Tin Foil Hatter's- Anti Vaxer's

The publicity surrounding this. Im sure they could get hold of a willing unvaccinated donor of the same blood type. A nice straightforward solution. But thats not what its about though. I would do it no problem if it was here.

Also presumably they screen blood for disease? Would it be that much more effort to screen for this?
It’s not that straightforward though.

Receiving blood from a specific individual to a specific individual is called direct donation. I’m sure they could do that if they wanted to.

The problem here is that someone is acting on behalf of the patient, so there’s a medical ethics issue and a blood donation logistics issue.

The ethical issue is

a) is the person deciding on behalf of the patient making a reasonable decision in the best interests of the patient?

I’d argue not but I’ll let the court decide.

b) what are the ethical implications of allowing patients to choose whose blood they receive?

It isn’t just vaccination status people would want to choose by - what if a white supremacist was denying his son life-saving treatment because he was demanding a white donor’s blood is used?

What if a Muslim person was denying his son life-saving treatment because he was demanding the blood must be guaranteed not to have come from a Jewish person?

The logistical issue is

c) practically, how does a blood donation programme segregate blood by donor characteristics?

Whilst yes there are certain racial and ethnic factors that limit compatibility, it would be a huge undertaking to screen blood for vaccination status and then store it separately.

There’s an opportunity cost associated with such an endeavour in that the time and resources required could be spent elsewhere.

It would be a waste of money benefitting nobody but a few zealots.
 


All im going to say is within 6 months you won’t have a leg to stand on
Did you mean that he won't have a leg to stand on, metaphorically... Or that he won't have a leg to stand on, literally?

You could well be right either way, judging by that recent Government report. I can't wait.
Yes you two did a sterling job of stopping people getting jabbed. How many people have you stopped? 0 :lol:
If you talked 47,000 under 50s into getting the jab, you would have saved one life. That would be so commendable.
 
Last edited:
Did you mean that he won't have a leg to stand on, metaphorically... Or that he won't have a leg to stand on, literally?

You could well be right either way, judging by that recent Government report. I can't wait.

If you talked 47,000 under 50s into getting the jab, you would have saved one life. That would be so commendable.
How did you reach that number?
 
Can you provide a link so I can see these figures too?

Satan’s serum? That sounds like a reasonable and balanced thing to say.


Section 9.

Scroll down to 'Vaccines' in bold.
Scroll down a fair bit further and there's a table (the column with the figures I quoted are sort of hidden to the right, so you'll have to scroll the table leftwards - well you do on my Android mobile, anyway).
Can you provide a link so I can see these figures too?

Satan’s serum? That sounds like a reasonable and balanced thing to say.
"Reasonable and balanced"?

Have you seen the hate, bile and mockery spewed out in previous posts towards the "covidiots", mainly, 99% by the Dribbling Vax-Adicts? Shredders? I'm in no mood to be moderate in what I say, however I think it was a fair and reasonable description of the stuff, personally.
 
Last edited:

Section 9.

Scroll down to 'Vaccines' in bold.
Scroll down a fair bit further and there's a table (the column with the figures I quoted are sort of hidden to the right, so you'll have to scroll the table leftwards - well you do on my Android mobile, anyway).
Thank you for providing that.

Since that document provides the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death for all age groups, not just 50+, can I ask why you said the following, specifically why you said

“they would have to vax 8,000 over 50s, (ALL OVER 50s.90-Year Olds, the lot)”?

The documentation you provided shows that for people over the age of 80, that number is 160, and for those over 70, it’s 600, but you seemed to suggest that it was closer to 8,000.

For 90 year olds it would probably be very low. Much lower than 8,000.

Presumably if you’re willing to accept the numbers in that table as being absolutely correct then you’re also willing to accept other parts of the document that demonstrate the vaccines are safe and effective?

Government's own figures. And get this, they are stating that they would have to vax 8,000 over 50s, (ALL OVER 50s.90-Year Olds, the lot) with Satan's Serum, just to save ONE life.

Worth it?
"Reasonable and balanced"?

Have you seen the hate, bile and mockery spewed out in previous posts towards the "covidiots", mainly, 99% by the Dribbling Vax-Adicts? Shredders? I'm in no mood to be moderate in what I say, however I think it was a fair and reasonable description of the stuff, personally.
So because other people haven’t been reasonable and balanced, you see no reason to be so yourself? I see.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for providing that.

Since that document provides the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death for all age groups, not just 50+, can I ask why you said the following, specifically why you said

“they would have to vax 8,000 over 50s, (ALL OVER 50s.90-Year Olds, the lot)”?

The documentation you provided shows that for people over the age of 80, that number is 160, and for those over 70, it’s 600, but you seemed to suggest that it was closer to 8,000.

For 90 year olds it would probably be very low. Much lower than 8,000.

Presumably if you’re willing to accept the numbers in that table as being absolutely correct then you’re also willing to accept other parts of the document that demonstrate the vaccines are safe and effective?




So because other people haven’t been reasonable and balanced, you see no reason to be so yourself? I see.
"Effective" as in "Do NOT prevent the spread of Covid"?
 
"Effective" as in "Do NOT prevent the spread of Covid"?
Would you mind answering what I asked you? Why did you specifically refer to 90 year olds when using data for all those aged 50+ pooled?

That’s as valid as picking the figure for all those aged 20+ and saying that applies to those aged 90.

So why did you specifically refer to those aged 90 when using the 50+ figure?

In regards to the point you raise there:


The document refers to evidence showing vaccines are protective against infection, specifically when it says vaccinated frontline healthcare workers were much less likely to become infected.
 
Would you mind answering what I asked you? Why did you specifically refer to 90 year olds when using data for all those aged 50+ pooled?

That’s as valid as picking the figure for all those aged 20+ and saying that applies to those aged 90.

So why did you specifically refer to those aged 90 when using the 50+ figure?

In regards to the point you raise there:


The document refers to evidence showing vaccines are protective against infection, specifically when it says vaccinated frontline healthcare workers were much less likely to become infected.
I said every one over 50,which is what it states. So including 90 year old, 70 year old and any age over 50 you want to choose. 8,000 over 50 people pumped full of Shit, to save ONE life. It's quite simple, if you can read. I do believe you CAN read, just that you aren't too keen on reading facts.
 
I said every one over 50,which is what it states. So including 90 year old, 70 year old and any age over 50 you want to choose. 8,000 over 50 people pumped full of Shit, to save ONE life. It's quite simple, if you can read. I do believe you CAN read, just that you aren't too keen on reading facts.
It does include them yes, but its also a bit misleading.

It’s 8,000 vaccines to save one life for the 50+ age group as a whole, but applying that 8,000 figure to the oldest patients is misleading and incorrect, because it’s far fewer than 8,000 vaccines to save one life for the very oldest and most vulnerable patients.

The NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent one loss of life is a function of both the population AND the external risk, meaning that 8,000 would be much higher if there were fewer infections and much lower if there were many more.

You seem surprised the number is so high, but that’s because things like social distancing, masks and lockdown reduced the spread, thus reducing the absolute risk, thus in turn making the NNV higher.

I also believe you can read and can read that vaccination reduces infections. As this document - which you are heavily relying on - indicates.
 

Skippy

Midfield
It does include them yes, but its also a bit misleading.

It’s 8,000 vaccines to save one life for the 50+ age group as a whole, but applying that 8,000 figure to the oldest patients is misleading and incorrect, because it’s far fewer than 8,000 vaccines to save one life for the very oldest and most vulnerable patients.

The NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent one loss of life is a function of both the population AND the external risk, meaning that 8,000 would be much higher if there were fewer infections and much lower if there were many more.

You seem surprised the number is so high, but that’s because things like social distancing, masks and lockdown reduced the spread, thus reducing the absolute risk, thus in turn making the NNV higher.

I also believe you can read and can read that vaccination reduces infections. As this document - which you are heavily relying on - indicates.
This forum must feel like the world's longest game of Whack-a-Mole to you. I admire your stamina.
 
This forum must feel like the world's longest game of Whack-a-Mole to you. I admire your stamina.
It’s interesting. I feel like it keeps me sharp :lol:

The medium isn’t great. I think most people would be able to come to a consensus around some core issues if people were able to discuss in a less adversarial format.

But yeah, new posters or posters I’ve not noticed before seem to pop up with these views and disappear into the ether very quickly!
 
It’s interesting. I feel like it keeps me sharp :lol:

The medium isn’t great. I think most people would be able to come to a consensus around some core issues if people were able to discuss in a less adversarial format.

But yeah, new posters or posters I’ve not noticed before seem to pop up with these views and disappear into the ether very quickly!
Oh, I'll be departing just as quickly as I "popped up". I only popped in to report some figures that were given out by the Government yesterday. Absolutely gobsmacked by the convoluted way you have went about trying to get the figures to fit your side of the argument. But you're obviously a Cultist and will go on believing that you are on the right side of history. Let's face it, you believed that it would:

Only be used on the very old and infirm.
Only be used on 'people with underlying health conditions'.
Only be used on over 70s
Only be used on 'at risk' people.
Only be used on over 60s.
Only be used on over 50s.
Only be used on over 40s.
Only be used on over 30s
Only be used on over 20s.
Only be used on over 15s
Only be used on over 12s.
Only be used on over 5s
Would only be needed to be taken once.
Stops ALL transmission.
Stops most transmission.
Would only have to be taken twice.
Reduces the risk of transmission.
Take two plus a booster.
Take two plus two boosters.
Get ready for your third booster.
Your fourth booster is going to last two months.

I haven't even got to the safety concerns. I'll leave that to geniuses such as yersel.

Right, that's me off. If you really work in the health industry, you should be ashamed of yourself for staying with those narratives, however often they change. And worse still, pushing them onto other people, or at least trying to.
 
Oh, I'll be departing just as quickly as I "popped up". I only popped in to report some figures that were given out by the Government yesterday. Absolutely gobsmacked by the convoluted way you have went about trying to get the figures to fit your side of the argument. But you're obviously a Cultist and will go on believing that you are on the right side of history. Let's face it, you believed that it would:

Only be used on the very old and infirm.
Only be used on 'people with underlying health conditions'.
Only be used on over 70s
Only be used on 'at risk' people.
Only be used on over 60s.
Only be used on over 50s.
Only be used on over 40s.
Only be used on over 30s
Only be used on over 20s.
Only be used on over 15s
Only be used on over 12s.
Only be used on over 5s
Would only be needed to be taken once.
Stops ALL transmission.
Stops most transmission.
Would only have to be taken twice.
Reduces the risk of transmission.
Take two plus a booster.
Take two plus two boosters.
Get ready for your third booster.
Your fourth booster is going to last two months.

I haven't even got to the safety concerns. I'll leave that to geniuses such as yersel.

Right, that's me off. If you really work in the health industry, you should be ashamed of yourself for staying with those narratives, however often they change. And worse still, pushing them onto other people, or at least trying to.
Anyone?

Sounds like a deluded rant to me. Can’t make head nor tail of it.
 
Oh, I'll be departing just as quickly as I "popped up". I only popped in to report some figures that were given out by the Government yesterday. Absolutely gobsmacked by the convoluted way you have went about trying to get the figures to fit your side of the argument. But you're obviously a Cultist and will go on believing that you are on the right side of history. Let's face it, you believed that it would:

Only be used on the very old and infirm.
Only be used on 'people with underlying health conditions'.
Only be used on over 70s
Only be used on 'at risk' people.
Only be used on over 60s.
Only be used on over 50s.
Only be used on over 40s.
Only be used on over 30s
Only be used on over 20s.
Only be used on over 15s
Only be used on over 12s.
Only be used on over 5s
Would only be needed to be taken once.
Stops ALL transmission.
Stops most transmission.
Would only have to be taken twice.
Reduces the risk of transmission.
Take two plus a booster.
Take two plus two boosters.
Get ready for your third booster.
Your fourth booster is going to last two months.

I haven't even got to the safety concerns. I'll leave that to geniuses such as yersel.

Right, that's me off. If you really work in the health industry, you should be ashamed of yourself for staying with those narratives, however often they change. And worse still, pushing them onto other people, or at least trying to.
You ok hun? Din tek nee notice of the bastards.
 

Top