# Flu jab



## lurker (14 Oct 2020)

Had mine yesterday.
Very efficient, in and away in less than 5 minutes.

Assume all other wrinklies on here, have done the same?


----------



## AES (14 Oct 2020)

Not yet. My GP only has the jab available (except for "emergency" cases) from 29th onwards. My appointment is 3rd Nov.

P.S. I'm flabby, NOT wrinkly


----------



## lurker (14 Oct 2020)

AES said:


> Not yet. My GP only has the jab available (except for "emergency" cases) from 29th onwards. My appointment is 3rd Nov.
> 
> P.S. I'm flabby, NOT wrinkly


Is it free at source out there?
All over 65s here should get a GP letter advising them to book an appointment.


----------



## artie (14 Oct 2020)

I received my letter, complete with appointment last week.
This was the first time I've been offered it.
I phoned in and declined.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Oct 2020)

Members of the Civil Service are eligible for a free jab regardless of age, don't know if that applies to anyone here?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2020)

I saw on ITV news a few days ago a drive through set up in Devon somewhere - they were a little late, we had the same system on Stithians showground (which is a fair size, holding the largest one day agricultural show in the Country) the week before.
Several surgeries working together, they did thousands. Drive in, stop, jab and out. Brilliant.


----------



## lurker (14 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> I received my letter, complete with appointment last week.
> This was the first time I've been offered it.
> I phoned in and declined.


It was good of you to let them know.

May I ask why you declined?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Members of the Civil Service are eligible for a free jab regardless of age, don't know if that applies to anyone here?


Why? Are they deemed more important than us mere mortals?


----------



## Rorschach (14 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Why? Are they deemed more important than us mere mortals?



It would appear so


----------



## lurker (14 Oct 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Members of the Civil Service are eligible for a free jab regardless of age, don't know if that applies to anyone here?


Many companies do the same, cheaper than having folks off sick.


----------



## artie (14 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> It was good of you to let them know.
> 
> May I ask why you declined?


They request it in the letter,
The reason I declined is because I have been getting along fine without it all my life, I lead a reasonably healthy lifestyle and eat well and have some confidence in my natural immune system.
I also have some concerns about the contents of said vaccine.


----------



## AES (14 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> Is it free at source out there?
> All over 65s here should get a GP letter advising them to book an appointment.




No lurker, it isn't. Completely different (and much more complicated than NHS). In short you pay a monthly "Health Insurance premium". If you qualify (in this case for the flu jab) then it's "free" because the Health Insurance company includes such stuff within your basic premium calculation - i.e. no charge direct to me because when the GP submits her bill - direct to the Health Insurance company - they say, in effect "this is a poor 75-year old pipper, it's included".

As are many other things BTW, but as said, it IS very complicated, so best we don't go any further on the topic - it would bore - and confuse! - everyone to death!


----------



## marcros (14 Oct 2020)

I got a text message from the doctors saying that I was eligible. I called and asked why because I am 40 with no underlying health conditions- apparently it was an error, as I suspected .

I booked to get one at my local pharmacist as I do each year. (I pay for it). It was a week or two before the widespread recommendation that it is important, and I do it to try to avoid being off work for a week with (actual) flu. For 12 quid, I think it is a good insurance policy. I had travel vaccines for Nigeria and they were hundreds, so 12 is nothing. 

When I got there I was told that many people don't qualify for a free one so the surgeries were sending people to the pharmacies. The pharmacies, however were not able to get any additional allocation of the vaccine, so were struggling to administer it. When I went in, they were honouring booked appointments but not taking any more. At the time boots weren't taking bookings for the under 65s. It may have changed now.


----------



## Lons (14 Oct 2020)

AES said:


> As are many other things BTW, but as said, it IS very complicated, so best we don't go any further on the topic - it would bore - and confuse! - everyone to death!


It would also possibly spark an argument about the NHS  and we definitely don't need any more of "those" threads.
My wife's aunt and uncle lived in Switzerland for over 40 years so I've heard some of the peculiarities if that's the right way to describe them.


----------



## antdad (14 Oct 2020)

Just a reminder that your local pharmacy (even those at Tescos and Boots) can provide the flu jab too, in the case of my elderly ma it was far more convenient than going to her doctor's surgery.


----------



## AES (14 Oct 2020)

Yup Lons, agree 100%. Not only is it very difficult to fairly compare "apples with pears", but just as you say, there are all sorts of "peculiarities" (good word IMO)! AND like you, I certainly DO NOT want to spark off a posting war as we've seen in the past. "Let sleeping dogs lie" and agree that the Swiss system is just "different"


----------



## John Brown (14 Oct 2020)

I am booked in for tomorrow morning.
I eat well, and have a reasonably healthy lifestyle, but I don't want to get flu.


----------



## AJB Temple (14 Oct 2020)

Not a wrinkly, but Mrs AJB and I had ours yesterday (she is only in her 40's). We have it every year. This year they set up a facility in the church and we were in and out in two minutes, which is a result for a church! I got the prettiest nurse. Double result.


----------



## thick_mike (14 Oct 2020)

Had mine on Friday, they came in to school and it was free to all staff. First time I’ve had one for ages.


----------



## Droogs (14 Oct 2020)

i have to go to a walk through clinic on saturday. Time allocated by surname groupings. 
I was always a little apprehensive at having to use my health cover when I lived in Zurich as my Dr was called Dr Citron


----------



## RogerS (14 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> It was good of you to let them know.
> 
> May I ask why you declined?


Oh please...don't start him off again.


----------



## RogerS (14 Oct 2020)

Had mine Sept 21. Text message a few weeks before. Early morning slot. Very, very well organised,


----------



## SammyQ (14 Oct 2020)

Mrs Q and I were offered ours by the G.P nearly a month ago. Probably because she is medically very vulnerable. In and out in under two minutes each - we went separately for complicated reasons. 
M-in-Law, 96, in a sheltered accomodation complex, had hers four weeks ago too, from a mobile, covid-aware, highly efficient nursing team. They innoculated 42 'flats' in double-quick time. 

Sam


----------



## Eric The Viking (14 Oct 2020)

Had mine on Monday, as part of another trip to the surgery for unrelated treatment. I get mine because I am on immunosuppressant drugs.

Apparently the uptake is very high this year (can't imagine why), so get a move on if you want it...


----------



## Lazurus (14 Oct 2020)

Had mine for the first time ever last week, didnt even feel the needle and no side affects.


----------



## lurker (14 Oct 2020)

Lazurus said:


> Had mine for the first time ever last week, didnt even feel the needle and no side affects.


The anticipation of the pain is far worse than the event.
I alway look the other way though.


----------



## treeturner123 (15 Oct 2020)

I know that those with underlying health issues should at least consider a flue jab this year and every year. However, for the rest of us, am I not correct in thinking that flue is caused by a virus?

In which case, the precautions we are taking to reduce the spread of COV 19 virus will also reduce significantly the spread of the Flue virus.

Am I missing something?

Phil


----------



## John Brown (15 Oct 2020)

In theory. I have to say that, despite extreme caution, distancing, washing my hands so often that my glove size has dropped by two, I have still managed to pick up two mild colds.


----------



## Marineboy (15 Oct 2020)

Had an appointment at Boots a couple of weeks back for me and my wife. Phone call the day before to say no vaccine, may be available by the end of October. Hancock saying “there is no shortage of flu vaccine”. Is it any wonder nobody trusts anything a government minister says?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> The anticipation of the pain is far worse than the event.
> I alway look the other way though.


Many moons ago I gave blood, partly to try to beat my fear of needles (I got to forty three before they stopped me because of prescription drugs). I couldn't watch and always looked away. This did me no favours on the first occasion as the blood bag on the bed next to mine fell off and voided its contents all over the beds and floor.
If you've not had blood samples taken from the groin I can assure you the anticipation is not worse than the event.


----------



## tulogngham (15 Oct 2020)

Folks, 
Everyone should really try to get flu jab each year. Yes its a gamble on what strains will turn into an epidemic and in our COVID-19 situation it’s especially important. If you get flu and needs treatment it will put pressure on our NHS system. The jabs are available from Boots, Tesco etc. My company pays for it in my case. If your GP offers it, please take it up. Our children will be getting it from school in next few weeks. 
My sister-in-law is a GP and I have friends at the front lines in hospitals, so I get to hear reports on the number of cases and it’s side effects. It’s not pleasant.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2020)

Marineboy said:


> Had an appointment at Boots a couple of weeks back for me and my wife. Phone call the day before to say no vaccine, may be available by the end of October. Hancock saying “there is no shortage of flu vaccine”. Is it any wonder nobody trusts anything a government minister says?


My wife couldn't get hers ............. as there is a shortage of vaccine. The local surgeries prioritised the groups to get it ......... as there is a shortage of vaccine. Apparently the powers that be (for some reason best known to themselves) didn't foresee an increased demand.


----------



## AJS2018 (15 Oct 2020)

In and out of my doctors surgery in 5 minutes last Saturday. They sent me a text saying I was eligible, I called and made an appointment - great efficiency from the NHS.


----------



## antdad (15 Oct 2020)

treeturner123 said:


> I know that those with underlying health issues should at least consider a flue jab this year and every year. However, for the rest of us, am I not correct in thinking that flue is caused by a virus?
> 
> In which case, the precautions we are taking to reduce the spread of COV 19 virus will also reduce significantly the spread of the Flue virus.
> Am I missing something?
> Phil



That should certainly be the case yes but the reason for the mass flu inoculation is the same in that they are trying to protect NHS ICU bed capacity which would be stressed at this time of year anyway under normal circumstances. That is the datum by which eventually all the Covid precautions are eventually measured against, incidentally the UK has 4000 ICU beds (+ nightingales) whereas Germany has 20,000.


----------



## Mark Karacsonyi (15 Oct 2020)

I get mine next week. Had it for the last three years with no issues.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (15 Oct 2020)

treeturner123 said:


> I know that those with underlying health issues should at least consider a flue jab this year and every year. However, for the rest of us, am I not correct in thinking that flue is caused by a virus?
> 
> In which case, the precautions we are taking to reduce the spread of COV 19 virus will also reduce significantly the spread of the Flue virus.
> 
> ...


Flu is caused by a virus, yes, and you'd expect the social distancing that some of us are doing to some degree would reduce the spread of all viruses.

It is believed that flu viruses have a slightly different mechanism of spread from Covid virus - children can act as superspreaders for flu for example. I think that the different mechanism is accounted for - at least in part - by how much pre/asymptomatic spread there is.

I had my flu jab all booked and it got cancelled - booked again for a few days' time.

PS - channelling MikeG I'll just say that a flue is a chimney


----------



## MikeJhn (16 Oct 2020)

My fishing buddy has the flu jab every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the jab and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.


----------



## lurker (16 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> My fishing buddy has the flu jab every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the jab and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.


He probuably had a bad cold, which is what most people call flu.
Believe me when you get flu you know about it!
only with hindsight are you able to distinguish colds from flu.


----------



## Richie555 (16 Oct 2020)

Mine is booked but its not until the beginning of November


----------



## Nigel Burden (16 Oct 2020)

I'm pondering whether to have one or not. I'm 69 and have never bothered as my general health seems quite good.
However, I can second what lurker said about flu. I had flu badly forty two years ago. I barely ate anything for a fortnight, had a raging fever, pounding headache, cough, then got a secondary infection. After two weeks I'd lost a stone in weight, something I could ill afford to do in those days. It took a further six weeks to fully recover.

Nigel.


----------



## Cordy (16 Oct 2020)

Like MikeJhn I don't have the flu jab
Fairly healthy and not on any medication

Been tested for Covid six times already; thankfully all OK
I'm 77


----------



## AES (16 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> He probuably had a bad cold, which is what most people call flu.
> Believe me when you get flu you know about it!
> only with hindsight are you able to distinguish colds from flu.




I think that's true lurker - it's what my GP said to me recently anyway, and I've heard the same from "the professionals" several times in the past.

Also, to the point that MikeJhn made (and I'm NOT sniping at you Mike) the problems with this type of "tale" is that one never knows if the subject had NOT had a flu jab would he/she have had even more flu? Similarly, for the subject who didn't have a flu jab (and never got the flu - so far) how do "we" all know that the subject wasn't simply just "lucky" - e.g. he/she never mixed with someone else at the exact time when they were infectious?

I entirely agree that it's up to the individual to decide, but whereas I've heard "some bad things" about what's inside a flu jab/what it could do to you, I've had one every year running for some years now (and no, had no flu). OTOH, my wife will be having a flu jab this year for the first time for many years. It remains to be seen what happens!!!

But seriously I don't think individual tales of "had it/not had it" help at all. Individually we just have to trust the experts and believe/disbelieve the "general population statics" as we wish.

Glad I'm not a parent of young children though - making such decisions that affect loved ones rather than just for yourself only must be fraught sometimes.


----------



## MikeJhn (16 Oct 2020)

I think the current situation of not socialising to excess will go a long way to prevent flu and Covid spread, if you are still working and traveling on public transport the likelihood of standing next to someone who may be carrying the infection goes up dramatically, if however you work from home or are retired the likelihood of coming into contact with the virus is greatly reduced, GP's don't take this into account when recommending the flue jab, they don't have the time to make those sort of enquiries of each of their patients.


----------



## antdad (17 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> My fishing buddy has the flu jab every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the jab and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.



Could be a multitude of reasons....age, health, hygiene habits, amount of social contact but getting the flu jab does not give you flu, it's engineered not to.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2020)

I had measles at four years old. According to my mother my GP at the time said it was the closest he had ever come to seeing someone die of it. My father had polio in one arm, my uncle had diphtheria. I and my children have had every inocculation offered - they are not developed for fun, they prevent nasty diseases, flu included.


----------



## srp (17 Oct 2020)

Fortunately for the anti-vaxxers, those of us who do get vaccinated provide a great deal of protection that they benefit from.


----------



## SammyQ (17 Oct 2020)

'Flu is a virus. Yes. What most folk think is the 'flu is a cold. There are about 96 cold viruses known, circulating, and with derivitives (mutations). 'Flu - as exemplified by Nigel's good description - is rarer, can also mutate into different 'strains'. 
The prophylactic 'jab' we get is heat treated (think 'harmless') virus, or just its outer wrapping, thus initiating your body to defend itself as per normal, but you don't develop full-on influenza. Some folks WILL get a 'heavy duty' response to either of these, which should pass in under a week, most will be fine.
As a teacher, I was vulnerable to what up to 200 children a day brought into my classroom. Early in my career, 1980's, I got 'proper 'flu'; everything Nigel said, total blank for the first 72 hours. They told me I jabbered, hallucinated, soaked two sets of bed linen with sweat. I've had a jab every year since, as the thought of going through that again- or, bringing it home to three small children - was a no-no.
'Flu jabs are always different, as they depend a) on which strain is most prevalent and b) how 'near' to full virus structure they can go without actually giving you the disease. That is why each year's offering differs in efficacy and side-effects.
Sam

Edit: pre-covid, the NHS thinking was: 'flu=demand, let's reduce same with prevention.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

srp said:


> Fortunately for the anti-vaxxers, those of us who do get vaccinated provide a great deal of protection that they benefit from.



How?


----------



## Lons (17 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> How?


Not difficult to understand


----------



## MikeJhn (17 Oct 2020)

antdad said:


> Could be a multitude of reasons....age, health, hygiene habits, amount of social contact but getting the flu jab does not give you flu, it's engineered not to.


As I understand these things the virus jab is a modified form of the virus to kick start the immune system it is perfectly possible that if you already have the virus in your blood stream the jab could kick off a negative reaction.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Lons said:


> Not difficult to understand


Explain it to me?


----------



## Lons (17 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Explain it to me?


Think about it Artie, it isn't rocket science


----------



## Woody2Shoes (17 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> My fishing buddy has the flu jab every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the jab and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.


I'm impressed that he's survived - he must be pretty tough !


----------



## Woody2Shoes (17 Oct 2020)

Nigel Burden said:


> I'm pondering whether to have one or not. I'm 69 and have never bothered as my general health seems quite good.
> However, I can second what lurker said about flu. I had flu badly forty two years ago. I barely ate anything for a fortnight, had a raging fever, pounding headache, cough, then got a secondary infection. After two weeks I'd lost a stone in weight, something I could ill afford to do in those days. It took a further six weeks to fully recover.
> 
> Nigel.


I wouldn't risk it for a biscuit - if you get flu and need hospital treatment: a) you may find there's no room for you, and b) nobody'll thank you for adding another person to the list of those needing healthcare resources.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2020)

One for Artie -


expert comments about herd immunity | Science Media Centre


----------



## Blister (17 Oct 2020)

I have had the flu jab every year for about 6 years now , Anything that can stack the odds in my favour is good by me


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2020)

I had a pneumonia jab as well as a flu one a few years ago after getting double pneumonia two years running. I'll be happy never to get that again.


----------



## SammyQ (17 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> As I understand these things the virus jab is a modified form of the virus to kick start the immune system it is perfectly possible that if you already have the virus in your blood stream the jab could kick off a negative reaction.


Mike, can you please put more meat on that bone? If you already have the 'flu virus in your bloodstream, about three days from initial infection, your body B- and T- cells will initiate anti-virus measures. 
Those anti-virus measures are equally stimulated by attenuated viruses or antigenic fragments (a.k.a. "the jab"), so it should not matter which is in your particular year's jab.
What form of negative reaction are you referring to please? 
Puzzled, Sam.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> One for Artie -
> 
> 
> expert comments about herd immunity | Science Media Centre


Thanks Phil.
Very interesting, But they seem to be assuming that if you've been vaccinated you can't pass on the disease


----------



## Woody2Shoes (17 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Thanks Phil.
> Very interesting, But they seem to be assuming that if you've been vaccinated you can't pass on the disease


Erm, if you've been vaccinated, your immune system has been 'trained' to kill cells which have been infected (for want of a better word) with the specific virus (and possibly several similar ones). Therefore, your body will quickly - when exposed to the virus - tend to clear the virus. Of course, in the process of killing these infected cells some viral material may be 'shed' but I think it's reasonable to assume small amounts - over a short time period - compared to the amount shed - over a much longer period - by someone whose body is serving as a multiplication factory for the virus (orders of magnitude different).

I'm really not sure what your point is. Vaccination saves lives and/or serious harm and - as an extremely useful side effect - conserves scarce medical and other resources - end of.


----------



## lurker (17 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I had a pneumonia jab as well as a flu one a few years ago after getting double pneumonia two years running. I'll be happy never to get that again.


That jab is needed once in a lifetime, so it's got to be good.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Vaccination saves lives and/or serious harm and - as an extremely useful side effect - conserves scarce medical and other resources - end of.


Must be wonderful to be infallible.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2020)

No, he's not infallible, just correct.


----------



## Lons (17 Oct 2020)

I have a flu jab every year and am happy to do so as I see it as beneficial, all the members of my family in the medical profession also have the vaccine.

During a general telephone conversation with my daughter in law last night she urged me to have the jab for shingles as well as she's seen a number of bad cases recently, something I need to seriously consider.


----------



## Lons (17 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> No, he's not infallible, just correct.


he's looking for an argument to replace the thread that's been closed Phil, that's why I wouldn't engage.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2020)

I went back to work after the first dose of pneumonia. I served an old lady who who asked how I was feeling. How are you now, dear, I heard it was pneumonia you had? Yes, it was, I'm feeling much better now. Oh, that's good. A moment's hesitation ... you know the best thing about pneumonia? No, I said, I don't. Well, the best thing about pneumonia is that when you get it again, you'll know exactly what you're got.

That was April, I was poorly for my daughter's birthday. The following April on her birthday I was ill again. I rang the doctor. He rang back. Hello, Mr. Pascoe, what's the problem? I've got pneumonia. Hmmmm ....... how do you know you've got pneumonia? I've had pneumonia before. You've got pneumonia, you'd better get in, he said. When I repeated what the old lady had said the year before he said unfortunately she was right, it's common to get it again.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Lons said:


> he's looking for an argument to replace the thread that's been closed Phil, that's why I wouldn't engage.


If you don't want to engage with a different viewpoint, that's entirely up to you. But it rather defeats the purpose of a forum.
But to try to influence others to shun someone is at best childish.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2020)

You are of course welcome to your own viewpoint. You are not, however, welcome to your own facts.


----------



## AJB Temple (17 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> If you don't want to engage with a different viewpoint, that's entirely up to you. But it rather defeats the purpose of a forum.
> But to try to influence others to shun someone is at best childish.


The main purpose of this forum is to discuss woodwork and associated skills. Other stuff is at best extraneous.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> You are of course welcome to your own viewpoint. You are not, however, welcome to your own facts.


Could you give me an example?


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

AJB Temple said:


> The main purpose of this forum is to discuss woodwork and associated skills. Other stuff is at best extraneous.



The owners have provided an off topic segment so what's the problem.
Maybe it's only for subjects and views that you approve of?


----------



## antdad (17 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> As I understand these things the virus jab is a modified form of the virus to kick start the immune system it is perfectly possible that if you already have the virus in your blood stream the jab could kick off a negative reaction.



The negative reaction meaning you could still get the flu? It's more than possible the jab isn't effective against a particular strain you have or your immune response didn't or wasn't developed enough to overcome the existing virus in your system. The fact remains that the virus jab uses inactivated or dead parts of the virus to stimulate the immune system not just a modified active form of it so technically it really can't give it to you.


----------



## Lons (17 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> If you don't want to engage with a different viewpoint, that's entirely up to you. But it rather defeats the purpose of a forum.
> But to try to influence others to shun someone is at best childish.


To repeatedly attempt to provoke arguments on a thread that doesn't need one is the childish action and which is why I didn't engage. You already knew the answer as anyone with half a brain can tell.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> One for Artie -
> 
> 
> expert comments about herd immunity | Science Media Centre


Here's one for Phil









The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918


The influenza pandemic of 1918–1919 dramatically altered biomedical knowledge of the disease. At its onset, the foundation of scientific knowledge was information collected during the previous major pandemic of 1889–1890. The work of Otto ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





Pay attention to the 
*EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES*


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

Lons said:


> To repeatedly attempt to provoke arguments on a thread that doesn't need one is the childish action and which is why I didn't engage. You already knew the answer as anyone with half a brain can tell.


But you did engage and you continue to engage.

And now you claim you can read my mind.
What is your purpose?

If you have nothing to contribute?


----------



## RogerS (17 Oct 2020)

Artie...you've hijacked this thread. You posted back on the first page deliberately in the hope that someone would chip in and ask you why. Chance for you to jump on your stupid soapbox. 

OK..you want to tell us why you think vaccination is a daft idea, then start your own thread and we can all ignore it. Don't hijack someone elses thread for the sole purpose of jumping on your soapbox.


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Oct 2020)

I think I'm due it in 2 week.


----------



## artie (17 Oct 2020)

RogerS said:


> Artie...you've hijacked this thread. You posted back on the first page deliberately in the hope that someone would chip in and ask you why. Chance for you to jump on your stupid soapbox.
> 
> OK..you want to tell us why you think vaccination is a daft idea, then start your own thread and we can all ignore it. Don't hijack someone elses thread for the sole purpose of jumping on your soapbox.


I asked you to stop insulting me by private message and to your credit you did. Now please stop having a go at me. I have said nothing against you.


----------



## SammyQ (17 Oct 2020)

"Ad hominem" anyone? 

Sam


----------



## Droogs (17 Oct 2020)

well got mine today, after waiting in a queue about 300m long and 40 minutes. no probs getting it but have felt a bit sweaty compared to the previous 2 I've had. but then my immune system's still a bit out of whack I reckon ,as only finished radiation therapy 6 weeks ago.


----------



## AJB Temple (17 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> The owners have provided an off topic segment so what's the problem.
> Maybe it's only for subjects and views that you approve of?



To quote you responding to someone else:


> artie said:
> "If you don't want to engage with a different viewpoint, that's entirely up to you. But it rather defeats the purpose of a forum."


AJB: The main purpose of this forum is to discuss woodwork and associated skills. Other stuff is at best extraneous.

I am simply pointing out that this is not just "a forum" it is primarily a woodworking forum. When people start arguments or promulgate arguments, it is usually in the off-topic area and often spills over into other areas. Then the owners that you refer to, shut the threads down. It is not the vaccine forum, or the Covid forum, or the arguments forum. So, let's manufacture some sawdust.


----------



## AES (17 Oct 2020)

Oh dear!!!!!!! Is this one going to be another "Off Topic" thread that's going to descend to the depths that others have reached in both the recent and not so recent past? 

It started off quite reasonably but it's dropping it's "tone" fast, IMO due solely to just one member - artie - you seem to be trying to provoke an argument. WHY are you doing that artie (come to that, WHY do such threads so often seem to result in people arguing just for the sake of it)?

@artie, if you want to come out and say "I don't believe in vaccinations" (or words to that effect) why don't you just do so, then leave it at that? If thast's your opinion that's fine, however wrong others may feel you are.

There's enough stupidity - and argument just for the sake of it - going on in this world, so I for one don't need it on UKW.

I shall not therefore be visiting this thread again.


----------



## AES (17 Oct 2020)

AJB Temple said:


> To quote you responding to someone else:
> 
> AJB: The main purpose of this forum is to discuss woodwork and associated skills. Other stuff is at best extraneous.
> 
> I am simply pointing out that this is not just "a forum" it is primarily a woodworking forum. When people start arguments or promulgate arguments, it is usually in the off-topic area and often spills over into other areas. Then the owners that you refer to, shut the threads down. It is not the vaccine forum, or the Covid forum, or the arguments forum. So, let's manufacture some sawdust.




Yup AJB T! Agree 100%. But if you remember, on a previous quite recent thread, artie said he likes to get his "politics" here on UKW (or words to that effect). At the time I thought of asking why he doesn't complain on whatever politics forums he belongs to about the lack of woodworking tips and tricks on that/those forum/s, but didn't bother because he shut up.

It seems we may well have another Jacob in the making here - very unfortunate if so.


----------



## artie (18 Oct 2020)

I'm not going to quote all you guys, I'm just going to say, I didn't start this off topic thread, I did reply to it and I did politely state my position. I asked a question which has not been answered, and I have been misquoted for whatever reason.
I did not hijack the thread . Had my question been ignored that would have been the end of it, but for some reason you feel the need to attack me because I don't believe everything fed to me by msm.
The OP said he assumed all wrinklies had done as he had.

They haven't


----------



## Trevanion (18 Oct 2020)

I’m late to the party, have the Nazis been mentioned yet?


----------



## SammyQ (18 Oct 2020)

I think most questions re vaccination HAVE been aired and answered here Artie. If we missed yours, please quote it here again and we will address it?
I can even go back to Jenner if you need historical context, then come right up to date via Salk, Sanger et al. 
Just to clarify...what is "msm"?.
Sam.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Oct 2020)

Main stream media.


----------



## SammyQ (18 Oct 2020)

Oh! Ta Phil! One new acronym for my collection. 

Sam


----------



## AES (18 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> but for some reason you feel the need to attack me because I don't believe everything fed to me by msm.



@artie: From my later school days I was taught that of course you use "msm" (there was little else in those days), BUT you also treat everything you read/see/hear there with a degree of caution!

These days there are MANY ways to check the veracity of "msm" and to make it easy for you artie, when it comes to msms' (and politicians') statistics, you could do a lot worse than trying BBC R4s "More or Less" programme.

Yes, to give credit where credit's due, the BBC IS "part of the establishment" but IME anyway, and in comparison with many other news sources in other countries that I've experienced, the BBC does at least try and present an alternative independent view - said "More or Less" being a prime example IMO. BUT I do NOT want to start another "BBC rant thread"! 

We're straying from my main point in the post above - you "accuse" others of relying on "msm" whereas I believe at least most of us do NOT do that - what I'm accusing YOU of is simply arguing for arguing's sake.

Please stop, it is IMO unnecessary AND it's unwanted by most members here.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (18 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Must be wonderful to be infallible.


Neither I nor vaccines are infallible. I'd love to know what your academic background is.


----------



## artie (18 Oct 2020)

I am not looking for an argument, 
I made a legitimate reply to the original poster. 

I made a legitimate, concise and civil reply when I was asked to elaborate.

Later in the thread I saw a post which didn't sit right with me so I asked for clarification. At this point people not involved jumped in to attack me and accuse me of starting an argument, when it appears to me it was they being argumentative.

If I can't engage in a thread titled Flu jab with comments about "a flu jab" without the bully boys shouting me down, It's a sad day.


----------



## artie (18 Oct 2020)

Woody2Shoes said:


> Neither I nor vaccines are infallible. I'd love to know what your academic background is.


That's not the attitude you displayed in your previous post.
My academic qualifications or anyone else's have no bearing on an internet forum.


----------



## Spectric (18 Oct 2020)

Hi

You are all discussing the flu jab but what about the pneumonia jab, probably as important due to Covid and also available at places like Boots.


----------



## artie (18 Oct 2020)

Spectric said:


> Hi
> 
> You are all discussing the flu jab but what about the pneumonia jab, probably as important due to Covid and also available at places like Boots.


Never heard about it until this thread. Is it available on NHS.

Mind you don't get accused of hijacking the thread.


----------



## RogerS (18 Oct 2020)

Spectric said:


> Hi
> 
> You are all discussing the flu jab but what about the pneumonia jab, probably as important due to Covid and also available at places like Boots.


Very much so. I'm all in favour of vaccinations.


----------



## Spectric (18 Oct 2020)

Hi Artie 

Yes don't want any hijacking but in my defence it is a vacine and in current circumstances also important, no good dodging the bullet and steping on a landmine !


----------



## artie (18 Oct 2020)

Spectric said:


> Hi Artie
> 
> no good dodging the bullet and steping on a landmine !


Nicely put, is it available on the NHS?


----------



## Spectric (18 Oct 2020)

I am not sure but suspect it will be if you are in the right age bracket, probably have to be in the reasonably well wrinkly group and not just a mild wrinkly.


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Oct 2020)




----------



## NormanB (18 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> My fishing buddy has the flu jab every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the jab and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.


Tosh


----------



## RogerS (18 Oct 2020)

NormanB said:


> Tosh


What a helpful and erudite comment.


----------



## Blister (18 Oct 2020)

The only symptoms I have is a slightly runny nose and a slight pain in the arm after the injection , only last a couple of day , I can cope with that as I am a big boy and I don't even cry when I have the injection


----------



## Jake (18 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> ... Just to clarify...what is "msm"?.
> Sam.



A reliable indicator of someone with poor information hygiene, usually reliant primarily on Youtube/RT/worse for garbage takes.


----------



## Garno (18 Oct 2020)

I rather like the "Another Joke" thread


----------



## John Brown (18 Oct 2020)

I am hoping for a vaccine against social media influenzas.


----------



## MikeJhn (19 Oct 2020)

Trevanion said:


> I’m late to the party, have the Nazis been mentioned yet?


"I mentioned them once, but think I got away with it"


----------



## okeydokey (19 Oct 2020)

A serious note
I have heard that the shingles vaccination, available for anyone over 70 is meant to be very good in preventing or reducing the impact of shingles, so if you are in that age group it might be worth checking with your GP.


----------



## Droogs (19 Oct 2020)

That is one to get if you can. My mother had Shingles when I was 12 and I will never forget what she went through. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. she was on heroin for 2 weeks and it still was not enough to stop her crying and screaming in pain. My father had to learn how to inject her to put her under to get some rest. truly awful


----------



## sploo (19 Oct 2020)

MikeJhn said:


> My fishing buddy has the flu jab every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the jab and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.


This is entirely possible, but it's also the wrong way of looking at viruses and vaccines (the problem with a "sample of one" - or in this case "two").

You may, or may not, contract a particular virus in any given year. If you do contract that virus you may have no symptoms and not be contagious. You may have no symptoms and be contagious. You may have mild symptoms. Or severe symptoms. It may even be fatal.

The important thing is to look at larger samples. If you compare 1000 people who haven't been given a vaccine for a particular virus, vs a similar set of 1000 that have been given the vaccine, what are the results overall.

The likelihood is that fewer of the vaccinated group will suffer serious symptoms or die - but it's entirely probable that some individuals from both groups will experience any one of the many possible outcomes listed above.

The problem is that this isn't obvious to the layman; you see yourself (or a few close acquaintances) get, or not get, symptoms, and extrapolate the effectiveness of a vaccine (or the risks of a virus) from that small - and statistically insignificant - sample size. Case in point; I know several long term smokers. Not one of them has died from lung disease; hence smoking must be safe, yes?


----------



## John Brown (19 Oct 2020)

okeydokey said:


> A serious note
> I have heard that the shingles vaccination, available for anyone over 70 is meant to be very good in preventing or reducing the impact of shingles, so if you are in that age group it might be worth checking with your GP.


Hmmm. I finished fixing my felt shingles last week, but I'm only 67, so wouldn't have been any help.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> This is entirely possible, but it's also the wrong way of looking at viruses and vaccines (the problem with a "sample of one" - or in this case "two").
> 
> You may, or may not, contract a particular virus in any given year. If you do contract that virus you may have no symptoms and not be contagious. You may have no symptoms and be contagious. You may have mild symptoms. Or severe symptoms. It may even be fatal.
> 
> ...


I am going to comment again on this thread now that maybe the dust has settled.
To make a very valid point and use words, like likelihood and entirely probable.

But on the other hand, if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them, take another 1000 and don't vaccinate them.
What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Oct 2020)

treeturner123 said:


> I know that those with underlying health issues should at least consider a flue jab this year and every year. However, for the rest of us, am I not correct in thinking that flue is caused by a virus?
> 
> In which case, the precautions we are taking to reduce the spread of COV 19 virus will also reduce significantly the spread of the Flue virus.
> 
> ...


that is correct and its borne out by the extremely low influenza cases this year (the ONS show cases for Jan, but all those from Mar onwards are lower than typical, but bear in mind the period is not in the main flu season).

I think the govt are keen for the public to have the flu jab as they are concerned about hospitals being overwhelmed by flu and covid.

colds and flu are often spread by children.....


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?



Artie, this does not scan for me. How can something that you don't encounter or have not had injected into you, harm you? Can you please enlarge on where and how you see the damage occuring?

Sam


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Oct 2020)

I often hear people talking about getting less colds since having the flu vaccine.....but it doesnt protect against colds AFAIK.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Artie, this does not scan for me. How can something that you don't encounter or have not had injected into you, harm you? Can you please enlarge on where and how you see the damage occuring?
> 
> Sam


You got it in one, if you don't have it , it can't harm you.
If you have it, it may or may not help you.


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> But on the other hand, if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them, take another 1000 and don't vaccinate them.
> What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?


false dilemma fallacy

heres the real question:

if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them what is the probability of being damaged by a vaccine
if you take 1000 people and dont vaccinate them what is the probability of being damaged by influenza


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Artie, this does not scan for me. How can something that you don't encounter or have not had injected into you, harm you? Can you please enlarge on where and how you see the damage occuring?
> 
> Sam


Artie is playing with logical fallacies.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> false dilemma fallacy
> 
> heres the real question:


No, that's your question?


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

No Artie, Robin is correct. There can be no question of "damage" as you put it, if a damaging agent, the vaccine you stated in this case, is not administered. 
Robin's re-phrasing is a good succinct description of how medical - and indeed all scientific - testing is carried out. You have to compare like with like, not like with unlike. 
Sam


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

You misunderstand.
Ok am not talking about scientific or medical testing. The op said he got his jab and assumed us other wrinkles had done the same.
I for one did not. There are many more who don't.
And please don't misunderstand me, I don't care in the slightest if you or anyone else get it four times a year if that is your desire.
I do object to the fear selling that is going on. Because face it or not there are vast sums of money being made.


----------



## lurker (19 Oct 2020)

The vaccine can’t damage you.

to everyone else, I am truly sorry for asking him “the question “.
the opening post was , I think received by everyone, bar one, in the way I intended.


----------



## AJB Temple (19 Oct 2020)

I know very little about vaccines. However, my then employer, some years ago, sponsored me to do a second degree, being a masters in mathematics, a sizeable chunk of which was statistics. As I was intended to do a PhD one of my study tasks was to write a paper about effective sample sizes for testing vaccines. 

It is not really as simple as presented above. Things have probably moved on (this was the late 1980s) but there can be a lot of variables to deal with. In order to avoid bias in the population (which is hard to spot) generally large sample populations are chosen for both the control and those exposed to the vaccine. If you don’t do this, your confidence in the outcome is greatly reduced. 

We need to establish what confidence rate we are seeking to reach. 95% is often cited. The guesstimate of vaccine efficacy varies markedly in its usefulness depending on the scale of the confidence interval. 

Some studies (back then at least) also attempted to introduce separate control groups for vaccines with negative efficacy. It’s a long time ago but I recall some US and Finnish studies of vaccines on some large samples. The samples chosen were from select groups (so excluded groups which the vaccine was not targeted at or was likely to be unnecessary). 

You also need to be able to evaluate the disease attack rate on both the test group and the controls. Often (at least then) control groups will be doubled to include a placebo set and a no action set. 

Further, you also need to be very clear what it is that you are trying to measure: for example the disease attack rate in the vaccinated sample, versus that in the control. This may be layered, as diseases can have variable impact from severe (death) to nil or unknown harm. Vaccine producers need to know whether vaccines change the level of damage - ie is there a degree of efficacy as opposed to complete or no efficacy. 

The statistics involved and the measures needed to ensure valid outcomes are in practice fairly complex. For a mass vaccine study sample sizes of 1,000 would not be used and no one would draw a confident result from them.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> The vaccine can’t damage you.
> 
> to everyone else, I am truly sorry for asking him “the question “.
> the opening post was , I think received by everyone, bar one, in the way I intended.


How can you be sure that the vaccine can't damage you.
And how is anyone supposed to know your intention when you start a thread?
Did you only want supportive answers not genuine opinion?


----------



## sploo (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> I am going to comment again on this thread now that maybe the dust has settled, but I won't be surprised if the usual bullies jump all over it again.
> To make a very valid point and use words, like likelihood and entirely probable.
> 
> But on the other hand, if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them, take another 1000 and don't vaccinate them.
> What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?


That's a fair question; and is covered as part of a well conducted drug trial.

Usually, you'll have three groups; one gets nothing, one gets the actual drug, one gets a fake drug that has no effect (a placebo). It's quite normal for people to report improvement in symptoms when they believe they have been given treatment, so it's likely your placebo group will give slightly better reports than the untreated group. The key is the need to show that your new drug performs better than the placebo, not just better than the untreated group.

"Better" is obviously in the context of symptoms the drug is designed to treat, but also that it doesn't do harm.

This does not mean there will never be terrible errors (Thalidomide scandal - Wikipedia) and it does not mean the pharmaceutical industry is whiter than white; but, the consequences (both legal and reputational) for releasing a drug that causes more damage than it fixes would be severe.

Based on the number of people that receive a yearly flu jab (I think it's >70% of the over 65s in England) there will be a huge amount of data available for medical review; and so it would be clear fairly quickly if people were being damaged by the flu jab.

So - in short, I suspect the answer to your question is that in both groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated) the number of people being damaged by the vaccine will be effectively zero.


----------



## lurker (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> How can you be sure that the vaccine can't damage you.
> And how is anyone supposed to know your intention when you start a thread?
> Did you only want supportive answers not genuine opinion?



everyone else responded as I had intended.

my regret is that there was no mumps vaccine available when I was a child. I might just have a avoided a lifetime of deafness.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> I do object to the fear selling that is going on. Because face it or not there are vast sums of money being made.



Ah! Got you now. The answer to that is complicated. Polio was around in the early 60's when I was in primary school
So were measles, I got them. They are still rampant in 'The Third World', I have brutal experience of them in India during extended charity trips. Both are preventable by vaccine. So, do we need vaccines to prevent "unnecessary suffering", then we need pharmas to develop them. That costs, someone has to pay.
I do not agree with your phrase "fear-mongering", if I could take you back with me to the slums of Dehra Dunn and show you why, I would. None of the charity workers conducted into that scene woukd call it "fear-mongering", the reality is all too graphic and plainly disturbing. The idea that we could shun an available preventative measure here in UK is a non-starter. 
That argument applies to 'flu and Covid too. I've had 'flu as a twenty-something, I certainly would not want it now in my mid-sixties.
So, who pays? We do. We also pay for research into possible drugs or vaccones on a vast scale. My elder son works in pharma as a develoment chemist. The 000's of man-hours put into even one drug's exploration is phenomenal, and that is just one, among thousands. Only a few make it past testing. So, the pharmas pass on their costs to us, as an attempt to recoup outlay. Yes,unscrupulous ones fudge figures to make a bean, but hey, we have all those drugs to help us along. Would you go so far as to deny yourself Paracetemol? Asprin? 

Penecillen? Novocaine at the dentists? Chemotherapy drugs? Anesthetics for internal operations? 
Sam


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> everyone else responded as I had intended.
> 
> my regret is that there was no mumps vaccine available when I was a child. I might just have a avoided a lifetime of deafness.


I had mumps in my 30's. Not a pleasant experience.

You didn't answer my question, did you not want an honest opinion?


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Ah! Got you now. The answer to that is complicated. Polio was around in the early 60's when I was in primary school
> So were measles, I got them. They are still rampant in 'The Third World', I have brutal experience of them in India during extended charity trips. Both are preventable by vaccine. So, do we need vaccines to prevent "unnecessary suffering", then we need pharmas to develop them. That costs, someone has to pay.
> I do not agree with your phrase "fear-mongering", if I could take you back with me to the slums of Dehra Dunn and show you why, I would. None of the charity workers conducted into that scene woukd call it "fear-mongering", the reality is all too graphic and plainly disturbing. The idea that we could shun an available preventative measure here in UK is a non-starter.
> That argument applies to 'flu and Covid too. I've had 'flu as a twenty-something, I certainly would not want it now in my mid-sixties.
> ...


I never said vaccines have no place. I get your point about India and the slums, but you can't really compare that to present day UK.
A vaccine for flu, covid, shingles, pneumonia, where does it end?


----------



## lurker (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> I had mumps in my 30's. Not a pleasant experience.
> 
> You didn't answer my question, did you not want an honest opinion?


The answer you gave at #11 was perfectly sufficient.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

⁹


lurker said:


> my regret is that there was no mumps vaccine available when I was a child. I might just have a avoided a lifetime of deafness.


Magnificent answer, at a level of dignity stratospherically above the general tone preceding it. Respect.
Sam


----------



## sploo (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> I never said vaccines have no place. I get your point about India and the slums, but you can't really compare that to present day UK.
> A vaccine for flu, covid, shingles, pneumonia, where does it end?


True; but we're somewhat sheltered from seeing the worst here in the UK (in that, as general members of the UK public we don't have to face the consequences of many terrible diseases on a daily basis - so it's easy to underestimate the seriousness). If people frequently walked past you coughing up blood from TB I suspect few would oppose a TB vaccine.

In terms of where does it end; where should it end? I mean, if there were no negative consequences, surely a vaccine for every dangerous/unpleasant ailment would be a positive thing? Humans will always find something else to die from, but there's no point in dying from things we can prevent.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> but you can't really compare that to present day UK.


Artie, without (reasonably) easy access to vaccines, here in UK, there would be no difference between Dehra Dunn and Belfast. 
The human misery, indignity, lack of a sustainable economy would be catastrophic. 
Sam


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> In terms of where does it end; where should it end? I mean, if there were no negative consequences,


There it is right there.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> The answer you gave at #11 was perfectly sufficient.


If I recall correctly that was all I said to you?


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Artie, without (reasonably) easy access to vaccines, here in UK, there would be no difference between Dehra Dunn and Belfast.
> The human misery, indignity, lack of a sustainable economy would be catastrophic.
> Sam


Maybe


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> If people frequently walked past you coughing up blood from TB I suspect few would oppose a TB vaccine.


Did that ever happen?


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Did that ever happen?


Frequently. One of the reasons isolation hospitals (sanitoriums) came into being.

Sam


----------



## AJB Temple (19 Oct 2020)

A very good friend of mine is a maths professor in the US. He is presently dealing with an interesting dilemma related to vaccines (he is working with a Pharma group). The problem is that we will probably not know for sure, for a long time, whether vaccines for C19 work on the elderly (this in fact means over 65 in the study). This is because vaccines are typically tested on a younger age group, with similarly aged "controls". Testing on the elderly is riskier and it is harder to establish control groups. 

So, let us suppose a vaccine is found that works on younger people. It will immediately be deployed to elderly people as it would be morally wrong not to. It would also be morally wrong to deploy a placebo without their knowledge (I imagine few would give informed consent) as the litigious risk from preventable deaths would be too high. 

Hence a form of Catch 22 arises: a vaccine gets deployed but until we have enough years of it to see a death rate trend change (if any) then we will not know if it works. 

Vaccines are inevitably a bit of a leap of faith: as individuals we never know what fate had in store for us if we had not had that injection.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

AJB Temple said:


> A very good friend of mine is a maths professor in the US. He is presently dealing with an interesting dilemma related to vaccines (he is working with a Pharma group). The problem is that we will probably not know for sure, for a long time, whether vaccines for C19 work on the elderly (this in fact means over 65 in the study). This is because vaccines are typically tested on a younger age group, with similarly aged "controls". Testing on the elderly is riskier and it is harder to establish control groups.
> 
> So, let us suppose a vaccine is found that works on younger people. It will immediately be deployed to elderly people as it would be morally wrong not to. It would also be morally wrong to deploy a placebo without their knowledge (I imagine few would give informed consent) as the litigious risk from preventable deaths would be too high.
> 
> ...


I wonder what the supposed difference is between young and old as far as a virus is concerned.

afaik testing without a control group isn't proper testing, what alternative is there?


----------



## RogerS (19 Oct 2020)

And we're off.

How long before this thread also gets locked. ?


----------



## Bm101 (19 Oct 2020)

I would think there are very real concerns among scientists in the medical community about the fact that any possible forthcoming ( covid ) immunisation might not happen to any real effect due to the sheer stupidity of people getting their news from social media. We've seen the rise globally of anti vaxers in recent years. If enough people don't vaccinate there will certainly be the possibility of reduced efficiency. Combine this with the biggest attempted inoculation in world history and it's going to be _'*interesting*'._
Personally, my opinion on it all generally .......if you can't produce certification of vaccination for your kids they should not be allowed in schools etc. Your choice not to vax but then you are removed from the rest of us that take the chance that we are doing the right thing.
You have to _*not*_ live in an age of Mumps and Rickets and Measles and SmallPox to think it would be better in the old days. 
I despair to be honest. At least before the internet these idiots couldn't join up with other idiots and stroke each others egos and start more fires for more idiots to put their hands into... Its terrifying....
Meanwhile, in China untested 'vacines' not even at test stage were being sold in the last few days with Government authority. Pay your c. $60 equivalent and get injected. They were running to queue up.
Make of that what you will.

Artie. You do seem like you want a fight there mate tbh. No matter how you dress it up as 'discussion'. I don't get involved in these threads but you are picking at this like an 8 year old with fresh scabs. No one is 'shouting you down'. Go and have a pint.


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

Bm101 said:


> I would think there are very real concerns among scientists in the medical community about the fact that any possible forthcoming ( covid ) immunisation might not happen to any real effect due to the sheer stupidity of people getting their news from social media. We've seen the rise globally of anti vaxers in recent years. If enough people don't vaccinate there will certainly be the possibility of reduced efficiency. Combine this with the biggest attempted inoculation in world history and it's going to be _'*interesting*'._
> Personally, my opinion on it all generally .......if you can't produce certification of vaccination for your kids they should not be allowed in schools etc. Your choice not to vax but then you are removed from the rest of us that take the chance that we are doing the right thing.
> You have to _*not*_ live in an age of Mumps and Rickets and Measles and SmallPox to think it would be better in the old days.
> I despair to be honest. At least before the internet these idiots couldn't join up with other idiots and stroke each others egos and start more fires for more idiots to put their hands into... Its terrifying....
> ...


Why does it bother you if I ask polite questions, I have learned a lot from forums over the years. 

Here's a question for you, if you were in charge and ostracised children from schools etc, would you also exempt them from taxes?


----------



## Droogs (19 Oct 2020)

If you have ever heard the term "oh they died of - black lung/the lung/Consumption" that was TB and people walking around coughing up particles of blood saturated with the virus into the air and infecting a large percentage of the population in urban areas. Covid is no different in how it works to get into you


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

Agreed Roger. Replying in this thread is - like giving a pig a strawberry - totally wasted, as the responses can ( inevitably) be categorised as "Yebbut, what if..." fill.in your own surreal, highly unlikely scenario....
I'm off. You're blocked Artie.

Sam


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Oct 2020)

AJB Temple said:


> Vaccines are inevitably a bit of a leap of faith: as individuals we never know what fate had in store for us if we had not had that injection.



“Among the deficiencies of hindsight is that while we know the consequences of what was done, we do not know the consequences of some other course that was not followed.” W. Churchill.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Oct 2020)

Droogs said:


> If you have ever heard the term "oh they died of - black lung/the lung/Consumption" that was TB and people walking around coughing up particles of blood saturated with the virus into the air and infecting a large percentage of the population in urban areas. Covid is no different in how it works to get into you


My grandfather died of TB in 1941, 12 years before I was born. My grandmother worked in the local country hospital, which was a TB sanatorium.


----------



## AJB Temple (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> I wonder what the supposed difference is between young and old as far as a virus is concerned.
> 
> afaik testing without a control group isn't proper testing, what alternative is there?



Older people are often weaker, more frail, have other problems. In summary a bit crocked. Some of them are also more argumentative and difficult apparently. You will find it creeps up on you I expect. 

Control group - see above where I was talking about statistics. The alternative is long term analysis of death rates, which is a perfect hindsight analysis. This, though, is obvious.


----------



## doctor Bob (19 Oct 2020)

Recently an anti vaxxer died and finds herself at the pearly gates. 
God greets her, shows her around and asks if she has any questions.

She says "Not about heaven, but was I right about vaccines?"

God laughed and said "No, vaccines are perfectly safe and should be administered to everyone".

The woman just can't believe it. 

She's absolutely distraught, until it finally dawns on her: this conspiracy must go even higher than I thought!"


----------



## Bm101 (19 Oct 2020)




----------



## Bm101 (19 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Here's a question for you, if you were in charge and ostracised children from schools etc, would you also exempt them from taxes?


Ok. I'll bite. Once.
No I would not. Because I wouldn't be 'ostracising' (good try) the children, I would be making the parents who made the decisions for their children take responsibility for their decisions in a society based largely on mutual awareness.
If you want to live off grid, go stoneage, raise your kids in the forest. Homeschool them properly. Buy a bit of land in West Wales and crack on. Great. No issues with that whatsoever. Don't want to pay taxes that's fine. Really. But you forgo public education, health care, national pension, basic dentistry, road tax, etc. You have to contribute in some form or you are a pest. 
Walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
Do it properly. Not half pineappled with bad science and no education because you listened to some twonk on facebook.
If I was just a little different, no kids, different Mrs, good chance I could have gone down the road I was on at one point as a younger fella. But I didn't and as a father now I want my kids to have the best possibilities available to them. Even at the cost of my own.


----------



## Trevanion (19 Oct 2020)

Bm101 said:


> Buy a bit of land in West Wales and crack on.


----------



## Lons (19 Oct 2020)

Yeah we don't want him in Northumberland either, there are enough of that type already resident in a couple of towns along the coast. Just look at where the main spikes are to find out where.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Oct 2020)

Just amble'in along, blythly minding your own business when you spotted all those sloths Bob? 
Just askin'....
Sam


----------



## artie (19 Oct 2020)

Bm101 said:


> Ok. I'll bite. Once.
> No I would not. Because I wouldn't be 'ostracising' (good try) the children, I would be making the parents who made the decisions for their children take responsibility for their decisions in a society based largely on mutual awareness.
> If you want to live off grid, go stoneage, raise your kids in the forest. Homeschool them properly. Buy a bit of land in West Wales and crack on. Great. No issues with that whatsoever. Don't want to pay taxes that's fine. Really. But you forgo public education, health care, national pension, basic dentistry, road tax, etc. You have to contribute in some form or you are a pest.
> Walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
> ...


So, taxation without representation?


----------



## Jake (19 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Frequently. One of the reasons isolation hospitals (sanitoriums) came into being.



My mother spent a couple of years in one as a kid.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Oct 2020)

My grandmother kept the family in milk during the war by taking home goat's milk from the sanatorium - goats were thought to be immune to TB so the milk was thought to be beneficial to TB patients, but most of them wouldn't drink it so the staff took it home.


----------



## Lons (19 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Just amble'in along, blythly minding your own business when you spotted all those sloths Bob?
> Just askin'....
> Sam


Yeah there but I was also thinking of Ashing / Bedling - tons of the cr*p around there.


----------



## MikeJhn (19 Oct 2020)

I try not to put anything artificial into my body or blood stream, If I have a headache or stomach upset I believe it's my body telling me I have abused it and I should suffer the consequences, this is despite having TB, Scarlet Fever and all the other child complaints of the 40's and 60's and a heart condition from birth, I just keep away from people that are sick.


----------



## marcros (19 Oct 2020)

Lons said:


> Yeah we don't want him in Northumberland either, there are enough of that type already resident in a couple of towns along the coast. Just look at where the main spikes are to find out where.



no to Yorkshire too.


----------



## profchris (19 Oct 2020)

As I'm just too young to get it free, I'm paying for the flu vaccine tomorrow. It costs the same as a very moderate bottle of wine.

There is a risk of serious side effects, but much lower than my risk of being killed or injured by a lightning strike.

I'm spending a few days a month in London, travelling by Tube and teaching students. My risk of catching flu is higher than many here. And I'm not 30 any more so I'd suffer more.

The vaccine reduces my risk of catching flu by 30% or more. That's a hugely greater reduction in risk than from side effects. Maybe 100 times greater, maybe 1,000 times, maybe more.

I can see why vaccines are scary - there is a known, tiny, risk because you know you've been vaccinated. If you don't understand risk, catching flu might seem less risky as you might not get it. You have to run the numbers to realise that it's by far the opposite, but in my experience most people can't really take in numbers (natural aptitude, not education). What would convince them is more people they know dying from flu than from vaccines, but flu on its own doesn't kill many.

Now, people dying of TB, as they used to, would be a lot more visible.


----------



## John Brown (19 Oct 2020)

Jake said:


> My mother spent a couple of years in one as a kid.


She was lucky that Phil's grandmother didn't milk her.


----------



## Jake (19 Oct 2020)

Too young obvs


----------



## Lons (20 Oct 2020)

profchris said:


> The vaccine reduces my risk of catching flu by 30% or more. That's a hugely greater reduction in risk than from side effects. Maybe 100 times greater, maybe 1,000 times, maybe more.
> I can see why vaccines are scary - there is a known, tiny, risk because you know you've been vaccinated. If you don't understand risk, catching flu might seem less risky as you might not get it. You have to run the numbers to realise that it's by far the opposite, but in my experience most people can't really take in numbers



Yep.
The same people are happy enough to take a risk using a table saw, spindle moulder or other tools, driving or crossing the road or even smoking or drinking. I wonder how many of those opposing vaccines never pour alcohol down their throat.  Most things we do every day have a risk element you just need to be aware of and manage the risk, the benefits of vaccines are there to be seen and those who refuse them without valid medical reason and then catch those illnesses should be placed right at the end of any consideration for treatment and left to fend for themselves.


----------



## artie (20 Oct 2020)

*From Attorney Leah Durant | Vaccine Lawyer

3. Flu Shot Injury Claims are Most Common, But More DTP Claims Involve Fatal Injuries*

Of the 19,021 claims filed, over 4,000 involve flu shot-related injuries (including 197 fatal injuries). However, while flu shot injury claims are most common, the most claims involving fatal injuries result from vaccinations for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP). Since October 1988, 696 families have sought compensation for fatal injuries and illnesses linked to DTP vaccinations.

*4. Vaccine Injury Claims are on the Rise*

The number of vaccine injury claims filed under the VICP has risen each year since 2011, and 2017 saw a 13-year high in the number of claims filed. In total, 1,243 individuals and families filed claims for compensation in fiscal year 2017. So far, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already received 339 claims for the 2018 fiscal year.


----------



## Lons (20 Oct 2020)

t's the USA where they'll file for damages if they prick their finger on a thorn. 

*Flu vaccine is*_ produced by private manufacturers, so supply depends on manufacturers. *Vaccine* manufacturers have projected that they will supply as *many* as *194 to 198 million doses *of *influenza vaccine* for the 2020-2021 season. _


----------



## sploo (20 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> *From Attorney Leah Durant | Vaccine Lawyer
> 
> 3. Flu Shot Injury Claims are Most Common, But More DTP Claims Involve Fatal Injuries*
> 
> ...


So.. first thought: pharma companies are to be viewed with suspicion because they profit from the fear of viruses; in order to sell vaccines. However, a vaccine lawyer's site is OK because they're definitely not profiting from the fear of vaccines?

Anyway - let's say that the claim of 197 fatal injuries (directly related to flu shots) is true - I suspect that number may be dubious, but let's just run with it. Figures from Public Health England estimate that an average of 17,000 people died each year from the flu (between 2014 and 2018).

Yearly effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies (and varies by the virus type); however, something around 50% appears to be a reasonable average.

Based on that data, even if there were 197 deaths _per year _in the US (I'm assuming the 197 figure above is probably a total over several years), it would still be much safer to get a flu shot (with the low risk of an adverse reaction) than the risk of death by flu.

What other figures I could find for deaths caused by flu shots (usually a result of allergic reactions) were tiny; in the order of <2 per million. If only 2 people per million in the UK died (from catching the flu) then flu death numbers would be <150 per year (the actual figure is over 100x larger).

Point being; life is 100% fatal; something will kill you - but the evidence would suggest it's unlikely to be a vaccine. The virus the vaccine protects you against however...


----------



## artie (20 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> So.. first thought: pharma companies are to be viewed with suspicion because they profit from the fear of viruses; in order to sell vaccines. However, a vaccine lawyer's site is OK because they're definitely not profiting from the fear of vaccines?
> 
> Anyway - let's say that the claim of 197 fatal injuries (directly related to flu shots) is true - I suspect that number may be dubious, but let's just run with it. Figures from Public Health England estimate that an average of 17,000 people died each year from the flu (between 2014 and 2018).
> 
> ...


Now that's what I call a reply, not one snide comment or personal attack.


----------



## RobinBHM (20 Oct 2020)

profchris said:


> Now, people dying of TB, as they used to, would be a lot more visible



Measles for example.

the anti vaxxers have lowered the % of children immunised against measles sufficiently for measles to come back

what is rather frustrating is the the anti vaxxers are actually relying on those who have the vaccine to create herd immunity to protect them from getting it.

A rather selfish attitude is you ask me.


----------



## John Brown (20 Oct 2020)

It seems the anti-vaxxers in chief woupd rather children got sick and/or died, rather than admit they might have been wrong. That's what I find scary.


----------



## RogerS (20 Oct 2020)

John Brown said:


> It seems the anti-vaxxers in chief woupd rather children got sick and/or died, rather than admit they might have been wrong. That's what I find scary.


Scary ? I'd say downright immoral.


----------



## profchris (20 Oct 2020)

The deed is done, my arm was perforated an hour ago. So far so good.

But I promise to report back if it kills me.


----------



## John Brown (20 Oct 2020)

profchris said:


> The deed is done, my arm was perforated an hour ago. So far so good.
> 
> But I promise to report back if it kills me.


Yes, I'm still alive, having been jabbed last week. My knees hurt and my back aches a bit more than in the past, when I wasn't eligible for free jabs, but I think that may be correlation without causation.


----------



## sploo (20 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Now that's what I call a reply, not one snide comment or personal attack.


I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer, but on this subject (pros and cons of vaccines) there isn't really any need to insult or base things on opinion; there's so much data available that shows the risks from vaccines are minuscule, and much, much, lower than the risks posed by the viruses they aim to prevent.

In life we make choices; crossing a road poses a risk of death, but the risk is low and the benefits (of getting to where we need to be) outweigh the danger.

I don't really have a problem with adults who choose to be unvaccinated; the contentious issue is that they then pose a transmission risk for those who would like to be vaccinated but can't due to some underlying health condition or allergy. In essence you then have one person exercising their right to choose, but are implicitly imposing their choice of risk on those who do not have that choice.


----------



## artie (20 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer,


Your Lawyer analogy didn't quite stand up. Because he is not causing fear in the first place, just lining his pockets after the damage is done.
But I was so chuffed with a civil and thought out approach, I went on to work with a somewhat renewed faith in human nature


----------



## RobinBHM (20 Oct 2020)

I think Andrew Wakefield was responsible for a lot of the anti vaxxer movement.

I remember parents were very fearful at the time of the MMR vaccine for their children.

I do believe there are some risks and maybe issues with the MMR being a combined vaccine

There is a concern surrounding the swine flu vaccine (that I think is included some years in UK flu season vaccine) as it may cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, which in rare cases can be permanent. 

Although the numbers were small: 45 million people _vaccinated_ against the _1976_ swine flu, four hundred and fifty people developed the rare _syndrome Guillain_-_Barré_


----------



## SammyQ (20 Oct 2020)

Wakefield? What a debacle that was: 









The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud
 






www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





Astonishing that the Lancet accepted, and published, a paper where n=12!! 

By 1998 I, and thousands of other A level teachers, had, for over two decades, been drumming into future doctors, surgeons, dentists, scientists, the perils of deducing ANYTHING from miniscule sample sizes, as we taught basic statistics ( _χ_2*, *t test, Student's t, confidence limits, etc). Then the Lancet, of all journals, goes and gives page space - and thereby credence - to what was later " to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history". WHERE WERE THEIR REVIEWERS??? WHAT WERE THEY ON?? Feet of clay, no doubt, and a serious pall cast over the ability to employ - and enforce - simple rules of scientific rigour by the so-called medical specialists. 

Sam


----------



## AJB Temple (20 Oct 2020)

I agree with that Robin. When our eldest was born I think the Wakefield thing was in full flow and my Dutch partner was very reluctant to have our son vaccinated, her primary concern was that it would cause meningitis and autism. It took me a long time to persuade her that the vaccine risk was far less than the disease risk, but I paid at the time for vaccines to be administered separately, which was quite tricky to organise. This put her mind at rest to a degree.


----------



## sploo (20 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> Your Lawyer analogy didn't quite stand up. Because he is not causing fear in the first place, just lining his pockets after the damage is done.
> But I was so chuffed with a civil and thought out approach, I went on to work with a somewhat renewed faith in human nature


Isn't that lawyer something of the definition of an ambulance chaser?

I don't really see how someone who makes a treatment for a condition causes fear any more than someone who seeks out people who claim to have been damaged by that treatment.

To flip the argument on its head: the lawyer is a hero for getting justice for those harmed by medicines, but by that logic, the medical company is also a hero for saving many people who would have died without the treatment.


----------



## AJB Temple (20 Oct 2020)

Wakefield is active again and his views have got traction in America: How disgraced anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield was embraced by Trump's America


----------



## sploo (20 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Wakefield? What a debacle that was:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed. Ignoring the subject, the controversy, and the impact; the fact is that the original paper was an absolutely terrible piece of research; that didn't meet even basic standards to have been taken seriously. The problem is that the Lancet smelled a big story and rushed to be the one that carried it first. Had they done even a basic review of the paper it would have set off major alarm bells; so they certainly deserve some of the blame for the mess it caused.

For those unfamiliar with the details: there was no control group, only a tiny number of patients (all of whom had pre-existing medical conditions), he broke medical ethics by both having an undeclared financial interest in damaging the MMR vaccine's reputation, and finally, he performed non-medically-indicated procedures on children (i.e. potentially dangerous procedures in order to gain samples, that were not required for the patient's treatment).

If he'd been researching, say, bowel disease in geriatric patients, it would have received little public attention. The fact it was related to vaccines means that a man who's a crook (and a dangerous doctor) is seen by some as a champion against big pharma; that's the real tragedy.


----------



## Benchwayze (21 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer, but on this subject (pros and cons of vaccines) there isn't really any need to insult or base things on opinion; there's so much data available that shows the risks from vaccines are minuscule, and much, much, lower than the risks posed by the viruses they aim to prevent.
> 
> In life we make choices; crossing a road poses a risk of death, but the risk is low and the benefits (of getting to where we need to be) outweigh the danger.
> 
> I don't really have a problem with adults who choose to be unvaccinated; the contentious issue is that they then pose a transmission risk for those who would like to be vaccinated but can't due to some underlying health condition or allergy. In essence you then have one person exercising their right to choose, but are implicitly imposing their choice of risk on those who do not have that choice.



I believe vaccines are to prevent or help prevent contracting the disease for which The vaccines are intended. I don't think vaccines are intended for, or are capable of preventing further transmission. If you have been vaccinated you can still pass on disease. So please don't blame me if you catch this virus and think it's because I have not been vaccinated. Nor will I be so, unless a couple of police officers hold me down whilst the doctor's do their stuff. I have self isolated since this problem started. I am 81, so on borrowed time maybe. Haven't had an attack of flu for about 13 years; nor a common cold. Which indicates what I have always believed. DON'T struggle in to work with a cold and expect kudos for bèing so brave. Stay at home and keep it to your self. I would also like to know why I don't see all these extra funeral processions, as I might expect with reported death rates. Given that I live on one of only two access roads to a huge estate. Or are the dead being collected by local refuse departments? Funerals normally do a drive-by even for hospital death, so where are all the hearses? Or is it just my area and it's unusually healthy populace?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (21 Oct 2020)

I would think logically that you must be wrong, or there'd be no such thing as herd immunity.


----------



## alex_heney (21 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> I believe vaccines are to prevent or help prevent contracting the disease for which The vaccines are intended. I don't think vaccines are intended for, or are capable of preventing further transmission. If you have been vaccinated you can still pass on disease. So please don't blame me if you catch this virus and think it's because I have not been vaccinated. Nor will I be so, unless a couple of police officers hold me down whilst the doctor's do their stuff. I have self isolated since this problem started. I am 81, so on borrowed time maybe. Haven't had an attack of flu for about 13 years; nor a common cold. Which indicates what I have always believed. DON'T struggle in to work with a cold and expect kudos for bèing so brave. Stay at home and keep it to your self. I would also like to know why I don't see all these extra funeral processions, as I might expect with reported death rates. Given that I live on one of only two access roads to a huge estate. Or are the dead being collected by local refuse departments? Funerals normally do a drive-by even for hospital death, so where are all the hearses? Or is it just my area and it's unusually healthy populace?



We are looking at an average couple of hundred deaths or so per day, across the whole of the UK.

While that *is* a large number of additional deaths, it is not many as a proportion of the population, and not enough to make a noticeable difference to the number of funerals unless you are in a particularly hard hit area. Even more so given that for much of the time, attendance at funerals has been very restricted.


----------



## sploo (21 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> I believe vaccines are to prevent or help prevent contracting the disease for which The vaccines are intended. I don't think vaccines are intended for, or are capable of preventing further transmission. If you have been vaccinated you can still pass on disease. So please don't blame me if you catch this virus and think it's because I have not been vaccinated.


A vaccine will absolutely help to prevent further transmission - that's a critical component of their benefit to the population. As Phil notes - that's one of the points of herd immunity, and also why it is important for people who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated; as it protects those who (because of underlying health conditions or allergies) cannot receive a vaccine for a particular virus.

Now that said; if the flu vaccine is roughly 50% effective, it does mean that you can indeed have the vaccine, still get the flu, and therefore still pass it on. Critically though; the other 50% will have had their immune system "trained" by the vaccine; which will help to prevent them becoming infected (or at least greatly reduce the length and severity of their symptoms). That 50% will be far less contagious (either not contagious, or contagious for a shorter period of time); thus reducing the risk of transmission for everyone else.


----------



## Benchwayze (21 Oct 2020)

Oh ok. You maybe miss my point. To listen to the scaremongering that's coming out of my television set the situation is such that I can expect someone to be wheeling a cart around the streets and shouting. 'Bring out your dead!'
Ten years in the military and almost thirty in the Police Force (when it was a proper Force) tell me when there are hidden agendas. I haven't been out and about much this year but I still have friends. My grand-daughter is on the front line wth the NHS and she is forbidden to speak about it to outsiders. Is it coincidence that Yahboo stopped allowing comments around the start of the emergency. I won't say there is no virus, but I am a bit sceptical about what is the governments' agenda. Even I can remember the 'chocolate' delivery wagons going in and out of Kynochs factory during WW2!


----------



## Droogs (21 Oct 2020)

bloody hell benchwayze that was the great war with lloyd goeorge how old are you ?


----------



## sploo (21 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Oh ok. You maybe miss my point. To listen to the scaremongering that's coming out of my television set the situation is such that I can expect someone to be wheeling a cart around the streets and shouting. 'Bring out your dead!'
> Ten years in the military and almost thirty in the Police Force (when it was a proper Force) tell me when there are hidden agendas. I haven't been out and about much this year but I still have friends. My grand-daughter is on the front line wth the NHS and she is forbidden to speak about it to outsiders. Is it coincidence that Yahboo stopped allowing comments around the start of the emergency. I won't say there is no virus, but I am a bit sceptical about what is the governments' agenda. Even I can remember the 'chocolate' delivery wagons going in and out of Kynochs factory during WW2!


Probably a lot of the "forbidden" comes from the fact the situation in NHS hospitals at the moment is pretty dire (my wife is a doctor at an NHS hospital).

Years of under funding the NHS have obviously caused issues, combined with the last few years' political developments having had a negative impact on staffing, and all the recent debacles surrounding non-functional PPE (we had to buy plastic specs from Screwfix for her to use in hospital).

Rules for staff on mask fitting, mask wearing, face shields etc seem to have changed with the direction of the wind (often being shaped by what is actually available, rather than what should be done).

Whilst people aren't dropping dead on the streets, earlier in the year many UK hospitals were seriously overloaded with Covid patients (which of course has a knock on effect on all other "routine" treatment). Given the worries about the usual rise in illnesses over the winter period (and the rate at which admissions are climbing already) it's understandable that the medics are very worried about what's to come over the next few months.

I could whinge on for pages about the government's "agenda" regarding their conduct on lockdowns and PPE procurement; but this would quickly degenerate into a political thread. Instead, I'll just say that the situation for UK hospitals isn't an act of scaremongering, and just because we're not sweeping the dead off the streets doesn't mean that we shouldn't do all we can to be careful about the spread of Covid.

Even if you _really _needed to visit Barnard Castle for an eye test.


----------



## Benchwayze (21 Oct 2020)

I need an eyesight test as a matter of fact. As I also need cataracts repairing. Heaven knows when I'm going to get that done! I think I can safely say I shall never be able to drive again. Even if I could pass the eyesight test to enable me to drive around reading number plates.

John


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> Rules for staff on mask fitting, mask wearing, face shields etc seem to have changed with the direction of the wind (often being shaped by what is actually available, rather than what should be done).



My neice, a radiographer at an NHS trust hospital said she was getting emails daily with new procedures. And yes NHS PPE procedures were reverse engineered to suit availability.

The other problem is staffing -covid has meant a lot having to self isolate. At Brighton hospital, quite a lot of young staff live in shared rented accomodation with colleagues from the hospital...so if 1 gets a positive result, they all have to isolate.

Since the first wave my neice has said her hospital has remained split into covid and non covid areas -clinical and admin. The hospital has been planning for a 2nd wave since June.


----------



## profchris (21 Oct 2020)

Almost forgot to report that my flu vaccine hasn't killed me yet. Still time, of course.

I've not been reading the latest conspiracy theories, but I do wonder how they cope with Trump joining the conspiracy by catching coronavirus 

Me, I'm more a cockup theorist. That's what the explanation usually turns out to be.


----------



## RogerS (21 Oct 2020)

profchris said:


> .... but I do wonder how they cope with Trump joining the conspiracy by *catching* coronavirus
> 
> .....



Or did he ? Dodgy electoral ratings ...think of something...


----------



## marcros (21 Oct 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> My neice, a radiographer at an NHS trust hospital said she was getting emails daily with new procedures. And yes NHS PPE procedures were reverse engineered to suit availability.



what does this mean though? I am not NHS, nor a politician, just a member of the public. As a result, I dont have the full picture or any inside information.

As I see it, the best PPE isnt available. There are reasons for this ranging from bad luck, incompetence, etc but the fact is that it isnt available. 

There is no point having procedures stating that unavailable kit must be used. In many situations, this would mean that the job stops, but the NHS cannot do that. Procedures need to be in place, the procedures need to be reverse engineered to utilise what PPE is available. The only alternative is to develop procedures which use alternative PPE and scrap what they have on hand (if sufficient quantity is available to buy now).


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Oct 2020)

marcros said:


> what does this mean though? I am not NHS, nor a politician, just a member of the public. As a result, I dont have the full picture or any inside information.
> 
> As I see it, the best PPE isnt available. There are reasons for this ranging from bad luck, incompetence, etc but the fact is that it isnt available.
> 
> There is no point having procedures stating that unavailable kit must be used. In many situations, this would mean that the job stops, but the NHS cannot do that. Procedures need to be in place, the procedures need to be reverse engineered to utilise what PPE is available. The only alternative is to develop procedures which use alternative PPE and scrap what they have on hand (if sufficient quantity is available to buy now).


yes indeed -I wasnt making a political statement just pointing out one reason behind the changing infection control procedures.

I also believe the big changes early on were due to altering hospital layouts to separate covid to non covid areas.

my niece didnt have any shortage of PPE.


her infection control procedures for CT scans on suspected patients:

-patient to wear mask
-radiographer to put on gloves, fitted mask, apron with cuffs and elastic loop to go over thumb
-then a second pair of gloves to go over original and cover end of apron cuff

After Scan:
PPE removed and thrown away
scan room and equipment cleaned
wait 20 minutes for any potential virus to be killed


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Oct 2020)

profchris said:


> Me, I'm more a cockup theorist. That's what the explanation usually turns out to be


Its amazing the conspiracy theories that are claiming its some subversive government control..........as you say, that would credit govts around the world with a high degree of organisation and competence.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (22 Oct 2020)

I like conspiracy theories - they're fun. Sometimes they are conspiracy facts, but no one notices that, because the propaganda mill grinds on.

The vaccine thing is a good example: a sudden frenzy of headlines saying vaccines will kill you, followed by more headlines saying only a deranged anti-vaxer conspiracy theorist would believe vaccines kill. For the lay person, which frenzied headline is to be believed? 

Don't forget that the term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA to stop people looking too closely at the JFK assassination. Allegedly. Believing your government is a pretty naive thing to do, but disbelieving your government gets you labeled as a weirdo. What's a tin-foil--hat wearer to do?

Apart from all the usual Wuhan Flu conspiracy theories, one which I quite like is the idea that China over-reacted to such an extent because they were fully expecting a biological attack from the West. Whether this coronavirus is man made or not, the fact that China is expecting full - spectrum warfare is interesting. Back in 2019, a few weeks before the first Covid19 case, USA and UK were numbers one and two in the list of countries ready and prepared to fight off a pandemic, so might have planned to come out materially better off than their competitors. Oh, the irony. And we only have lockdowns because China had a lockdown, and China only had a lockdown because they were expecting a12 Monkeys doomsday virus.

As I said, conspiracy theories are fun.


----------



## sploo (22 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> As I said, conspiracy theories are fun.


To coin an old phrase "it's all fun until someone gets hurt".

The problem is when a doctor with highly dubious ethics releases a poor study on MMR, (and that manages to make the headlines) people put 2 and 2 together and come up with 57. End result is viral BS with chancers, fraudsters, and attention seekers putting out misinformation, and scaring people that vaccines contain deadly chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide... and all of a sudden you get a rise in cases of serious diseases that do serious damage to (or even kill) children.

Call me humourless, but I struggle to find that bit fun.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> To coin an old phrase "it's all fun until someone gets hurt".
> 
> The problem is when a doctor with highly dubious ethics releases a poor study on MMR, (and that manages to make the headlines) people put 2 and 2 together and come up with 57. End result is viral BS with chancers, fraudsters, and attention seekers putting out misinformation, and scaring people that vaccines contain deadly chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide... and all of a sudden you get a rise in cases of serious diseases that do serious damage to (or even kill) children.
> 
> Call me humourless, but I struggle to find that bit fun.


The medical profession has a bit of a history of being useless. The food pyramid springs to mind as as a good example (it would appear to be upside down, but they still happily promote it). The coronavirus chaos is going well, as we can all see, but at least the medical malpractice suits will be curtailed, along with the medical procedures. 

"Science advances one funeral at a time", as attributed to Max Planck. Someone has done the research to confirm that this is actually a provable state of affairs, rather than just an aphorism. Science really does advance one funeral at a time, study suggests

We worship science as the new religion, and like most religions it is faith based, has its heirarchy, dogma, schisms, heretics and unbelievers. It is politicised, facts rewoven to suit the beliefs or needs of the heirarchy, and generally behaves much like catholicism in the middle ages.You can take the peasant out of the twelfth century, etc.

I quite understand why people don't trust the self appointed guardians of truth and beauty. Especially now that every fact has its attendant "alternative fact" to go along with it.

The new Coronavirus vaccine, should anyone manage to create it, will have been rushed through in less than two years when normally it would take at least 10. It will be vaunted as the new big thing, and the pressure to accept it will be huge. Some people will make billions, others merely millions, but the great mass of humanity may benefit, or they may not. Who knows at this point? What if it turns out to be another thalidomide cockup? Given that the scientific community doesn't seem keen to question their golden calves, it is left to the people who will pay the price of any error to do the questioning. Sometimes they may not be well equipped to do it, and sometimes they are led astray either in error or intentionally. Life is complicated. You do the best you can with what you've got. Blindly believing in leaders can be dangerous, too.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> We worship science as the new religion, and like most religions it is faith based, has its heirarchy, dogma, schisms, heretics and unbelievers


That is untrue

Science is science, at its heart is data taken from an experiment. 
If the experiment follows the correct scientific protocols the data it produces is factual

unfortunately the internet is awash with people misrepresenting science..........then you have conspiracy theories 



Trainee neophyte said:


> Given that the scientific community doesn't seem keen to question their golden calves


it is painful that your posts are always littered with opinions presented as facts, you add them in like confetti to add weight to your argument. I must admit its rather clever, it makes picking apart the detail hard work. Its true that lies spread faster than the truth can catch up. 

this particular comment makes an assumption that the "scientific community" is desperate to develop a vaccine and wont question it because its a "golden calf" 

Governments have already paid billions to pharma companies to produce a covid vaccine whether it works or not. 

the reality is the whole world wants a successful vaccine: government and people. 
Please dont try and make out its scientists with a "golden calf"


----------



## sploo (23 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The medical profession has a bit of a history of being useless. The food pyramid springs to mind as as a good example (it would appear to be upside down, but they still happily promote it). The coronavirus chaos is going well, as we can all see, but at least the medical malpractice suits will be curtailed, along with the medical procedures.
> 
> "Science advances one funeral at a time", as attributed to Max Planck. Someone has done the research to confirm that this is actually a provable state of affairs, rather than just an aphorism. Science really does advance one funeral at a time, study suggests
> 
> ...


Other than what Robin has rightly added; I'll pass on your thoughts to my (doctor) wife about the medical profession being a bit useless. I'm sure she'll be happy to hear she's wasting her time trying to resuscitate babies.

What I find so bemusing is how those so untrusting of authority, science, and experts, are so willing to be trusting when it comes to cranks, conspiracy theorists, and the many charlatans who make a good living from herding the credulous.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (23 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> Other than what Robin has rightly added; I'll pass on your thoughts to my (doctor) wife about the medical profession being a bit useless. I'm sure she'll be happy to hear she's wasting her time trying to resuscitate babies.
> 
> What I find so bemusing is how those so untrusting of authority, science, and experts, are so willing to be trusting when it comes to cranks, conspiracy theorists, and the many charlatans who make a good living from herding the credulous.



The internet has brought many benefits. It has also brought many disbenefits - two of the most glaring ones include:

a) Allowing *anyone *to disseminate (infinitely widely, for all practical purposes) writings which mostly would not have seen the light of day if they had had to get past the (generally pretty well educated) 'gatekeepers' of the past (publishers, editors, sub-editors [hence spelling and grammar disasters] et al).

b) Allowing *anyone *(regardless of their ability, through education and/or life experience, to filter/discriminate/contextualize/understand) to read the above.


----------



## RogerS (23 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> Other than what Robin has rightly added; I'll pass on your thoughts to my (doctor) wife about the medical profession being a bit useless. I'm sure she'll be happy to hear she's wasting her time trying to resuscitate babies.
> 
> What I find so bemusing is how those so untrusting of authority, science, and experts, are so willing to be trusting when it comes to cranks, conspiracy theorists, and the many charlatans who make a good living from herding the credulous.


Oh, you'd love the quote then by an idiotic person called Teamsaint over on the For3 (Friends of Radio 3) forum who says that the majority of medical staff only do it for the fame and the money.


----------



## sploo (23 Oct 2020)

RogerS said:


> Oh, you'd love the quote then by an idiotic person called Teamsaint over on the For3 (Friends of Radio 3) forum who says that the majority of medical staff only do it for the fame and the money.


I recall a discussion between my wife and some of her colleagues; back when they were _very _junior doctors. One of them had calculated that - on an hourly basis - they were actually paid less than the cleaners. Definitely in it for the fame and money


----------



## Lons (23 Oct 2020)

RogerS said:


> Oh, you'd love the quote then by an idiotic person called Teamsaint over on the For3 (Friends of Radio 3) forum who says that the majority of medical staff only do it for the fame and the money.


Like Sploo I'll also pass on TN's and Teamsaint's comments to the several members of my family in various capacities currently caring for and actually saving lives around the UK and abroad. They will also be delighted to know how valued their efforts are by some delusional people who are gullible enough to believe the rubbish spouted on social media. They certainly haven't witnessed the distress medical staff can suffer when they come home after losing a patient they fought so desperately to save. 

If it were at all possible I would refuse those activists medical attention and let them suffer and wither away alone and in pain.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 Oct 2020)

So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion. 

Has there never, in the history of medicine, been a procedure or treatment that turned out to be wrong? Are all doctors infallible gods who never make mistakes, never use the wrong techniques, and never have to change the way they practice medicine? 

Not only does medicine advance, (we no longer perform Lobotomies, nor do we blow tobacco smoke up people's bottoms to revive them after drowning), but medicine has been known to be wrong from time to time. There may be quite a lot of friction when getting the new, improved treatment to replace the old. Not always, of course, but a fine example would be the discovery of a bacteria being the main cause of stomach ulcers. Discovered in 1983 (I looked it up) people were still being treated by "reducing stress" and taking antacids up until past 2000, from what I understand. Very slow to change. No one is perfect. 

I live in a country where there is a more jaundiced view of medicine: doctors here don't ask for bribes, but handing over cash may suddenly bring about a miraculous change of treatment, with rapidly improving outcomes. Funny that.


----------



## clogs (23 Oct 2020)

Mr Noephyte
had a bad fall around 7 weeks ago, landed fair n sqaure on my shoulder......had an x ray and no broken bones, thank goodness.....
but still unable to use the arm...n cant sleep......
went to the osteopathe, that'll be €80 euros for a steroid injection into the joint if u please........
instant releif.....best few quid spent this year.......
like ur last sentance...how true.....
at least there's no waiting when u oil the wheels eh.....works for me....


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 Oct 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> That is untrue
> 
> Science is science, at its heart is data taken from an experiment.
> If the experiment follows the correct scientific protocols the data it produces is factual



Yes, you're right. But somehow, we are in the position of having the general public (or a significant subset) not trusting vaccines, because of a scientific report. How on earth did the gatekeepers manage to let that one through? Incompetence? Fraud? Intending to deceive?



RobinBHM said:


> it is painful that your posts are always littered with opinions presented as facts, you add them in like confetti to add weight to your argument. I must admit its rather clever, it makes picking apart the detail hard work. Its true that lies spread faster than the truth can catch up.


I am sorry that I bring you pain. It is not my intention. Perhaps you should lend less weight to what I write - I'm just the trainee, don't forget. I think I take exception to the word "lie", however. While I may or may not be correct in what I write, I am reasonably confident I have never set out to willfully deceive.


RobinBHM said:


> unfortunately the internet is awash with people misrepresenting science..........then you have conspiracy theories


So it is non scientists doing the misrepresenting, never the scientists? Or is anyone who fails the science code automatically cast out? Sounds more like like a religion by the minute. I think the BMJ would consider themselves quite scientific.




RobinBHM said:


> Governments have already paid billions to pharma companies to produce a covid vaccine whether it works or not.
> 
> the reality is the whole world wants a successful vaccine: government and people.
> Please dont try and make out its scientists with a "golden calf"


"To produce a vaccine, whether it works or not". Now that is a statement to conjure with.

I will leave you with this: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion - Listverse

It is just a bit of tongue in cheek, for fun. Don't take it to heart. Poking fun at sacred cows and all that ;-)


----------



## sploo (23 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.
> 
> Has there never, in the history of medicine, been a procedure or treatment that turned out to be wrong? Are all doctors infallible gods who never make mistakes, never use the wrong techniques, and never have to change the way they practice medicine?


The problem is; this is the logic that says "Pilots _do_ sometimes crash planes. There's never been a recorded incident of a milkman crashing a 747; therefore I want my milkman to fly my plane".

Of course there are mistakes, errors, inaccuracies, and even downright fraud. That's true of any sector or profession (humans being the common factor). The point is that, in the main, experts tend to be more right than wrong (experience and all that), and certainly in fields such as medicine I suspect a large percentage go into it with a desire to help.

The issue is how a few are able to highlight the errors in order to discredit entire fields. Usually those people are the ones who have never been (and will never be) anywhere near the truth - but they're good salesmen, and tend to do well (money and/or fame) from herding the gullible.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 Oct 2020)

sploo said:


> The problem is; this is the logic that says "Pilots _do_ sometimes crash planes. There's never been a recorded incident of a milkman crashing a 747; therefore I want my milkman to fly my plane".
> 
> Of course there are mistakes, errors, inaccuracies, and even downright fraud. That's true of any sector or profession (humans being the common factor). The point is that, in the main, experts tend to be more right than wrong (experience and all that), and certainly in fields such as medicine I suspect a large percentage go into it with a desire to help.
> 
> The issue is how a few are able to highlight the errors in order to discredit entire fields. Usually those people are the ones who have never been (and will never be) anywhere near the truth - but they're good salesmen, and tend to do well (money and/or fame) from herding the gullible.


I think my real beef (to use an americanism) is not with science or medicine, but with the media. Every week we get the headline scientific breakthrough, which is never followed up, and never qualified. Not being a scientist, it is not my job to conduct experiments, peer review papers, or secure funding for research. I just want to know the "truth". Of course, there are so many layers of propaganda, politics, money and so on to get in the way that hardly anyone knows what reality is any more. As for finding a definitive truth - we have "alternative facts" to make it whatever you want it to be.

Didn't we have another thread once, which started off on a similar vein? Which reminds me - not much talk about Brexit on the telly...I wonder why not?


----------



## lurker (23 Oct 2020)

Yes your problem is with the media.
Their job is to make money for their employers, tweeking the facts or down right lies , it matters not a jot.

Generally it's not scientists fault that their research is taken out of context.
That piece of scum that made up a pack of lies about MMR so that he could profit should never have been published. And as you say it does make you wonder what lancet was up to, pure incompetence. But don't forget even with this learned journal there is someone just in it for the money.


----------



## SammyQ (23 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> That piece of scum that made up a pack of lies about MMR so that he could profit should never have been published.


Yerr!! Working, sorry, propagandizing, for Trump now int he? 

Sam


----------



## sploo (23 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I think my real beef (to use an americanism) is not with science or medicine, but with the media. Every week we get the headline scientific breakthrough, which is never followed up, and never qualified. Not being a scientist, it is not my job to conduct experiments, peer review papers, or secure funding for research. I just want to know the "truth". Of course, there are so many layers of propaganda, politics, money and so on to get in the way that hardly anyone knows what reality is any more. As for finding a definitive truth - we have "alternative facts" to make it whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Didn't we have another thread once, which started off on a similar vein? Which reminds me - not much talk about Brexit on the telly...I wonder why not?


That is indeed the problem. If I recall correctly there's a chapter in Ben Goldacre's excellent "Bad Science" book on this (as well as a huge number of other forms of quackery and misused statistics).

Unfortunately, the media organisations that often publish such poor quality material are also the ones that appear to be vested in discrediting good science and expert advise - thus benefiting from the very doubt and distrust they sow in the first place.

As lurker noted; they're there to make money - so "100% increase in rates of <insert deadly disease> if you eat pineapples!!!!" sells more papers than "it appears that approximately 2 in 1,000,000 develop <insert deadly disease> (up from 1 in 1,000,000), based on research in countries that eat huge amounts of tropical fruit".


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I think my real beef (to use an americanism) is not with science or medicine, but with the media.



these days the internet can be used to find any obscure scientific report which supports ones view and can be turned into a persuasive argument.
and then that is conflated into "scientists are divided", when in fact the bulk of the scientific community are in agreement.

Also, annoyingly the media, especially TV will use 2 opposing arguments: on one side the real scientist and on the other the conspiracist......


----------



## Lons (23 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.



I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that so it's difficult to see why you said it other than to be controversial.


----------



## SammyQ (23 Oct 2020)

*"So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.*


Ooh Boy...obviously, TN, you obviously have never been present when two or more scientists meet and confer. Even at caffeine break. They constantly evaluate, discuss, question, offer alternatives. It's called "refining". It helps to establish the veracity of a proposed theory, analysis or test result. 

The very idea of a 'sacred cow' is answerable as follows: Bullocks. 

"Opinion"? No, just hypothesis, tested by one-changed-variable experimentation and (preferably) statistical designation of resulting data. THEN you can call it a fact - whether or not the data supported the premise!!

Sam


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Oct 2020)

Please don't get me started on the food pyramid. My granddaughter is just coming to the end of her training as a nurse. She knows only what she has been taught of course but you should hear her argument for the the anti-fat position. 60 years of misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity. Not everyone is an idle glutton as MS Hopkins would have you believe. 

John


----------



## rwillett (24 Oct 2020)

Sacred cows in science? Mmmm, I have worked in research (formal methods in computer science, mathematically proving programs will work exactly as designed as opposed to probably might work, some of the time, more or less as planned, kind of useful for things like life support systems and nuclear reactors, but I digress) and I dabble in astronomy. I try to follow the science as much as I am able (which isn't very far these days, you need to really keep on top of things otherwise it moves away from you).

Anyway, scientists love proving something, e.g. that the Standard Model for particle physics (Standard Model - Wikipedia and The Standard Model | CERN). Proving something here means the model is standing up and doing what is expected. 

However proving something *doesn't* fit the Standard Model is even better, any scientist would love to be the one to prove the Standard Model is wrong, this would be earth shattering news (possibly literally according to the conspiracy theory loons as we inadvertently create a black hole that swallows the Earth). 

I cannot think of a single scientist of my acquaintance, including some at CERN, who wouldn't jump at the chance of proving a long established 'sacred cow' is wrong and ritually slaughtering it. (Possibly taking my metaphors too far now). Anybody finding the Standard Model or Theory of Relativity has flaws or is wrong would jump to the the head of the queue for the next Nobel prize. I'm not saying that the Standard Model is complete, it's not but it seems to stand up most of the time but we, that sounds pretentious as I have no idea TBH, the real scientists haven't linked it to gravity. There is a theory that there is a gravitional particle. 

Anyway, sacred cows don't stay sacred for long with real scientists. 

Rob


----------



## RogerS (24 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Please don't get me started on the food pyramid. My granddaughter is just coming to the end of her training as a nurse. She knows only what she has been taught of course but you should hear her argument for the the anti-fat position. 60 years of misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity. Not everyone is an idle glutton as MS Hopkins would have you believe.
> 
> John


So stuffing your face every day with too many calories won't make you fat ? Wow...pass me another Mars bar or two !


----------



## Trainee neophyte (24 Oct 2020)

SammyQ said:


> The very idea of a 'sacred cow' is answerable as follows: Bullocks.



If there are no sacred cows, why the vehement screech of "Unbeliever! Heretic!" etc when anyone suggests that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change might not be a real thing? It's fun to do, because the high priests of climate change go purple in the face if you ever even vaguely hint that there may be other things afoot than CO2.

Or something more current - try posting on Facebook, YouTube or instagram that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid19. Apparently it can't be done (I don't have Facebook etc, so never been censored myself) It has been decided that only "agreed-upon" facts are allowed, and they are just the gatekeepers we need to keep us all safe. You can argue, extremely effectively in my opinion, that these organisations are not scientists therefore don't count, but this is exactly the science-as-religion, sacred cow effect I am talking about. Using the mystique of science as esoteric knowledge to shut down desent in views and keep the religion safe from heretics and unbelievers, whilst safely shepherding the masses to the fold. 

They are doing the same thing with Hunter Biden 's laptop exposé, so it's not just science that is being controlled, but politics as well it would seem. But then, science _is _politics, when it comes to coronavirus.

Anyway, back to flu shots - I have derailed the thread yet again, for which I apologise.


----------



## TheTiddles (24 Oct 2020)

I wouldn’t normally engage in what has become trying to educate the uneducable, however I’d point out that intellectual capacity is a normal type distribution with long tails, if you reside to one side of it and associate with others that do, it’s often very hard to imagine the enormous swathe of people that occupy the other part of the distribution and just how far the other side extends, it really does go a long way

Aidan


----------



## Lons (24 Oct 2020)

I guess you don't need to look too far to find other people as paranoid as yourself, it's hard to know how people survive or get any sleep at night whilst constantly looking over their shoulder for big brother.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid19


many currently available medicines for potential treatment no covid have been thoroughly tested.....including the NHS.
Hydroxychloroquine has been shown not to be an effective treatment by these tests
A few dodgy doctors etc on youtube have tried making out it does work.
Apparently even a president has tried saying so
But it doesnt.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It's fun to do, because the high priests of climate change go purple in the face if you ever even vaguely hint that there may be other things afoot than CO2.


Your post is like most of yours, as I said previously its a scatter gun of misinformation and logical fallacies making it difficult to tie you down on anything.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Oct 2020)

I remember some years ago on the radio someone speaking of statistics and how there were sometimes strange extrapolations of figures. One statistic he used was that teetotallers had a shorter life expectancy than drinkers.
This sounds unlikely until it was explained that for this survey they had used "teetotal" in its truest sense - never drinking a single alcoholic drink - your maiden aunt who had a sherry at Xmas or a chap who had a whisky and lemon for his cold once every year were not classed as teetotal. This left people who were 100% teetotal ..................... of which a large proportion were non drinking alcoholics. Their bodies were already wrecked.
Another of course is the one that said N.Y. was to be 2000 feet deep in horse manure by 1900, using the increased figures from something like 1830 - 1835 as a base.


----------



## RogerS (24 Oct 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> Your post is like most of yours, as I said previously its a scatter gun of misinformation and logical fallacies making it difficult to tie you down on anything.


Bit like a politician then !


----------



## RogerS (24 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I remember some years ago on the radio someone speaking of statistics and how there were sometimes strange extrapolations of figures. One statistic he used was that teetotallers had a shorter life expectancy than drinkers.
> This sounds unlikely until it was explained that for this survey they had used "teetotal" in its truest sense - never drinking a single alcoholic drink - your maiden aunt who had a sherry at Xmas or a chap who had a whisky and lemon for his cold once every year were not classed as teetotal. This left people who were 100% teetotal ..................... of which a large proportion were non drinking alcoholics. Their bodies were already wrecked.
> Another of course is the one that said N.Y. was to be 2000 feet deep in horse manure by 1900, using the increased figures from something like 1830 - 1835 as a base.


And Averages ...as misleading a measure as you can get. As someone mentioned here, if not elsewhere, if Elon Musk walked in to my local then the average wealth of the people in the bar would suddenly become very high. Probably up in the millions. On the other hand, were I to do the same then the average wealth would probably be about the same.


----------



## Droogs (24 Oct 2020)

In my case it would fall drastically, prob'ly why I'm barred


----------



## FatmanG (24 Oct 2020)

lurker said:


> That jab is needed once in a lifetime, so it's got to be good.


Is that opinion or fact? I know the answer having had pneumoin both lungs several times


----------



## Blackswanwood (24 Oct 2020)

FatmanG said:


> Is that opinion or fact? I know the answer having had pneumoin both lungs several times


This confirms that for most people it is only needed once








Who should have the pneumococcal vaccine?


Find out more about the pneumococcal vaccine, given to babies, over-65s, people with long-term medical conditions and those at occupational risk.




www.nhs.uk


----------



## FatmanG (24 Oct 2020)

Phil Pascoe said:


> You are of course welcome to your own viewpoint. You are not, however, welcome to your own facts.


Since you and I have something in common with several bouts of double pneumonia you will no doubt have been told the facts about the pneumonia jab? What's your underlying problem causing it? Lung biopsy is very very painful isn't it? I had to lie still for 10 hours a after mine as apparently you can bleed to death afterwards. Lung disease is no fun and pneumonia means your literally drowning to death without being in water. Horrific experience.
However I won't be getting a flu vaccine I have my reasons made through my own research. Best of luck with whatever choice each person makes


----------



## FatmanG (24 Oct 2020)

Blackswanwood said:


> This confirms that for most people it is only needed once
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It confirms nothing I asked a question if it worked


----------



## Blackswanwood (24 Oct 2020)

FatmanG said:


> It confirms nothing I asked a question if it worked



Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? If you take a look back at your post I responded to you quoted Lurker's post which says "That jab is needed once in a lifetime, so it's got to be good." and you asked "Is that opinion or fact?"

The NHS link I linked to confirms it is given once for most people and that the PPV vaccine is thought to be around 50 to 70% effective at preventing pneumococcal disease which I thought you may find helpful.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Oct 2020)

I was given the pneumonia jab at the same time as the flu jab about five years ago. I was told it was reckoned to last for twenty years. I haven't had pneumonia since............ which of course proves five eighths of f.a.


----------



## lurker (24 Oct 2020)

FatmanG said:


> Is that opinion or fact? I know the answer having had pneumoin both lungs several times


What I meant is the jab is a one off, so in my opinion it's a no brainier but to have it. So yes it's just my opinion. 
I respect your right to disagree, and forgo the reduced risk that the jab enables.


----------



## lurker (24 Oct 2020)

Pneumonia is usually the result of a bacterial infection.

The important word is usually.
There are six or seven other less common causes that the jab has no effect on.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Oct 2020)

FatmanG said:


> I won't be getting a flu vaccine I have my reasons made through my own research.


I hope you thoroughly fact checked your research and investigated the motivation behind it.

lots of wannabe shock journalists out there trying to misrepresent the truth to get rankings on you tube etc

we are going through a perfect storm of misinformation.....a pandemic and unregulated social media full of echo chambers which are cauldrons of misinformation. What with QAnon, the great reset, globalists, Gate and Soros conspiracies, its hard to know where to turn.

Please dont think Im trying to dissuade you from your decision not to have a flu jab, Im just saying be awfully careful where you do your research, as somebody that has previously had pneumonia you are most vulnerable to viruses. Please be careful


----------



## RogerS (24 Oct 2020)

I wonder if Lord Lucan has had his flu jab ?


----------



## lurker (24 Oct 2020)

He is old enough to get it on the NHS.
I guess he is shielding at his age


----------



## Deadeye (24 Oct 2020)

Blackswanwood said:


> This confirms that for most people it is only needed once
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um, actually that isn't quite what it says.

The vaccine is highly effective and fairly durable, against the main bacterial agents of pneumonia.
It is not effective (at all) against viral or fungal pneumonias or some bacterial.
It is less durable in people with otherwise impaired immune systems.

Anyone in a risk group not having an appropriate vaccination is not only a fool, but a selfish fool. Selfish, as they are enjoying the benefit of everyone else getting vaccinated.

Christ there's some twaddle on the internet though (not blackswanwood particularly, but the C19 threads are a goldmine of misinformation).

Anyway, anti-vaxxers are unlikely to let a virologist change their minds, especially a long retired one, so do carry on...


----------



## Deadeye (24 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.
> 
> Has there never, in the history of medicine, been a procedure or treatment that turned out to be wrong? Are all doctors infallible gods who never make mistakes, never use the wrong techniques, and never have to change the way they practice medicine?
> 
> ...


----------



## Blackswanwood (24 Oct 2020)

Deadeye said:


> Um, actually that isn't quite what it says.
> 
> The vaccine is highly effective and fairly durable, against the main bacterial agents of pneumonia.
> It is not effective (at all) against viral or fungal pneumonias or some bacterial.
> ...


Okay - I apologise @Deadeye if I have misinterpreted the paragraph saying

” If you're at increased risk of a pneumococcal infection, you'll be given a single dose of the PPV vaccine. 

But if your spleen does not work properly or you have a chronic kidney condition, you may need booster doses of PPV every 5 years.“

Does that mean most people that need the vaccine fall into the second category? (That is a genuine question)


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Oct 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> Your post is like most of yours, as I said previously its a scatter gun of misinformation and logical fallacies making it difficult to tie you down on anything.



Perhaps a journalist writes more clearly than me, then. Of all places, The Guardian has an article saying some of what I have failed to get across: Science: the religion that must not be questioned | Henry Gee

It concludes:

"Why is this? The answer, I think, is that those who are scientists, or who pretend to be scientists, cling to the mantle of a kind of religious authority. And as anyone who has tried to comment on religion has discovered, there is no such thing as criticism. There is only blasphemy."

And that's in The Guardian, so it must be true.

I was trying to make 2 points:

1. There is a tendency to treat the high priests of science as gods amongst men, who must never be questioned, and whose commandments must be followed. NB this tendency is among non - scientists, and used as a method of control by politicians and journalists.​​2. From wikipedia: "*Sacred cow* is an idiom, a figurative reference to cattle in religion and mythology. A figurative sacred cow is a figure of speech for something considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so."​​Whilst all science is the "search for truth", as much as it can be, some truth is self evident, and can not be questioned without incurring the wrath of the heirarchy. Athropogenic Climate Change would be one example, there are certainly others.​
Please note that I am not saying that either of these points are proven, immutable, scientifically researched hypotheses with peer-reviewed, double blind experimental evidence to back them up. It is a tendency, amongst journalism and laypeople in general (again with the religious terminology) to ascribe infallibility and ineffability to the great god "Science", and to treat it's high priests as beyond reproach or question. Not to say that some members of the clergy can't be defrocked if they break the rules.


----------



## RogerS (25 Oct 2020)

TN - you really haven't taken on board all the excellent points made by Robin and others. I would have thought that your horse was well and truly dead by now, given the amount of flogging you've been giving it.


----------



## Deadeye (25 Oct 2020)

No, those are the minority if course.
However the blood antibodies decline over time (with all vaccines - think typhoid boosters etc.). 20 years is good but some will need a second if they have it young.

The immune system is best thought of as a statistical system, not an absolute one. So although the NHS has (rightly) chosen to generally give a single shot, it's not *always* the case. I was really only picking up the absolutist part of the statement...in general I completely agree with you!


----------



## okeydokey (25 Oct 2020)

Regarding vaccinations, I had previously mentioned Shingles Vaccination for over 70's as recommended by the NHS.
I have just discovered that a Pneumonia Vaccination also exists, new babies have it and its suggested for over 65, diabetes asthma and other conditions, if you search for Pneumonia Injection you will find the NHS site with full information and by the way I am not linked to the medical profession.
Hope this is useful.


----------



## Benchwayze (25 Oct 2020)

RogerS said:


> So stuffing your face every day with too many calories won't make you fat ? Wow...pass me another Mars bar or two !



Roger...

NO IT WON'T! It's WHAT you eat, not HOW MUCH!

Also, I resent the implication that I 'stuff my face', and I don't see the need for that remark, unless it was meant to insult me.

Following 'guidelines' has resulted in my contracting Type 2 diabetes, whilst wondering why I couldn't lose weight, despite two or three miles a day of brisk walking. (Earlier in my life, seven miles a day of jogging shot my knees, and I had to have them replaced, (2010/12) so jogging is no longer wise.) All I did 'learn' was what I alreay knew, from teachings at Pitt Street PT school in Portsmouth. Exercise does little for weight loss. It tones muscles, and bulks them with denser lean tissue. To a certain extent, dependent on what you do, it improves the cardio-vascular system; no dispute there.

Now, since I was ill for most of last year with cellulitis, and had to learn to walk again, exercise is now OOTQ.
I tried low carb. I have lost three stones since Christmas last year.

What do I 'stuff my face' with'?
Meat, (including poultry), fish, berries, cheese, butter, eggs and I cook with lard or butter.
I no longer eat starchy root veggies, pasta, bread, pastry, cakes or any processed food. I rarely eat fruits that aren't berries.

SUGAR is banned in my household, so you can keep your Mars Bars and Snickers. Neither of which I used to eat anyhow, if it wasn't Christmas, when I preferred Toblerone! 

Okay, I fork out money for grass fed meat and other organic foods, but then I don't have to read labels, other than 'in-date' labels. In other words I eat natural foods, the foods you can find in the wild, if you have to look for them. (Never saw a loaf of bread hanging on a tree or bush! Of course not! Bread is a processed food!)

Now that my weight is gradually coming down I feel better than I have for a number of years. Yes I am still losing weight and have a couple of stones to go. But I am getting there. My problem now is finding money for new clothes! As soon as I get the okay from my Doctor I shall start walking again, and have already started to belly up to the bench once more.

I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and I am just content losing the weight I put on through eating whole-grains, sugary fruit and vegetables, cakes, and pastries as recommended by the Hairy-Bikers and Graham Turner. Excellent cooks, but NOT nutritionalists.

In case you are wondering about cholesterol, well I am in my eighties now, and so far no problem with my 'blood-work' and my diabetes read-outs show reversed symptoms. Thus I stick with my 'diet'. (Life-style) I don't need to go back to 'Normal eating', because if I did, I would immediately begin to put on weight yet again.
I drink plenty of water, but cheat when I have coffee and tea. Mind you this does mean I can take double cream with my coffee!

Now if you will excuse me I am going to have my Sunday fry-up, sans fried bread and hash browns.

Man is the only animal smart enough to MAKE his own food; and stupid enough to eat it! 


John


----------



## johnny (25 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Please don't get me started on the food pyramid. My granddaughter is just coming to the end of her training as a nurse. She knows only what she has been taught of course but you should hear her argument for the the anti-fat position. 60 years of misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity. Not everyone is an idle glutton as MS Hopkins would have you believe.
> 
> John


I guess its tough for the Medical profession and Scientists to admit that they have been blindly advocating deadly Nutritional advice for decades and have been responsible for Worldwide Metabolic Disease , chronic conditions and deaths from Diabetes, coronary heart disease, Dementia and many other conditions.
We have known about the real cause of Metabolic disease for decades ever since Dr Joseph Kraft but it has taken 40+ years for the truth to be published widely .
This nutritional and medical revolution is coming but it is too late for me and others who have had undiagnosed Metabolic syndrome for the past 20 years. I had to collapse with a blood sugar level of 38mmol/L before my useless Doctor realised I was a Diabetic.
Anyone genuinely interested in Nutrition and how what they eat influences their health and want a simple ,straightforward explanation should watch the short 10 minute talk given to the House of Commons by Zoe Harcombe


----------



## Benchwayze (25 Oct 2020)

Hola Johnny!


----------



## RogerS (25 Oct 2020)

I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to either of you. There is only so much disinformation on this thread already. 

But if you've found a way to improve your health, weight and lifestyle John then good for you. It has nothing at all to do with " 60 years of misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity." But if it floats your boat then fair enough.

But in the interests of sanity....just how many peer-reviewed research papers has Ms Harcombe written ? That well-known medical researcher. What ? She hasn't actually got any medical qualifications ? She read economics and maths at Uni.

And, no, John ...I wasn't referring to you re stuffing ones face. It was a rhetorical statement.

I'm out of here.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Oct 2020)

Well, my horse died, so not much more to say, other than well done you for finding a system to get your health in hand. It would have been nice if a medical professional was there to do it with you, but they are busy people, and can't all be spending their time increasing patients' health and wellbeing - there's a war on, doncha know.


----------



## Lons (25 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> but they are busy people, and can't all be spending their time increasing patients' health and wellbeing - there's a war on, doncha know.



What a load of tosh TN.  

In the past couple of months both my wife and daughter have had important surgery and have been seen when necessary, contacted by 'phone often and had at least as much attention and service as they would have had there not been "a war on". I also have several other instances with close friends with the same results, one going through it at this minute. Also with a number of family members in front line roles within the NHS we're fairly well informed, unlike some sunning themselves among the olive groves perhaps.


----------



## doctor Bob (25 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Man is the only animal smart enough to MAKE his own food;
> 
> 
> John



and ants ............ exceptional farmers.


----------



## bjm (25 Oct 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> and ants ............ exceptional farmers.


and termites


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Oct 2020)

Lons said:


> What a load of tosh TN.
> 
> In the past couple of months both my wife and daughter have had important surgery and have been seen when necessary, contacted by 'phone often and had at least as much attention and service as they would have had there not been "a war on". I also have several other instances with close friends with the same results, one going through it at this minute. Also with a number of family members in front line roles within the NHS we're fairly well informed, unlike some sunning themselves among the olive groves perhaps.


So you think it normal and acceptable and reasonable that someone has to go outside of the health care system to improve their basic health wrt being diabetic? Should that be the standard way to stop having type 2 diabetes - you rummage on the internet and work it out for yourself? Thousands (possibly millions) are doing just that because worldwide the health systems haven't worked it out. Fasting and diet are hugely important factors in managing what is an epidemic in western societies. Why isn't the healthcare system doing anything about it?

The conspiracy theory weirdos think that the health care system is actually an illness care system: they want you as sick as possible, for as long as possible, taking as many expensive drugs as possible. Obviously that is just conspiracy theory madness, because the NHS is the most fabulous, caring system (Jeremy Clarkson voice)....in the world.

If you break break a leg the NHS is pretty darn marvelous. For other stuff, you seem to be on your own. Why is that?

I admit to taking the p*ss over there "being a war on" - irony at its best. Although aren't we at war against Covid19? Lots of military talk about "beating the enemy".


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Oct 2020)

If it were not for the NHS (and all its faults) I would be dead, bankrupt or both several times over. At least we don't have to bribe the doctors and surgeons.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Oct 2020)

artie said:


> the thread has continued without my input and has gone further off topic


Entirely my fault - I did that. I try so hard not to get sucked in, and yet...once again, here we are.


----------



## lurker (25 Oct 2020)

Sounds a bit like my old school........ It was approved


----------



## Noel (25 Oct 2020)

People, I've deleted 2 posts that were discriminatory toward less fortunate folk than most here. One other post was deleted as it quoted deleted content although it would've been welcome in other circumstances.
Please think before you post, no matter how detached you may be from the present.


----------



## artie (25 Oct 2020)

It was not my intention to be discriminatory towards anyone merely repeating a common saying.

Anyway as I said, The bullies jumped all over my previous comments, accusing me of hijacking the thread even though I was on topic and telling me this is a woodwork forum, not for my views even though on topic.
But I see that without my input the thread has gone further off topic and still no wood working tips.
My last comment was deleted so I just returned make my point that arguing on the internet is like running into a brick wall.

And here is an explanation why.









3 Reasons Why Arguing on The Internet is so Ineffective (and What to Do Instead) - TES


This is a great guide on why arguing on the Internet is ineffective. Learn why it often fails and what to do differently in this exceptional post.




www.theexceptionalskills.com


----------



## lurker (25 Oct 2020)

In a similar vein Artie,

Supposed Mark Twain quote:
*“Never argue with an I d i o t. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”*

Spacing to get around the cyber nanny


----------



## Lons (25 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Entirely my fault - I did that. I try so hard not to get sucked in, and yet...once again, here we are.



Perhaps you need to look a little closer to home to see where the sucking in originates.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 Oct 2020)

It's entertainingly ironic that I have been shown, conclusively, that there are no sacred cows, and then you attack me for taking your sacred cow to task.

Serious question: do you take statins? Just about every man over 50 does, as far as I can tell. It would seem that they are pretty ineffective, but more importantly you can reduce your cholesterol levels just through diet, with impressively fast results - a couple of months at most. Take pills for the rest of your life, or live a healthier lifestyle: which treatment is better, and which is promoted by the NHS?

To be fair I know of one doctor who refuses to prescribe any pills until the diet method has been attempted first, but she is still young and enthusiastic. As I mentioned several pages back, science advances one funeral a time. Medicine the same, it would seem.

@Noel - profuse apologies. Won't happen again.


----------



## clogs (26 Oct 2020)

for those interested, I gave up on Statins.....they just dont suit me.....please read the side effects before taking them.....
mine cholest prob is in the family.....
virtually the same results with diet and natural products.....checked the numbers I have......over many years now....

I take only one other tablet, a 1/4 of the recomended dose.....blood thinners, I have a defib pacmaker.....side effects are still not so good.....

when I met my first doctor here, they asked what tab's I'm taking....they can't beleive it.....
.
Oh and stuff the FLU jab.......hahaha......


----------



## johnny (26 Oct 2020)

RogerS said:


> I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to either of you. There is only so much disinformation on this thread already.
> 
> But if you've found a way to improve your health, weight and lifestyle John then good for you. It has nothing at all to do with " 60 years ofts your explan misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity." But if it floats your boat then fair enough.
> 
> ...


looks like you have managed to add to the misinformation ...congratulations
.so whats your explanation for the current worldwide epidemic of coronary heart disease and metabolic syndrome ? .oh wait...you haven't any relevant qualifications and have done no research either. You post no links to any peer reviewed papers supporting your ignorant opinion on this topic and you think it acceptable to rubbish one of the Worlds recognised leading Nutritionists who has managed to achieve a PhD on Public Health & Nutrition ,(at least get your facts right) advises the Government and hold PHE to account on our behalf.
when you have achieved a relevant qualification on the subject you may have something worth saying about anything


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Oct 2020)

Bob. I said MAKES food; not harvests it. Ants appear to harvest only their natural food anyhow. I've been away from the forum for a good while. Nothing has changed much. I am also out of chitchat.
John


----------



## RobinBHM (26 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> and which is promoted by the NHS?


healthier lifestyle.

the NHS have been talking about it for years


----------



## RobinBHM (26 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I was trying to make 2 points:
> 
> 1. There is a tendency to treat the high priests of science as gods amongst men
> 2. sacred cows




Meh, not really. 

you are using that as a strawman.

the bulk of scientists are in agreement on covid as they are with climate change.......you are using the sacred cow argument as a strawman to discredit them.


----------



## RobinBHM (26 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Should that be the standard way to stop having type 2 diabetes - you rummage on the internet and work it out for yourself? Thousands (possibly millions) are doing just that because worldwide the health systems haven't worked it out. Fasting and diet are hugely important factors in managing what is an epidemic in western societies. Why isn't the healthcare system doing anything about it?


you never give up with the dishonest debating, do you?


This 
".................................just because worldwide healthcare systems havent worked it out"

is a non sequitur.

your reasoning that because it is possible to search on the internet to find reasons for type 2 diabetes..................means that the healthcare system haven't worked it out.


----------



## selectortone (26 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So you think it normal and acceptable and reasonable that someone has to go outside of the health care system to improve their basic health wrt being diabetic? Should that be the standard way to stop having type 2 diabetes - you rummage on the internet and work it out for yourself?



I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes three years ago after a routine checkup. The first thing my doctor did was book me onto a diabetic education programme. It was a series of meetings at the local leisure centre of a group of newly diagnosed people like me, run by the NHS with a nurse specialist and a dietician, which gave me an understanding of the causes of the condition and its treatment. 

I learned that in many cases addressing diet and weight can get it into remission. I was a stone overweight and eating far too much stuff with sugar in it. I've managed to shed the weight and I now eat a much more varied and healthier diet and I'm pleased to say my diabetes is indeed in remission and has been ever since - confirmed by regular blood tests and diabetic clinics at my surgery. 

All prompted by a regular health-check on the NHS. No 'rummaging on the internet'. Best of all, no meds necessary.

It isn't altruism either. I read recently that 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales goes on diabetes so it is just plain common sense that educating people like me saves money.


----------



## Lons (26 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It's entertainingly ironic that I have been shown, conclusively, that there are no sacred cows, and then you attack me for taking your sacred cow to task



I didn't attack you personally TN I just said that what you had posted was tosh, in fact your response to that was the same though I didn't bother to reply. Neither did I ever mention sacred cow so you are mistaken in saying I have one. While we are well informed regarding the NHS there are no illusions whatsoever in that it has major failings and problems but as your opinions are formed by trawling the internet for anything that fits with your (perceived) paranoia I understand why you believe all you find, that's up to you but you shouldn't be spouting that mix of truth and fiction as absolute fact.

_"Serious question: do you take statins? Just about every man over 50 does, as far as I can tell. It would seem that they are pretty ineffective, but more importantly you can reduce your cholesterol levels just through diet, with impressively fast results - a couple of months at most. Take pills for the rest of your life, or live a healthier lifestyle: which treatment is better, and which is promoted by the NHS?"_

Nope I do not take statins, just as I would never take any other medication unless it was essential and even then not without checking with my family. My GP has never suggested that I do and I seriously doubt your statement that _"just about every man over 50 does" _where on earth do you rake up this stuff? 
BTW not all colesterol issues are caused by bad diet, there can be other reasons including hereditary factors and you're badly misinformed regarding what is promoted by the NHS who are very active in pushing healthy lifestye and early diagnosis. It saves them vast amount of money as medication and treatment is extremely expensive. 

Just to put this to bed on my part I won't be responding to you any further on the subject of the NHS as you're once again just attempting to ramp up the arguments and that will end up with another locked thread.


----------



## FatmanG (26 Oct 2020)

RobinBHM said:


> Meh, not really.
> 
> you are using that as a strawman.
> 
> the bulk of scientists are in agreement on covid as they are with climate change.......you are using the sacred cow argument as a strawman to discredit them.


Why are you bringing covid up again? Is it a last stand Robin? Full Lockdown (tier 4 ) coming to a place near you soon. Lol


----------



## FatmanG (26 Oct 2020)

Blackswanwood said:


> Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? If you take a look back at your post I responded to you quoted Lurker's post which says "That jab is needed once in a lifetime, so it's got to be good." and you asked "Is that opinion or fact?"
> 
> The NHS link I linked to confirms it is given once for most people and that the PPV vaccine is thought to be around 50 to 70% effective at preventing pneumococcal disease which I thought you may find helpful.


Sorry I wasn't meaning to offend! My question referred to s'o it has got to be good' part of the post. Its efficacy was explained far better than I could earlier by a retired virologist..


----------



## John Brown (26 Oct 2020)

bjm said:


> and termites


Termites. Love them or hate them.


----------



## bjm (26 Oct 2020)

John Brown said:


> Termites. Love them or hate them.


Fascinating insects, especially the way they air-condition their mounds.


----------



## Lons (26 Oct 2020)

John Brown said:


> Termites. Love them or hate them.



As said a while ago by another member "there are a few of them on UKW".


----------



## RobinBHM (26 Oct 2020)

FatmanG said:


> Why are you bringing covid up again? Is it a last stand Robin? Full Lockdown (tier 4 ) coming to a place near you soon. Lol


It was a relevant example, as is climate change.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 Oct 2020)

Lons said:


> My GP has never suggested that I do and I seriously doubt your statement that _"just about every man over 50 does" _where on earth do you rake up this stuff?


From the BMJ: NICE guidelines could put 12 million UK adults on statins


Almost all men over 60 and all women over 75 in England qualify for statin prescriptions under guidelines adopted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014, a new analysis shows.1


Some 11.8 million people in England—37% of adults aged 30 to 84—exceed the threshold set by NICE for prescribing statins, the authors found. They said that most of these patients (9.8 million) are healthy, with no history of cardiovascular events, and are eligible for treatment simply because they exceed the risk threshold set by NICE: a 10% risk of experiencing such an event in the next 10 years.
Free with the cornflakes.

As for the rest of it - I'm picking olives now, now so much less time for all of this, you will be delighted to know. Best talk about flu jabs again - it's less contentious. 

Incidentally, I'm watching the Amazon version of Utopia, which is apparently a remake of the BBC version, also called Utopia, which I haven't seen. The plot is a worldwide pandemic, which needs a vaccine, but the vaccine is actually an evil scheme by evil elites to sterilise the world population, so saving the planet for a select few. Perhaps this is where the current vaccine fears come from? Or it is the elite ironically telling us exactly what they are going to do? Who knows. 

PS I like what you guys did with the termites - very ironic.


----------



## doctor Bob (26 Oct 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> Bob. I said MAKES food; not harvests it. Ants appear to harvest only their natural food anyhow. I've been away from the forum for a good while. Nothing has changed much. I am also out of chitchat.
> John


It was a light hearted comment, I hope you took it that way  however I still argue they harvest grass to make mould which feeds them.


----------



## Lons (26 Oct 2020)

OK TN I'll bite. You said *"do you take statins? Just about every man over 50 does, as far as I can tell." *
Qualifying and actually partaking are two very different scenarios 

I now know where you get your research, it's from Utopia! Happy olive picking I hope it's a good crop this year.


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Oct 2020)

Understood Bob no problem. I suppose I was referring to processed food. It wasn't my quote it was one I saw somewhere online and I thought it had something to say say.just off for a virtual one mile walk in front of my TV. My legs are beginning to seize again 

Cheers

John


----------



## Terry - Somerset (26 Oct 2020)

Apperently between 6 and 8 million in the UK take statins. 

The over 50 population in the UK is ~25m.

So ~25% of the over 50's use statins.

Sometimes useful to actually check the facts - although there is some debate whether more widespread use could be helpful.


----------



## SammyQ (27 Oct 2020)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Sometimes useful to actually check the facts....



As a statin-free mid-sixties individual? "HEAR! HEAR!"

Now, WHY could this reply not have been heeded for all those disinfomative posts earlier in this thread? We could have avoided so much wasted energy and pointless bickering. 

Sam


----------



## alex_heney (27 Oct 2020)

Trainee neophyte said:


> From the BMJ: NICE guidelines could put 12 million UK adults on statins
> 
> 
> Almost all men over 60 and all women over 75 in England qualify for statin prescriptions under guidelines adopted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014, a new analysis shows.1
> ...


The fact that almost all men over 60 *qualify* for statins does not mean that "just about every man over 50" takes them.

It doesn't even mean that just about every man over 60 does. It means that *if* we went to our doctors for something, those guidelines say they *could* prescribe statins.

That doesn't mean they will, and nor does it mean that every man over 60 is rushing to their GP to get those prescriptions.

I'm 61, and have never taken a statin in my life, nor do I see any real likelihood of doing so. Last time I had a checkup including blood tests (about 3 years ago), everything (including cholesterol level) was "Good". And I have got fitter and lost two stone in weight since then.

I don't think I am all that unusual, so there must be huge numbers of men over 60 who have never taken statins.


----------



## John Brown (27 Oct 2020)

I take statins. A few years ago, after reading scare stories about side effects, I ceased taking them. This showed up the next time I had the 6 monthly blood test, so I don't see how they can be called ineffectual. Anyhow, after stopping statins for six months, none of the "side effects" I'd attributed to the statins subsided, so after a chat with my GP at the time, who always reminded me slightly of the doc in Reginald Perrin, I resumed taking them. I also take meds for hypertension. OK, I could lose two stone and exercise more and eat less rubbish, and stop drinking 4 pints of beer a night, but I probably won't, and I don't subscribe to the notion that big pharma is out to kill me.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Oct 2020)

I take statins, aspirin, metformin, dapagliflozin, gliclazide, linagliptin, allopurinol, lisinopril, tamsulosin, levothyroxine and amlodipine. I've long given up worrying about side effects.


----------



## AES (27 Oct 2020)

THANK GOODNESS!!! AT LAST, this thread has dredged up a "normal" person (viz: John Brown) who "admits" he lives a normal life without any undue cares in the world. THANK YOU John Brown - in fact I'd give you 2 x "Thanks" if the software allowed!

I too have various complaints, some of which are no doubt self-induced, some definitely not. I take a load of tablets several times a day, all of which were prescribed by my GP - a VERY caring lady I must say, who not only seems to keep up with all the latest tech info, but also discusses with both my wife and I VERY fully BEFORE she prescribes ANYTHING at all for me - AND the GP keeps a 6-monthly detailed check on me which includes "full blood" samples.

I have no idea whether or not I take statins (I'd never even heard of them before this thread appeared) but if I do then I'm quite content to be doing so because it's on the BEST available advice - NOT based on the internet or the - IMO - half-baked advice of "idiots" like those who admit that they enjoy conspiracy theories "because it's fun". WHAT a poor outlook! WHAT a way to live a life!!!

And P.S: OF COURSE big pharma isn't trying to kill me - not even kill our Greek-resident neophyte - big pharma (and not so big) all want to keep "the golden goose" alive for as long as possible! Only that way can they ensure their profits, AND, by no means "by the way", ensure that "damaged bodies" like mine can continue to enjoy as normal a life as possible for as long as possible.

I said long ago that I wasn't looking in on this thread any more, and frankly I'm surprised that I did visit again - particularly because of all the tripe that I've read here from some people.

BUT thanks to member John Brown my faith in the sanity of at least one member posting above - and there ARE a couple of others' posts too - has been restored.

Rant over!!!!!!


----------



## Droogs (27 Oct 2020)

@Phil Pascoe , Mate I'd be surprised if you hadn't given up trying to pronounce all of them bar Asprin.


----------

