|
FORUMS > Wigan Warriors > Covid |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1735 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Itchy Arsenal "Vaccines were indeed the game changer with proven empirical results however, I believe the objective of the vaccine is to reduce the severity of the virus and the reduction in getting and potentially passing on the virus was a gratefully received bonus.
The virus as we now know is airborne so it gets into the body via nose/mouth and attaches itself to cells in the throat/lungs whilst the vaccine is input into the bloodstream which means the virus is established before the vaccine can start to do it’s job which it does well but still too late to stop the virus.
I suspect the real answer to the virus ( I also suspect that sage and the government knew from the outset) is medication that can be taken via a spray to the throat and nasal passage. Very little if any news is reported on this development and I’m bemused why that is the case unless the development of such a drug is beyond current known knowledge. The other answer is herd ammunity which has enabled the human race to exist for 40000 years (or as some believe 100000 years) and does have a part to play in this.
By the way I perhaps should have added I’ve had my jabs and my booster and would encourage everybody else to do so. I’ve got 3 siblings with chronic copd, 1 with cancer and a very good fried with cancer so I am fully aware of the impact on any of them if they we’re to get the virus. I’ve also lost 2 good friends to the thing so no way would I consider myself even remotely an anti vaxxer but I would consider myself inquisitive on the issue.
The problem with being inquisitive on this issue is that it is difficult to determine even the most simplistic questions e.g. what was the target set by sage/government for vaccination take up? Is there a generally “accepted” level of take up eg 100%?
The answer to the first question I believe was no target was ever set and the second question no vaccine has ever had an advised target of 100% anywhere in the free world since the very first vaccine.
You state people cheery pick what they want they want to hear or state but it applies across the board from all sides of the argument (it should be debate but that term is now virtually extinct).
A 30% increase can initially be startling however, if the comparator is from a low number then the actual increase can in fact be quite small. I’m not saying that it is small but context should always be applied where doubt could occur.
The comparator is also important. Week on week is obviously an important one but if the vaccine really is the game changer then year on year comparators are also essential.
You state that lockdowns work but based on what? Worked for whom? I reluctantly supported the first lockdown but now with vaccines should things not be different?
The MSM are hand tied by OFCOM so no real debate has taken place on the virus so people revert to Twitter (god knows why) and YT where people like Corbyn are spewing tripe. This also means that other eminent scientists and epidemiologists never get the chance to discuss alternative courses in meaningful debate with their peers.
Professor Gupta at Oxford University is one one the most eminent epidemiologist in the world but to my knowledge she has never appeared on MST sine the start of COVID. Do I agree with her views? I’m actually unsure but would like to see her discuss the issue with her counterpart on sage.
For me the elephant in the room is the NHS. I’m not anti NHS having my life saved by superbly trained staff and countless friends and relatives also benefiting from the service.
I suspect at the moment lack of staff or more importantly the right staff in the right place is the fundamental issue which COVID has fully exposed. Every winter season the NHS is at “breaking point” but nothing seems to change. Money/finance is the obvious issue but inflexible staffing also means that resources cannot be flexed at peak times for winter ailments such as flu, COVID etc.
At the time I thought the Nightingale hospitals were the potential long term answer to an extremely difficult and repetitive problem however, the lack of trained staff made them redundant before they really started.
I’d happily pay more tax for a better quality and more flexible nhs however, that’s easy for me but for millions of others just not doable even if they supported it in principle.
It’s a monumental task and as I wouldn’t know Hopson even if I fell over him is he the guy to fundamentally change the nhs?'"
Great post. I know twitter is 99% bull. But some on there gives you facts and figures and breakes them down. Jamie Jenkins for anyone who likes to see where we are is great. Mainly does some media work. BBC Wales GB News and radio. Shows where hospitalisation really stands rather than what we get by papers.
As for debating matters people have become entrenched in their view. Way too many get news on this from MSM who are obviously forced into following Gov message. Professor Gupta world leading in their Field is not even seen on BBC due to not following the narrative. And you got to wonder why.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5504 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Quote: Choc Ice "Why does changing the definition matter? If you're questioning why they changed the definition that's fair enough but it seems like you and others are hinting at a lot more than that.'"
I'm hinting at nothing. I am merely stating a fact. They changed the definition of 'vaccine' in order to fit the Covid 19 treatment in. I said in the original post that it's up to each individual to decide whether that is relevant to them or not. However, whether you do or don't does not change the fact that it happened.
If you're asking why do I personally think it matters I'm more than happy to answer. I think it's important because transparency of information is important and should not be sacrificed on the alter of "noble lies". Once you start to bend the truth in order to fit a narrative or agenda, even if you perceive that agenda to be a good one, you are on a slippery slope. Who decides which lies are acceptable or not?
Unlike our friend Bob, I am more than happy to accept that someone else's opinion may differ and don't feel the need to insult them if it does. However, despite his protestations the Covid 19 treatments are not vaccines as, in order to classify them as such, the definition of what a vaccine is needed to be changed.
Using this logic we could tweak it again to read "a product that assists a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” which, again, only changes a single word ("stimulates" to "assists"icon_wink.gif. However water would then adhere to this description and we could all happily inject water in the safe knowledge that we're being "vaccinated".
Whether you think truth matters is very much a personal choice. I happen to think it does.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1624 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2011 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2023 | Dec 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
60904_1539894659.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_60904.jpg |
|
| Quote: Jukesays "Just copied a reply from someone who has been providing info throughout the pandemic on statistical/scientific analysis etc
A couple of things herein part, because of its “limited resources.”
2. I haven't read the first 55,000 pages. In fact, if you read a page per minute without sleeping, eating, or stopping for a single second, you would still be about 10,000 pages short by the next release.
Neither have I. I have however read someone else's summary of the information that has been released to date and it isn't pleasant reading! When Pfizer applied for FDA approval, they were aware of almost 158,000 adverse events. This really does not paint them in a favourable light. And now, a 38-page report features an appendix with a list that says Pfizer’s COVID vaccine has 1,291 side effects. The list includes acute kidney injury, acute flaccid myelitis, anti-sperm antibody positive, brain stem embolism, brain stem thrombosis, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure, cardiac ventricular thrombosis, cardiogenic shock, central nervous system vasculitis, death neonatal, deep vein thrombosis, encephalitis brain stem, encephalitis hemorrhagic, frontal lobe epilepsy, foaming at mouth, epileptic psychosis, facial paralysis, fetal distress syndrome, gastrointestinal amyloidosis, generalized tonic-clonic seizure, Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, hepatic vascular thrombosis, herpes zoster reactivation, immune-mediated hepatitis, interstitial lung disease, jugular vein embolism, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, liver injury, low birth weight, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, myocarditis, neonatal seizure, pancreatitis, pneumonia, stillbirth, tachycardia, temporal lobe epilepsy, testicular autoimmunity, thrombotic cerebral infarction, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, venous thrombosis neonatal, and vertebral artery thrombosis among 1,246 other medical conditions following vaccination.
3. It wasn't being buried, it was being released at a normal rate. This is because that part of the FDA normally has about 10 employees who do this work. They have to redact all personal and proprietary info on every page potentially. And they are juggling, on average, several hundred other FOIA requests. This is a unique ask that requires a ton of external help to pull off.
Given the money this organisation has at its disposal, as a consequence of being funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies (maybe there could be a conflict of interest here?) then they should have the resources at its disposal, especially given that this vaccination was made available through emergency powers.
4. We almost certainly won't read anything new in these documents. The highlights are already released, and the safety profile has been well established with several billion data points now.
See point 2 above, when were you told about these side effects? Before you had the vaccination?
I believe I read that the FDA is handling, on average, about 400 FOIA demands at any one time. If you release 500 pages per month for each report, that's 200,000 pages released monthly. That's about 20,000 pages per month per employee. Once again, the antivax crowd uses a nugget of truth to build a bigger lie.
How can you conclude that the antivax crowd is building a bigger lie given that these are official documents released by the FDA? I am not antivax, as I have said previously I have had all my jabs but I think that people should be given the necessary information before they make their choice.
No one is hiding anything
They were desperate not to release the information and they denied contributing funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
'"
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 192 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jul 2022 | Mar 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Choc Ice "Why does changing the definition matter? If you're questioning why they changed the definition that's fair enough but it seems like you and others are hinting at a lot more than that.'"
Quite. It is hardly a gotcha.
There is this fake humility, that suggests it is modest to expect his complete lack of knowledge and experience to not mean his opinion and judgement should not be weighed above those who have worked in the ICU, developed and trialled vaccines etc.
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5504 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Quote: Bob8 "Quite. It is hardly a gotcha.
There is this fake humility, that suggests it is modest to expect his complete lack of knowledge and experience to not mean his opinion and judgement should not be weighed above those who have worked in the ICU, developed and trialled vaccines etc.'"
The figures I posted were from Sage's own published paper. If you're suggesting Sage don't work in the relevant area and aren't qualified to comment, but you are, I suggest any humility, fake or otherwise, on your part would be an improvement.
You're sharing an opinion and don't work in the relevant area. Hypocrisy much?
Finally. The definition was changed. If you're going to keep pretending it wasn't, please provide evidence.
I've said multiple times now .. including in the very first post with which you took issue...that whether any individual attaches any relevance to that is personal choice (unlike yourself who feels only your opinion is valid). Further, I've explained in detail above why it matters to me (completely ignored by yourself so I'm assuming you have no reasoned, or indeed reasonable, argument to counter it).
I'm not exactly sure what it is about freedom of thought that scares or offends you so much but it's quite clear that you're completely incapable of accepting any view except your own and that debate to you consists of insulting or trying to belittle the person you're debating with.
You have offered nothing to counter any point I've put forward beyond an incorrect table from the Financial Times, some vague insinuation that any viewpoint other than your own must somehow be wrong and that if you belittle the person rather than the argument you are somehow "winning" the debate.
Anyway, put up or shut up time. Provide evidence that they haven't changed the definition in order to recategorise the new treatments as vaccines. It's a very simple request and one you should be able to accomplish without resorting to insults. Unless of course... God forbid...you're actually wrong. Surely not.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Captain | 110 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2019 | 5 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
77809_1604439466.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_77809.png |
|
| Quote: Phuzzy "I'm hinting at nothing. I am merely stating a fact. They changed the definition of 'vaccine' in order to fit the Covid 19 treatment in. I said in the original post that it's up to each individual to decide whether that is relevant to them or not. However, whether you do or don't does not change the fact that it happened.
If you're asking why do I personally think it matters I'm more than happy to answer. I think it's important because transparency of information is important and should not be sacrificed on the alter of "noble lies". Once you start to bend the truth in order to fit a narrative or agenda, even if you perceive that agenda to be a good one, you are on a slippery slope. Who decides which lies are acceptable or not?
Unlike our friend Bob, I am more than happy to accept that someone else's opinion may differ and don't feel the need to insult them if it does. However, despite his protestations the Covid 19 treatments are not vaccines as, in order to classify them as such, the definition of what a vaccine is needed to be changed.
Using this logic we could tweak it again to read "a product that assists a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” which, again, only changes a single word ("stimulates" to "assists"icon_wink.gif. However water would then adhere to this description and we could all happily inject water in the safe knowledge that we're being "vaccinated".
Whether you think truth matters is very much a personal choice. I happen to think it does.'"
Thanks for the reply.
I guess I take the position bob8 is taking. I don't know how these areas work, whether they alter what fits in categories often or not. I just have to trust experts in relevant fields and the vaccines seem to be working.
Did this affect your decision whether to get vaccinated?(or take the shots and boosters if you prefer) and what is the relevance of the profits the Pfizer et al are making?
| | |
| |
|
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
3.61572265625:5
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD | 19.65M +2 | 1,753 | 80,155 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
RLFANS Match Centre
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wigan |
29 |
768 |
338 |
430 |
48 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Hull KR |
29 |
731 |
344 |
387 |
44 |
Warrington |
29 |
769 |
351 |
418 |
42 |
Leigh |
29 |
580 |
442 |
138 |
33 |
Salford |
28 |
556 |
561 |
-5 |
32 |
St.Helens |
28 |
618 |
411 |
207 |
30 |
|
Catalans |
27 |
475 |
427 |
48 |
30 |
Leeds |
27 |
530 |
488 |
42 |
28 |
Huddersfield |
27 |
468 |
658 |
-190 |
20 |
Castleford |
27 |
425 |
735 |
-310 |
15 |
Hull FC |
27 |
328 |
894 |
-566 |
6 |
LondonB |
27 |
317 |
916 |
-599 |
6 |
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wakefield |
27 |
1032 |
275 |
757 |
52 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Toulouse |
26 |
765 |
388 |
377 |
37 |
Bradford |
28 |
723 |
420 |
303 |
36 |
York |
29 |
695 |
501 |
194 |
32 |
Widnes |
27 |
561 |
502 |
59 |
29 |
Featherstone |
27 |
634 |
525 |
109 |
28 |
|
Sheffield |
26 |
626 |
526 |
100 |
28 |
Doncaster |
26 |
498 |
619 |
-121 |
25 |
Halifax |
26 |
509 |
650 |
-141 |
22 |
Batley |
26 |
422 |
591 |
-169 |
22 |
Swinton |
28 |
484 |
676 |
-192 |
20 |
Barrow |
25 |
442 |
720 |
-278 |
19 |
Whitehaven |
25 |
437 |
826 |
-389 |
18 |
Dewsbury |
27 |
348 |
879 |
-531 |
4 |
Hunslet |
1 |
6 |
10 |
-4 |
0 |
|