Will you have the Covid-19 vaccine?
Comments
-
john80 said:
Maybe women like taking risks to get laid but not have babies more than they want to take risk in reducing their chance of getting covid. There is no logic behind most peoples assessment of risk.orraloon said:Latest issue of the More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast looks at vaccine (assumed) cases of blot clots vs contraceptive pill associated blood clots. Latter has much, orders of magnitude higher incidence but hey that's ok, no big deal, just life innit.
Jesus Christ.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
You sound like some backward pharmacist in a period drama lecturing a woman for daring to want birth control.john80 said:
Maybe women like taking risks to get laid but not have babies more than they want to take risk in reducing their chance of getting covid. There is no logic behind most peoples assessment of risk.orraloon said:Latest issue of the More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast looks at vaccine (assumed) cases of blot clots vs contraceptive pill associated blood clots. Latter has much, orders of magnitude higher incidence but hey that's ok, no big deal, just life innit.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Indeed.Ben6899 said:john80 said:
Maybe women like taking risks to get laid but not have babies more than they want to take risk in reducing their chance of getting covid. There is no logic behind most peoples assessment of risk.orraloon said:Latest issue of the More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast looks at vaccine (assumed) cases of blot clots vs contraceptive pill associated blood clots. Latter has much, orders of magnitude higher incidence but hey that's ok, no big deal, just life innit.
Jesus Christ.
Men have no responsibility also. None.
Jeez0 -
some things are lost in the internet arent they dearjohngti said:
Massive case of the pot and kettle there. If you want hyperbole, you’ve provided it. “The one that dies was MURDERED” followed by “if we had locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died” is a statement that is ridiculous at both ends and that appears designed to make the huge number of excess deaths that have occurred appear less significant.david37 said:
and how pray would we have had few or no deaths? all the forecasts were that in the absence of vaccine that the total number of deaths would be greater than 200k and that the thing that would vary was the time over which they happened.johngti said:
You’ve completely peed all over the fact that of the 150000+ that have actually died (many of who wouldn’t have if the government had handled things properly in the pre-vaccination period) by jumping between 1 and 1000000 as if those are the important numbers. Not cool.david37 said:heres the thing, the ones that die get the attention and the family suing them. the ones that live are merge into the mass.
the one that dies was MURDERED as far as the opposition is concerned. if more die through prevarication they were MURDERED by inpet handling. there is no glory here for the governments involved.
Though i personally think Boris has done a blinder so far on the vaccine front. never mind the yeah but if hed locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died (which is kind of my point above)
hyperbole in this case is "not cool" though your comment does kind of prove my point. thank you.
Models that were produced at the beginning of the pandemic were the worst case and were ignored for too long in the quest for herd immunity. A proper test and trace system along with sensible, early lockdowns would have significantly reduced the number of excess deaths, as seen in other countries. Many people died at a younger age than they would have purely because the government mismanaged the crisis. Yes, they deserve credit for the vaccination programme but any sensible analysis of their handling of all of this has to conclude that they got loads badly wrong (and that’s not to say anyone else would have done better, we have no way of knowing).0 -
you arent being serious are you?pangolin said:
You sound like some backward pharmacist in a period drama lecturing a woman for daring to want birth control.john80 said:
Maybe women like taking risks to get laid but not have babies more than they want to take risk in reducing their chance of getting covid. There is no logic behind most peoples assessment of risk.orraloon said:Latest issue of the More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast looks at vaccine (assumed) cases of blot clots vs contraceptive pill associated blood clots. Latter has much, orders of magnitude higher incidence but hey that's ok, no big deal, just life innit.
0 -
Sanity mainly.david37 said:
some things are lost in the internet arent they dearjohngti said:
Massive case of the pot and kettle there. If you want hyperbole, you’ve provided it. “The one that dies was MURDERED” followed by “if we had locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died” is a statement that is ridiculous at both ends and that appears designed to make the huge number of excess deaths that have occurred appear less significant.david37 said:
and how pray would we have had few or no deaths? all the forecasts were that in the absence of vaccine that the total number of deaths would be greater than 200k and that the thing that would vary was the time over which they happened.johngti said:
You’ve completely peed all over the fact that of the 150000+ that have actually died (many of who wouldn’t have if the government had handled things properly in the pre-vaccination period) by jumping between 1 and 1000000 as if those are the important numbers. Not cool.david37 said:heres the thing, the ones that die get the attention and the family suing them. the ones that live are merge into the mass.
the one that dies was MURDERED as far as the opposition is concerned. if more die through prevarication they were MURDERED by inpet handling. there is no glory here for the governments involved.
Though i personally think Boris has done a blinder so far on the vaccine front. never mind the yeah but if hed locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died (which is kind of my point above)
hyperbole in this case is "not cool" though your comment does kind of prove my point. thank you.
Models that were produced at the beginning of the pandemic were the worst case and were ignored for too long in the quest for herd immunity. A proper test and trace system along with sensible, early lockdowns would have significantly reduced the number of excess deaths, as seen in other countries. Many people died at a younger age than they would have purely because the government mismanaged the crisis. Yes, they deserve credit for the vaccination programme but any sensible analysis of their handling of all of this has to conclude that they got loads badly wrong (and that’s not to say anyone else would have done better, we have no way of knowing).
1 -
And a sense of decency. “Dear”?! Ffs, I even acknowledged I may have misunderstood the point being made in a subsequent post.elbowloh said:
Sanity mainly.david37 said:
some things are lost in the internet arent they dearjohngti said:
Massive case of the pot and kettle there. If you want hyperbole, you’ve provided it. “The one that dies was MURDERED” followed by “if we had locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died” is a statement that is ridiculous at both ends and that appears designed to make the huge number of excess deaths that have occurred appear less significant.david37 said:
and how pray would we have had few or no deaths? all the forecasts were that in the absence of vaccine that the total number of deaths would be greater than 200k and that the thing that would vary was the time over which they happened.johngti said:
You’ve completely peed all over the fact that of the 150000+ that have actually died (many of who wouldn’t have if the government had handled things properly in the pre-vaccination period) by jumping between 1 and 1000000 as if those are the important numbers. Not cool.david37 said:heres the thing, the ones that die get the attention and the family suing them. the ones that live are merge into the mass.
the one that dies was MURDERED as far as the opposition is concerned. if more die through prevarication they were MURDERED by inpet handling. there is no glory here for the governments involved.
Though i personally think Boris has done a blinder so far on the vaccine front. never mind the yeah but if hed locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died (which is kind of my point above)
hyperbole in this case is "not cool" though your comment does kind of prove my point. thank you.
Models that were produced at the beginning of the pandemic were the worst case and were ignored for too long in the quest for herd immunity. A proper test and trace system along with sensible, early lockdowns would have significantly reduced the number of excess deaths, as seen in other countries. Many people died at a younger age than they would have purely because the government mismanaged the crisis. Yes, they deserve credit for the vaccination programme but any sensible analysis of their handling of all of this has to conclude that they got loads badly wrong (and that’s not to say anyone else would have done better, we have no way of knowing).0 -
Ok if you want to go down the “patronising git” route, have a read of this Wikipedia link about hyperbole and reread your first post: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole - I assume Wikipedia is about your level?david37 said:
some things are lost in the internet arent they dearjohngti said:
Massive case of the pot and kettle there. If you want hyperbole, you’ve provided it. “The one that dies was MURDERED” followed by “if we had locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died” is a statement that is ridiculous at both ends and that appears designed to make the huge number of excess deaths that have occurred appear less significant.david37 said:
and how pray would we have had few or no deaths? all the forecasts were that in the absence of vaccine that the total number of deaths would be greater than 200k and that the thing that would vary was the time over which they happened.johngti said:
You’ve completely peed all over the fact that of the 150000+ that have actually died (many of who wouldn’t have if the government had handled things properly in the pre-vaccination period) by jumping between 1 and 1000000 as if those are the important numbers. Not cool.david37 said:heres the thing, the ones that die get the attention and the family suing them. the ones that live are merge into the mass.
the one that dies was MURDERED as far as the opposition is concerned. if more die through prevarication they were MURDERED by inpet handling. there is no glory here for the governments involved.
Though i personally think Boris has done a blinder so far on the vaccine front. never mind the yeah but if hed locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died (which is kind of my point above)
hyperbole in this case is "not cool" though your comment does kind of prove my point. thank you.
Models that were produced at the beginning of the pandemic were the worst case and were ignored for too long in the quest for herd immunity. A proper test and trace system along with sensible, early lockdowns would have significantly reduced the number of excess deaths, as seen in other countries. Many people died at a younger age than they would have purely because the government mismanaged the crisis. Yes, they deserve credit for the vaccination programme but any sensible analysis of their handling of all of this has to conclude that they got loads badly wrong (and that’s not to say anyone else would have done better, we have no way of knowing).
And if you want to patronise me, get your grammar right. Should be 100000 fewer deaths not 1000000 less deaths.
And while I still may have misinterpreted your intention in your original post that I quoted, I no longer care. Don’t “dear” me.0 -
Please John stop.johngti said:
Ok if you want to go down the “patronising git” route, have a read of this Wikipedia link about hyperbole and reread your first post: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole - I assume Wikipedia is about your level?david37 said:
some things are lost in the internet arent they dearjohngti said:
Massive case of the pot and kettle there. If you want hyperbole, you’ve provided it. “The one that dies was MURDERED” followed by “if we had locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died” is a statement that is ridiculous at both ends and that appears designed to make the huge number of excess deaths that have occurred appear less significant.david37 said:
and how pray would we have had few or no deaths? all the forecasts were that in the absence of vaccine that the total number of deaths would be greater than 200k and that the thing that would vary was the time over which they happened.johngti said:
You’ve completely peed all over the fact that of the 150000+ that have actually died (many of who wouldn’t have if the government had handled things properly in the pre-vaccination period) by jumping between 1 and 1000000 as if those are the important numbers. Not cool.david37 said:heres the thing, the ones that die get the attention and the family suing them. the ones that live are merge into the mass.
the one that dies was MURDERED as far as the opposition is concerned. if more die through prevarication they were MURDERED by inpet handling. there is no glory here for the governments involved.
Though i personally think Boris has done a blinder so far on the vaccine front. never mind the yeah but if hed locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died (which is kind of my point above)
hyperbole in this case is "not cool" though your comment does kind of prove my point. thank you.
Models that were produced at the beginning of the pandemic were the worst case and were ignored for too long in the quest for herd immunity. A proper test and trace system along with sensible, early lockdowns would have significantly reduced the number of excess deaths, as seen in other countries. Many people died at a younger age than they would have purely because the government mismanaged the crisis. Yes, they deserve credit for the vaccination programme but any sensible analysis of their handling of all of this has to conclude that they got loads badly wrong (and that’s not to say anyone else would have done better, we have no way of knowing).
And if you want to patronise me, get your grammar right. Should be 100000 fewer deaths not 1000000 less deaths.
And while I still may have misinterpreted your intention in your original post that I quoted, I no longer care. Don’t “dear” me.
there's a dear x
0 -
Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently0 -
Whatevs, David.david37 said:
Please John stop.johngti said:
Ok if you want to go down the “patronising git” route, have a read of this Wikipedia link about hyperbole and reread your first post: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole - I assume Wikipedia is about your level?david37 said:
some things are lost in the internet arent they dearjohngti said:
Massive case of the pot and kettle there. If you want hyperbole, you’ve provided it. “The one that dies was MURDERED” followed by “if we had locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died” is a statement that is ridiculous at both ends and that appears designed to make the huge number of excess deaths that have occurred appear less significant.david37 said:
and how pray would we have had few or no deaths? all the forecasts were that in the absence of vaccine that the total number of deaths would be greater than 200k and that the thing that would vary was the time over which they happened.johngti said:
You’ve completely peed all over the fact that of the 150000+ that have actually died (many of who wouldn’t have if the government had handled things properly in the pre-vaccination period) by jumping between 1 and 1000000 as if those are the important numbers. Not cool.david37 said:heres the thing, the ones that die get the attention and the family suing them. the ones that live are merge into the mass.
the one that dies was MURDERED as far as the opposition is concerned. if more die through prevarication they were MURDERED by inpet handling. there is no glory here for the governments involved.
Though i personally think Boris has done a blinder so far on the vaccine front. never mind the yeah but if hed locked down a day earlier 1000000 less people would have died (which is kind of my point above)
hyperbole in this case is "not cool" though your comment does kind of prove my point. thank you.
Models that were produced at the beginning of the pandemic were the worst case and were ignored for too long in the quest for herd immunity. A proper test and trace system along with sensible, early lockdowns would have significantly reduced the number of excess deaths, as seen in other countries. Many people died at a younger age than they would have purely because the government mismanaged the crisis. Yes, they deserve credit for the vaccination programme but any sensible analysis of their handling of all of this has to conclude that they got loads badly wrong (and that’s not to say anyone else would have done better, we have no way of knowing).
And if you want to patronise me, get your grammar right. Should be 100000 fewer deaths not 1000000 less deaths.
And while I still may have misinterpreted your intention in your original post that I quoted, I no longer care. Don’t “dear” me.
there's a dear x0 -
You said "may die of a blood clot" and "will kill one person" so not sure the odds are the same...surrey_commuter said:Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently0 -
Now imagine 1000 of them would die of a disease that any number of the crowd may be spreading.surrey_commuter said:Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently0 -
I think the actual risk of death is not that many orders of magnitude higher. The risk of a clotting event is but the risk of a fatal clotting event isn't. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't take the AZ vaccine or that they shouldn't take the contraceptive pill but it might be something people take into consideration when making that decision.orraloon said:Latest issue of the More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast looks at vaccine (assumed) cases of blot clots vs contraceptive pill associated blood clots. Latter has much, orders of magnitude higher incidence but hey that's ok, no big deal, just life innit.
You can say I bang on about the risk but I do think that we and the media are not comparing like with like here. I'm going to get my second AZ jab in June so I'm not scaremongering.
The risk of a fatal blood clot from the Pill is apparently between 3-10 per million women taking it.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
do you really not understand the point I am making?First.Aspect said:
Now imagine 1000 of them would die of a disease that any number of the crowd may be spreading.surrey_commuter said:Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently0 -
so correct what I wrote - do you get the point I am making?mrb123 said:
You said "may die of a blood clot" and "will kill one person" so not sure the odds are the same...surrey_commuter said:Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently0 -
Perceived vs actual risk. Probably be more accurate if the sniper had a clip with 10 rounds but 9 of them were blanks (or whatever it needs to be to get the right numbers of clots vs deaths from clots). So risk of hearing a gun shot and getting scared witless vs risk of actually dying.surrey_commuter said:
so correct what I wrote - do you get the point I am making?mrb123 said:
You said "may die of a blood clot" and "will kill one person" so not sure the odds are the same...surrey_commuter said:Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently
Of course, I'm going on what may be the wrong end of the stick in thinking that many of the people getting a blood clot aren't dying from it.0 -
It is all about the messaging. Same point as me I think.surrey_commuter said:
do you really not understand the point I am making?First.Aspect said:
Now imagine 1000 of them would die of a disease that any number of the crowd may be spreading.surrey_commuter said:Here is a thought about asessing risk.
If all 100,000 people in Wembley stadium had the AZ jab one of them may die of a bloodclot which is a risk allof us would accept and roll up our sleeves.
Now imagine you are invited to Wembley and are told that there is a sniper who will kill one person.
Same odds but I think we would all agree that we would perceive the risk differently0 -
They seem to have messed up the control software when they put my chip in and it's working in reverse. Yesterday, when stuck at traffic lights in a nearby town that were installed to create a one way section and allow more social distancing through the High Street, I commented to the wife that they didn't seem necessary any longer and it was about time they were removed. The wife works in said town and just sent me a text to say the Council has just turned up to remove them. I need to make use of this new found power before 'they' discover it and fix the software bug.0
-
Best not to give anyone a withering look unless you actually mean it then.Pross said:They seem to have messed up the control software when they put my chip in and it's working in reverse. Yesterday, when stuck at traffic lights in a nearby town that were installed to create a one way section and allow more social distancing through the High Street, I commented to the wife that they didn't seem necessary any longer and it was about time they were removed. The wife works in said town and just sent me a text to say the Council has just turned up to remove them. I need to make use of this new found power before 'they' discover it and fix the software bug.
0 -
Just look at the results of that. Why isn't the rest of the UK so damn sensible?0
-
If only, as highlighted in London tonight by Sadiq Khan’s statement.
Retro comment - that david37 was a ‘character’ wasn’t he? Claimed to be a school governor.
Won’t someone think of the children…0
