outraged at my preposterous, but logical view.

P.s I notice Arete has failed to respond regarding my take-down of the misleading information she presented... Cue, a defense of her data and further character assassination... with no presentation of credible scientific data to justify your views... This forum is so predictable it's embarrassing.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

... You're the type of poster who will just dismiss any answers, misrepresent them, and instead pivot to some other justification for your preferred conclusion...

You have literally just described yourself...

[Arete]

57 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

P.s I notice Arete has failed to respond regarding my take-down of the misleading information she presented... Cue, a defense of her data and further character assassination... with no presentation of credible scientific data to justify your views... This forum is so predictable it's embarrassing.

1.  I'm a He. 

2. You misquoted the abstract of Boehmer et. al. let alone actually read the paper itself.  They used both inpatient and outpatient data, corrected their data for patient effects, and compared their data to other hospital patients rather than the population at large. 

3. You provided no evidence whatsoever to support this being an overestimation of the myocarditis risk for COVID patients, no any actual evidence of anything but your own personal incredulity, which given you apparently didn't read the paper, indicates bad faith and little point engaging you.

4. Despite a statistic being openly reported in a publication, you demand I "show my working". My working is "actually reading the paper". 

5. You provide no evidence of VAERS under-reporting vaccine side effects by your claimed 90-99%. Again, despite you repeatedly demanding others provide you with citations, you can seemingly pull numbers out of your posterior and we are all supposed take them as gospel, despite all indications that they are erroneous <- this underlined bit of text is a link to a peer reviewed publication. 

Ultimately, the "take down" was a a mix of logical fallacy, proof of bad faith argument, and mis-cited data because you apparently didn't actually read the papers you demanded. It clearly demonstrates you aren't worth engaging. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Arete

[beecee]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:45 AM, Mark78L said:

1. Please provide the evidence confirming that longitudinal safety testing has been complete and shows no significant risk of accelerated dementia, myocarditis, or infertility for healthy people between the age of 40-50.

Only from this data can anyone make an informed decision and convince me I've developed the wrong impression and that government policy (lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine mandates) are justified.

As a lay person at this game, the above (1) somehow rung a bell with me...I would actually guess that if you were honest, and didn't have some barrow to push, you would realise that that the onus is on you to show any evidence confirming that any of the recognised vaccines, cause any of the conditions you have named. Or for that matter, any other conditions, for any adult age group. You got that?

On the second paragraph, and as I mentioned before, it seems just like Trump the clown, you also have swallowed the grand conspiracy that we are all (for some reason) being hoodwinked? But like most conspiracy pushers, using science and logic in trying to convince those holding to such conspiracies, of their gullibility and stupidity, is a lost cause and not worth the time, nor the effort. All that will happen then, is an attack on the institution itself, as being a part of the conspiracy. They innevitably don’t trust the institutions, and therefore the  ideas stemming from those institutions. It also obviously gives them a feeling of knowledge and power, in knowing what they see as the truth, and that everyone else, governments everywhere, the WHO, NASA, are all part and parcel of this conspiracy. One big sad illogical merry-go-round!

Edited February 14, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Is that you excuse for not answering the technical questions I have asked you ?

He continues to evade. His “excuse” is he’s not here in good faith 

[Mark78L]

1 hour ago, Arete said:

1.  I'm a He. 

2. You misquoted the abstract of Boehmer et. al. let alone actually read the paper itself.  They used both inpatient and outpatient data, corrected their data for patient effects, and compared their data to other hospital patients rather than the population at large. 

3. You provided no evidence whatsoever to support this being an overestimation of the myocarditis risk for COVID patients, no any actual evidence of anything but your own personal incredulity, which given you apparently didn't read the paper, indicates bad faith and little point engaging you.

4. Despite a statistic being openly reported in a publication, you demand I "show my working". My working is "actually reading the paper". 

5. You provide no evidence of VAERS under-reporting vaccine side effects by your claimed 90-99%. Again, despite you repeatedly demanding others provide you with citations, you can seemingly pull numbers out of your posterior and we are all supposed take them as gospel, despite all indications that they are erroneous <- this underlined bit of text is a link to a peer reviewed publication. 

Ultimately, the "take down" was a a mix of logical fallacy, proof of bad faith argument, and mis-cited data because you apparently didn't actually read the papers you demanded. It clearly demonstrates you aren't worth engaging. 

1. Arete is a female name according to the most popular baby-naming websites - as your gender is not available on your profile it would be safe to assume that using a female name indicates you are indeed female. 
2. No I didn't - please highlight my misquote. You claimed that "acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine." I pointed out the limitation of that data and your misinterpretation of it - which was incidentally mentioned in the study you presented - did you read it fully?:
   
   "The findings in this study are subject to at least six limitations. First, the risk estimates from this study reflect the risk for myocarditis among persons who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 during an outpatient or inpatient health care encounter and do not reflect the risk among all persons who had COVID-19."
   
   It is therefore disingenuous to assert that the 0.146% figure is representative of the overall risk of acute myocarditis in people infected with Covid, and then compare that figure to teh VAERS vaccine data, as you do. Furthermore, I highlighted that the 0.0071% figure you presented from VAERS, was an underestimation because this is a passive monitoring system - the article you shared even highlights this. In the meantime you've provided a paper that confirms my point!!! Albeit higher than the 1-10% I stated. Regarding capturing of anaphylaxis sensitivity ranged from 13-27% for 6 vaccines and only 1 vaccine was 76% - thus confirming that the figure you've presented (0.0071%) is a gross under-estimation.
3. The bad faith appears to be on you.
4. The 0.0071% figure is not presented within the paper - maybe I missed it, hence why I asked you to clarify - which shouldn't have been difficult being as though it's "so obvious". I also note that this paper states "The risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are unclear." And yet you present the 0.0071% figure as if it is clear - and you provide a link that contradicts your assertions, confirming that VAERS does indeed under-report the risk. 
5. Fair enough, I didn't provide evidence for my 1-10% under-reporting claim, I thought it was common knowledge. But what's interesting, you go on to provide another paper shooting yourself in the foot, this paper looking into the sensitivity of VAERS actually confirms that VAERS under-reports the risk - do you not read the papers you cite?!!!! I think you need to take your own advice.

Ultimately, my original point stands, you continue to be disingenuous.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

As a lay person at this game, the above (1) somehow rung a bell with me...I would actually guess that if you were honest, and didn't have some barrow to push, you would realise that that the onus is on you to show any evidence confirming that any of the recognised vaccines, cause any of the conditions you have named. Or for that matter, any other conditions, for any adult age group. You got that?

On the second paragraph, and as I mentioned before, it seems just like Trump the clown, you also have swallowed the grand conspiracy that we are all (for some reason) being hoodwinked? But like most conspiracy pushers, using science and logic in trying to convince those holding to such conspiracies, of their gullibility and stupidity, is a lost cause and not worth the time, nor the effort. All that will happen then, is an attack on the institution itself, as being a part of the conspiracy. They innevitably don’t trust the institutions, and therefore the  ideas stemming from those institutions. It also obviously gives them a feeling of knowledge and power, in knowing what they see as the truth, and that everyone else, governments everywhere, the WHO, NASA, are all part and parcel of this conspiracy. One big sad illogical merry-go-round!

Every positive PCR test is classed as a case (certainly in Britain), and every case is deemed infectious by SAGE / government. Case numbers have been driving policy (ideology around lockdown, masks, distancing, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports). 

I wonder, can you tell me: are all positive PCR cases infectious?

[iNow]

So now you’re telling people what their gender actually is after they’ve explained that you’re wrong and have corrected you? 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

1. Arete is a female name according to the most popular baby-naming websites - as your gender is not available on your profile it would be safe to assume that using a female name indicates you are indeed female...

As someone with a bit of Classics education back there, I feel it's worth mentioning that arete is a Greek term for excellence and the aspiration to fulfill one's highest potential as a person.  It is NEVER "safe to assume..." 

Also, lest your assumptions go ranging wildly again, please know that I am not actually a vat, or a brain in a vat.  I do tap into vats, now and then.  

[Mark78L]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

So now you’re telling people what their gender actually is after they’ve explained that you’re wrong and have corrected you? 

No, if Arete says he's male then he's male obvs, I wasn't disputing it - I was just explaining why I referred to him as a her, as anyone else would, being as though Arete is a female name. But hey, let's focus on names, because that's more important than acknowledging the attempt of Arete to mislead others by drawing a false conclusion - a classic deflection tactic.

To anyone with half a brain reading this, the 'group think' echo chamber you operate within is clear.

Should be focus on the use of misleading data and call Arete out for it...or should we focus on a nonsensical gender issue to deflect away from Arete's misleading interpretation of the data.... your agenda is clear.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

...I feel it's worth mentioning that arete is a Greek term for excellence and the aspiration to fulfill one's highest potential as a person...

Again, a petty nonsensical response. The attributes assigned to a name bear no relation to the competence of the person with that name...this is like having a conversation with a child.

I think it's time to find a real science forum

 

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

But hey, let's focus on names, because that's more important than acknowledging the attempt of Arete to mislead others by drawing a false conclusion - a classic deflection tactic.

!

Moderator Note

This would be an example of what people are referring to when they call attention to arguments in bad faith.

Characterizing this as an "attempt to mislead" and a "deflection tactic" assume that you know the motivation behind the posts, and you don't. 

 

Quote

Should be focus on the use of misleading data and call Arete out for it...or should we focus on a nonsensical gender issue to deflect away from Arete's misleading interpretation of the data.... your agenda is clear.

!

Moderator Note

You're the one who doubled down on this. You could have simply apologized for your assumption, but you didn't, and are lashing out at others instead.

 

The one thing you can fix is your own posting style, and that's all on you.

 

Do not mistake this as an invitation to debate the issue.

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

No, if Arete says he's male then he's male obvs, I wasn't disputing it - I was just explaining why I referred to him as a her, as anyone else would, being as though Arete is a female name. But hey, let's focus on names, because that's more important than acknowledging the attempt of Arete to mislead others by drawing a false conclusion - a classic deflection tactic.

To anyone with half a brain reading this, the 'group think' echo chamber you operate within is clear.

Should be focus on the use of misleading data and call Arete out for it...or should we focus on a nonsensical gender issue to deflect away from Arete's misleading interpretation of the data.... your agenda is clear.

Again, a petty nonsensical response. The attributes assigned to a name bear no relation to the competence of the person with that name...this is like having a conversation with a child.

I think it's time to find a real science forum

 

Please try to discuss in a more mature and professional manner.

[beecee]

19 hours ago, Mark78L said:

1. Case numbers have been driving policy (ideology around lockdown, masks, distancing, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports). 

No, what's been driving policy is the proven advice and evidenceof the success of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, vaccine mandates etc. That's why the situation in Australia and New Zealand has always been far better then in most other places in the world.

Myself and the Mrs are both in our 70's and both have tested positive, and have had only mild symptons. We both also have had two astra-zenaca shots and a Moderna booster. Sorry, I reject your conspiracy nonsense, and histrionics.

[Mark78L]

37 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, what's been driving policy is the proven advice and evidenceof the success of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, vaccine mandates etc. That's why the situation in Australia and New Zealand has always been far better then in most other places in the world.

Myself and the Mrs are both in our 70's and both have tested positive, and have had only mild symptons. We both also have had two astra-zenaca shots and a Moderna booster. Sorry, I reject your conspiracy nonsense, and histrionics.

There has been no such proof. The situation in Oz and NZ is now getting worse because they attempted a zero covid policy, it has now backfired with the ramping up of restrictions as opposed to the reduction of restrictions as seen in the UK. All they've done is prolong the inevitable at arguably greater cost to the economy, liberty and life.

I'm happy for you. Sorry, I reject your interpretation of reality.

[iNow]

On 2/12/2022 at 7:38 PM, Mark78L said:

I'm just asking for the statistics the government provides

You're doing a fair bit more than that, actually.

 

On 2/7/2022 at 6:51 PM, Mark78L said:

This is a nonsensical response that lacks meaning or context - odd coming from a 'biology expert'

On 2/8/2022 at 3:10 PM, Mark78L said:

Incoherent and again nonsensical responses

On 2/8/2022 at 4:24 PM, Mark78L said:

this forum has devolved into an echo chamber for those who simply want to believe in the official narrative <...> I think you should look up the word logic

 

On 2/11/2022 at 5:06 PM, Mark78L said:

Your interpretation of the data is disingenuous, and conclusion incorrect which appears to expose your intention to mislead <...> defending dogma. <...> This type of thinking echo's that of a closed-mind

On 2/11/2022 at 6:49 PM, Mark78L said:

The words, echo chamber, bruised ego's, and closed-mindedness spring to mind when describing this forum. 

 

23 hours ago, Mark78L said:

Ha ha ha... so predictable. <...> the narrative you champion is wrong... and the cognitive dissonance would be far too great for you to be able to deal with <...> oh dear, a poor excuse. <...> you can't be seen to be wrong in an echo chamber, you have an ego to protect after-all. <...> This forum is so predictable it's embarrassing.

5 hours ago, Mark78L said:

the attempt of Arete to mislead others by drawing a false conclusion <...> To anyone with half a brain reading this, the 'group think' echo chamber you operate within is clear.<...> your agenda is clear. Again, a petty nonsensical response. <...> this is like having a conversation with a child.

 

5 hours ago, Mark78L said:

I think it's time to find a real science forum

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

There has been no such proof. The situation in Oz and NZ is now getting worse because they attempted a zero covid policy, it has now backfired with the ramping up of restrictions as opposed to the reduction of restrictions as seen in the UK. All they've done is prolong the inevitable at arguably greater cost to the economy, liberty and life.

Ummm, no they are not getting worse, and there is no ramping up of restrictions. Borders are now open except for WA, International restrictions are being lifted, hospital cases are falling including ICU patients. Masks are still mandatory, although lifting of that also is on the cards. We have, and are doing better then most other parts of the world.

https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/government-response

https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/case-numbers-and-statistics

Case numbers did spike with the omicron variant, but they are also now dropping.

Edited February 15, 2022 by beecee