Double vaccinated worse than unvaccinated = ‘waning immunity’ obviously doesn’t add up more like an oxymoron.
Apples and Oranges.
Is there waning immunity after vaccines or being infected? It appears so, from many pieces I’ve seen. No shock at all.
Hey! That’s why we have the “booster”!
The supposed ‘immunity’ to serious Covid is obviously only ‘waning’ among the vaxxed as opposed to obviously not ‘waning’ among the unvaxxed.
More like another red herring to divert attention from the fact that there is no ‘immunity’ to anything that we can catch more than once whether we’ve been so called ‘vaccinated’ or not.In which case all bets are off regardless.
Also how many other ‘vaccines’ don’t prevent infection, nor reinfection, nor stop transmission.
As for a ‘booster’ why was my request for an AZ ‘booster’ refused by the NHS.
Double vaccinated worse than unvaccinated = ‘waning immunity’ obviously doesn’t add up more like an oxymoron.
Apples and Oranges.
Is there waning immunity after vaccines or being infected? It appears so, from many pieces I’ve seen. No shock at all.
Hey! That’s why we have the “booster”!
The supposed ‘immunity’ to serious Covid is obviously only ‘waning’ among the vaxxed as opposed to obviously not ‘waning’ among the unvaxxed.
More like another red herring to divert attention from the fact that there is no ‘immunity’ to anything that we can catch more than once whether we’ve been so called ‘vaccinated’ or not.In which case all bets are off regardless.
Also how many other ‘vaccines’ don’t prevent infection, nor reinfection, nor stop transmission.
As for a ‘booster’ why was my request for an AZ ‘booster’ refused by the NHS.
I assume you had AZ shots first time round? why the hell you took the filth i’m buggered if i know seeing how your distrust the swines more than i do if thats possible.
Maybe they want to mix the doses up so if there comes a time when victims, voluntary or forced, or their heirs, are able to claim damages then mixing the brands up will make it difficult to know which caused problems.
Carryfast:
The supposed ‘immunity’ to serious Covid is obviously only ‘waning’ among the vaxxed as opposed to obviously not ‘waning’ among the unvaxxed.
More like another red herring to divert attention from the fact that there is no ‘immunity’ to anything that we can catch more than once whether we’ve been so called ‘vaccinated’ or not.In which case all bets are off regardless.
Also how many other ‘vaccines’ don’t prevent infection, nor reinfection, nor stop transmission.
As for a ‘booster’ why was my request for an AZ ‘booster’ refused by the NHS.
I assume you had AZ shots first time round? why the hell you took the filth i’m buggered if i know seeing how your distrust the swines more than i do if thats possible.
Maybe they want to mix the doses up so if there comes a time when victims, voluntary or forced, or their heirs, are able to claim damages then mixing the brands up will make it difficult to know which caused problems.
You’re right Juddian I do distrust them but obviously for totally different reasons.
Have you noticed how the government is happy to allow inconvenient news to be aired like the Glasgow story and the ‘vax’ reluctant ‘doctor’s ’ comments.
Having caught the thing I do believe even more that my first gut instinct was the correct one.But notice how the pro government line backs off when the narrative is reversed back on them.
IE why no AZ booster and why no automatic prescription of anti virals on positive PCR at least for stated at risk groups.Also why do the stated symptoms obviously totally ignore those of a possible lung embolism.
Ironically the government’s ( and Franglais’ ) narrative really doesn’t add up either way and I think I’ve known why from the start.The rabbit hole leads back directly to Wuhan and its ‘intriguing mice’ and I don’t mean the wild variety.
The UK must be getting very close to where the greater majority have had covid
I spent some time going through the ONS weekly survey data from May 2020 to Dec 2021 and it added up to about 45 million out of a population of 68 million
whisperingsmith:
The booster that the NHS had in stock was Pfizer - if you wanted AZ you should have gone private
So the NHS obviously would have said that.As opposed to you can actually have an AZ booster but only if your doctor can provide a reason for it.
But obviously good enough ‘reason’ for the first and second AZ shots but not good enough for a third one.
Followed by no offer of anti virals after the doctor had said my symptoms could be serious.
No question about stock or being approved for NHS prescription in either case.
Selective rationing based on cost more like.
Then they’ve got the nerve to lecture us about getting vaccinated.
ROG:
The UK must be getting very close to where the greater majority have had covid
I spent some time going through the ONS weekly survey data from May 2020 to Dec 2021 and it added up to about 45 million out of a population of 68 million
How did you find your total, I wonder? Be careful !
Add all the cases up every week and you`ll count someone with Covid for a month (one person) 4 times!
Lots of other errors are possible.
Is there waning immunity after vaccines or being infected? It appears so, from many pieces I’ve seen. No shock at all.
Hey! That’s why we have the “booster”!
.
The article mentions more problems for the elderly, and other articles have said that the elderly are more likely to be double or triple jabbed, therefore the article seems to be comparing infection rates in different age groups.
I certainly don’t know if that is or isn’t the case, but a short piece in a newspaper without any reference to sources isn’t much to go on, is it?
Unless any date analysis makes allowance for differing uptake of vaccine in different groups, (and assuming the journalists know what “rates” means) it is not too surprising.
.
The piece also says it is relative to Glasgow. No other areas?
So, is that a large case population? Is it repeated elsewhere? Is it just a blip that is perfectly normal if one looks at the many different hospitals around the UK? One outlier?
Or is it a journo looking for a headline?
.
Worth looking at for those with the tools to understand what is going on. Not so much for the rest of us, maybe?
And true to form a man puts up a link and the usual suspect disses it I expect if you dig deep enough you’ll find that there is a conservative somewhere in the journalists family thereby renedering anything they say as wrong. The journalist will have more than likely researched his figures and they are probably quite easy to obtain from the hospital admissisions list which if Glasgow is anything like Derry are released every day with a breakdown of age group and whether they are vaccinated or not, the papers editor will then approved the article and if they felt it was iffey no doubt asked the writer to prove his case.
Of course!
News papers always print the accurate truth, don’t they?
As someone who sits midway between Djokovic and Franglais on the scale of Covid extremism I fail to see what is so controversial in the article, to an obessive covid fanatic the journalist may have blasphemed and be deserving of a Fatwa personally I can’t see it myself. It would appear that the journalist made the schoolboy of not sending his article to a lorry driver living in the South of England who in all likelihood knows next to nothing about living in Glasgow and about the same about journalism to be fact checked, cross referenced and proof read before persenting it to his editor who more then likely does know about living in Glasgow and journalism. I don’t know a great deal about being a journalist but I do know that there are guidelines in place as to what they can or cannot print and as to whether it is an opinion piece or fact unlike the internet which is a free for all yet where you seem to get the majority of your links from I know what I would trust more.
My post was replying to CF.
He was jumping to all sorts of conclusions from the article.
I pointed out what the article didn`t include. I showed he was wrong to draw conclusions form a bit of journalism.
I did not say the article was “wrong” but did point out what was missing.
Franglais:
…
The article mentions more problems for the elderly, and other articles have said that the elderly are more likely to be double or triple jabbed, therefore the article seems to be comparing infection rates in different age groups.
I certainly don’t know if that is or isn’t the case, but a short piece in a newspaper without any reference to sources isn’t much to go on, is it?
I then ask half a dozen questions about what isn`t in the article, and finish
Franglais:
Worth looking at for those with the tools to understand what is going on. Not so much for the rest of us, maybe?
Out of curiosity why this comment?
Mazzer2:
if you dig deep enough you’ll find that there is a conservative somewhere in the journalists family
Franglais:
My post was replying to CF.
He was jumping to all sorts of conclusions from the article.
The article was clearly stating that double vaxxed was showing a worse outcome by hospitalisation figures than unvaxxed.
As opposed to a worse outcome for two jabs v 3.
Bearing in mind the government’s refusal of three AZ jabs and not handing out anti virals like smarties to kill the thing on sight especially in the case of ‘at risk’ groups.
Those are facts not me jumping to any conclusions.
Franglais:
As someone who sits midway between Djokovic and Franglais on the scale of Covid extremism I fail to see what is so controversial in the article, to an obessive covid fanatic the journalist may have blasphemed and be deserving of a Fatwa personally I can’t see it myself. It would appear that the journalist made the schoolboy of not sending his article to a lorry driver living in the South of England who in all likelihood knows next to nothing about living in Glasgow and about the same about journalism to be fact checked, cross referenced and proof read before persenting it to his editor who more then likely does know about living in Glasgow and journalism. I don’t know a great deal about being a journalist but I do know that there are guidelines in place as to what they can or cannot print and as to whether it is an opinion piece or fact unlike the internet which is a free for all yet where you seem to get the majority of your links from I know what I would trust more.
My post was replying to CF.
He was jumping to all sorts of conclusions from the article.
I pointed out what the article didn`t include. I showed he was wrong to draw conclusions form a bit of journalism.
I did not say the article was “wrong” but did point out what was missing.
Franglais:
…
The article mentions more problems for the elderly, and other articles have said that the elderly are more likely to be double or triple jabbed, therefore the article seems to be comparing infection rates in different age groups.
I certainly don’t know if that is or isn’t the case, but a short piece in a newspaper without any reference to sources isn’t much to go on, is it?
I then ask half a dozen questions about what isn`t in the article, and finish
Franglais:
Worth looking at for those with the tools to understand what is going on. Not so much for the rest of us, maybe?
Out of curiosity why this comment?
Mazzer2:
if you dig deep enough you’ll find that there is a conservative somewhere in the journalists family
I don`t want to jump to any conclusions.
[/quote]
Because in the past when disparaging someones link you have used the fact that the person who is writing it leans more towards the right then it is less believable. I’m sure the journalist has appreciated your e-mail pointing out what was missing from their article, after all what would a journalist know about writing articles
