fishbiscuits

Great attitude there from Ze Ger... ah dammit...

Yeah I think the reality is that some jobs are just going to need it. I heard that a small number of GB Olympic athletes + staff had refused vaccination. While I agree that it's their personal choice, I think it's also fair that they should have to face the consequences (i.e. not going).

Unfortunately we live in an era when a good chunk of the population wear their ignorance on their sleeve as if it were a badge of honour. They have zero respect for science, try their best to substitute it for nonsensical guff, and vehemently, violently, believe that the establishment is conspiring against the public. (And yes, these ARE conspiracy theorists... even the ones who post on these pages ostensibly "thinking of the children", who might start their post with "I am not a conspiracy theorist"). The pandemic has proved to be fertile ground for stupidity, and poor old Prof W has found himself on the front line. Not sure what the solution is. Unfortunately for him, he will never regain his anonymity. It's gone forever. Maybe he even needs a bodyguard for a while... which sounds like a terrible admission of defeat. You can't arrest all the crazies, unfortunately.

I feel absolutely terrible for the guy. I think with politicians, they expect it up to a point (although it still isn't necessarily right). But this guy is not a politician. He is a quiet, private person who has reached the pinnacle of his noble profession, thrust into the public consciousness.

Yes I suppose you are right Duncan, the idiots make a disproportionate amount of noise, but I'm sure not representative of the majority of fans. Enjoy the game.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as compared to the more visceral > English/Britsh bashing which I see more of these > days as referenced above in my first post.... I think that one is simply because there are so many dickheads in England!

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps the concept of english exceptionalism goes > both ways..i.e. half the population thinks you're > exceptionally superior...while the other half > thinks you're exceptionally inferior....neither > are probably right.... Yeah well.. I think we probably all know which half thinks we're special! And it's slightly over half... 52% to be precise. Patriotism is a funny thing... I think there are too many things I dislike in our culture and history to feel truly patriotic, but even more pertinently, it's also a slippery slope to something a bit more sinister. That isn't to say that the Brits DO have plenty to feel proud of. You're an Aussie, aren't you? I always found the Australian sense of patriotism quite odd. Rewind 20 years ago and it seemed as though every young Australian living in London (and there were a LOT!) would basically never shut up about how awesome it is back home. Purely anecdotal of course, but I often found this overt boastfulness quite jarring. Not that they were necessarily wrong.

Half of me actually wants England to win. But the other half of me would just dread the inevitable cringeworthy behaviour and headlines so much, that I almost want England to lose. Chanting "Four Lions" and "The Great Escape", talk for years to come of how we (finally) beat "Ze Germans". The flag waving. The stench of spilled Stella, vomit and piss.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even for most honest people a lot of the > statistics are non intuitive. Take the headlines > that 50% of Delta variant cases in Israel are from > fully vaccinated people. This sounds bad but is > exactly what you?d expect with 85% of the adult > population vaccinated and a 90% is vaccine > efficiency. Yes. Quite. And in the example I gave, the "Absolute Risk Reduction" is not particularly intuitive either.. and therefore open to misrepresentation and abuse.

Good points. Due to my background the mathematical/logical fallacy is the first thing that jumps out at me. As well as the obvious incongruity between actual ability, and their own perceived abilities. This bizarrely misguided illusion of superiority. But of course you're right... a lot of it is wanting to believe something, and then grasping at shreds of "evidence" that appear to superficially support that belief.

notimpressed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, most folk in Brighton aren't middle class bores You obviously haven't been there since the turn of the millennium..

I will leave it up to the admin. I respect his decision and won't be offended if it's deleted. I think it's an important point though. Most of the covid/vaccine sceptics I encounter clearly lack the skills to interpret statistics intelligently. It seems to be those without any grounding in maths and the sciences who are most susceptible to this sort of twisting of the facts.

First of all, stop posting misinformation and conspiracy nonsense on the Covid page. Secondly. Relative Risk Reduction is the STANDARD scale used for quoting efficacy. Is it NOT some sort of cover-up. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA To give an example : In a study of 10000 vaccinated participants, and also 10000 control group participants. If the control group encountered 100 Covid infections and the vaccinated group 5 infections: - It would give Relative Risk Reduction of 95% - It would give an Absolute Risk Reduction of 0.95% (difference in rates, 1% - 0.05%) Absolute Risk Reduction of 0.95% is not "bad". It is just a different metric.

ARR is the difference in infection rates between the vaccinated and the control group. So, it is dependent on the number of positive cases in the control group. It is always a much lower number than the RRR. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA I expect this post will get deleted like all your others, because this type of misleading "information" has no place on these pages which is supposed to be for constructive Covid related info.

Hi - teenage acne is a serious matter, IMO. I would ask for immediate referral to an NHS dermatologist. See what the waiting list is like, and then make the decision whether to go private or not. Dermatologists have the ability to prescribe more powerful drugs such as Roaccutane, which have a very dramatic effect compared to the antibiotics and creams your GP will have tried. I don't think it makes much difference which doctor you see... I don't wish to disrespect their profession, but you're likely to get given the same drugs whoever you go to. On the diet thing... when I was younger my dermatologist told me that diet was unrelated. Saying that, I do personally believe that general health is a contributing factor to acne. Anything that improves your general wellbeing (healthy eating, diet, exercise, reducing stress, more sleep) has to be a good thing.

I'm sure you have good intentions and are trying to do the best for your kids. I agree they're incredibly unlikely to get sick from Covid. Vaccinating them is about helping to prevent the spread, but if you don't think the trade-off makes sense, then that's entirely your decision. Exactly the same applies to other vaccines, e.g. Flu. I respect your right to make that decision. Where I take issue is when people try to nobble the wider vaccination effort by spreading blatant misinformation. It's not right.

niledynodely Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which countries have rolled out higher quality > vaccines? Have we got them here? I do hope so! How > do we know which are higher quality? Yes, the ones with higher efficacy. Particularly Pfizer and Moderna. Also AZ, but to a lesser extent I think. Countries which have relied heavily on Sinopharm seem to be having less success. As Penguin pointed out, the US and Western Europe have seen impressive drop in death rate following rollout of vaccines. Canada and Israel too. Hospitalised Covid patients in the UK right now are overwhelmingly skewed towards the unvaccinated.

OMFG... you've just gone full-on conspiracy theorist with your latest link. (Anti mask, denying the NHS was been overwhelmed, accusations of government propaganda and control). So yes, your so-called "research" is indeed superficial. Please try to apply some critical thinking and common sense to these sources. Some ACTUAL facts are that a) UK deaths attributed to Covid correlate pretty closely with the deaths above historical average, b) in the countries that have rolled out the higher quality vaccines, there has been a significant reduction in deaths. Nobody is going to force you to vaccinate your children. Even if child Covid vaccination is eventually rolled out in the UK, it will be your personal decision. Please stop trying to influence other peoples decisions with this nonsense. It's highly irresponsible, selfish, and dangerous.

I could do a point by point critique, but I don't have the time. I think people who read it will probably see for themselves. What I would say is - check your sources. If they have an obvious political bias, or history of conspiracy theories, then they are NOT reliable sources. - we all know there are side effects and dangers, as there are with many drugs. Loss of life is a terrible thing and every single one should be scrutinized, but it doesn't take a mathematician to compare the deaths from Covid and the deaths from vaccine reactions and deduce which is the bigger problem. - pushing a broader anti Covid vax agenda is most definitely a bad thing. It calls into question your motivation and integrity. Without vaccines we'd have hundreds of thousands more deaths in the UK alone. You are playing with lives.

Your document is highly flawed, contains anti-vaccine mumbo jumbo, and links to right wing conspiracy sources. It is essentially using scare tactics of "think of the children" to push a wider anti-vaccine agenda. Vaccination is a personal decision, if you think the risks outweigh the benefits then that's your choice, but don't go around spreading this nonsense. This shouldn't be on here.

What's the evidence suggesting that kids are more susceptible to adverse effects? Which of the vaccines in particular? Just Covid vaccines, or all vaccines?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to be clear....I know I was openly winding up > earlier....but I don't find 'cis' offensive. I > find it a little annoying, but not enough to have > a real problem. It's cool. Yeah you made it clear you were intentionally provoking, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe on my side, I maybe struggled to articulate my intentions. Of course in the majority of conversations, I refer to women as women, I don't go around using words like "cisgender" on a daily basis! It is usually an unnecessary detail, tbh. But honestly, I think misgendering is distressing to ALL transgender people. Sometimes it comes from a place of misunderstanding, or simply spur-of-the-moment panic - and that is upsetting, but understandable and forgivable. But sometimes it comes from malice and intolerance... sometimes it is intentional. I think we are both smart enough to know the difference. The latter category, in my opinion, is as bad as calling women the 'b' word, or a gay person the 'f' word. With the analogy with your son, I would say the same thing really. You're smart enough to know the difference between misunderstanding/ignorance, and setting out to deliberately confront and offend. I know which one we're dealing with here.

I won't use the same terminology as you, EDGuy, as others claim they find "cis" offensive. (And I'm not in total agreement with you on the sporting side). But your closing point is on the money. We can be an ally to both women and transgender people. In fact, we SHOULD!

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For myself, I find it is inflammatory to refer to > women as "cis" or "genetic women". Horribly > offensive. Women and transwomen covers it fine. Was seeking to disambiguate. I was under the impression they were both commonly used terms. No offence intended. I guess I am OK with women/transwomen as a disambiguation, but very much not OK with calling transitioned trans women "men". I have no doubt that here, offence was very much intended. > The total dismantling of all women's sports Complete hyperbole. One competitor (I admit highly controversial, and likely to be biologically advantaged) out of 5000 does not equal "total dismantling". But nevertheless I understand the concern that female athletes have expressed. It is something that, I dare say, we'll need a solution to IF it becomes commonplace.

You need to understand that respect and support for both women and transgender people is entirely compatible. You don't have to try to turn a trans ally into an enemy of women. I hope you'll consider that (but doubt it). Bye for now... until the next anti-trans post..