Massive Lorry Convoy protest in Canada

[Scott777]

The vaccines are against Covid.  I didn't mention Omicron and you have in order to move the goalposts.

Now you're just taking the p*ss.  The vaccines are no longer used for Delta, because it's fecking gone, and now they are for Omicron.  Just admit you were wrong.

[B0ycey]

Yes, we were talking about present and future vaccination, which is against Omicron.

The vaccines are against Covid. The booster improves efficiency rate for Omicron. But this is a strawman. I didn't mention Omicron and you have in order to move the goalposts.

[Scott777]

It should however be in the terms of employment. And if you are applying for a job that demands you need to be vaccinated, then should think about another career if you don't like that.

What are you talking about? I said the point of vaccinating NHS was to reduce the transmission rate and to protect vulnerable people from catching Covid. The whole point of the booster was to improve the efficiency rate of omicron if that is what you care about. But that isn't what I am saying anyway and at no point did I mention Omicron.

Yes, we were talking about present and future vaccination, which is against Omicron.

[B0ycey]

A bit of backtracking, I think.  We are obviously talking about the current strain.  If you meant an old strain, you should have said the vaccine did reduce transmission, not that it does.  I'm afraid your 'common sense' contradicts the Lancet.

What are you talking about? I said the point of vaccinating NHS was to reduce the transmission rate and to protect vulnerable people from catching Covid. The whole point of the booster was to improve the efficiency rate of omicron if that is what you care about. But that isn't what I am saying anyway and at no point did I mention Omicron.

[Scott777]

And we were talking about Covid transmission not what f**king stain we have today.
Anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to see vaccination would reduce the transmission rate and they don't need a bloody study to know that anyway. If you can see that then that isn't my problem whether you like New Scientist or not.

A bit of backtracking, I think.  We are obviously talking about the current strain.  If you meant an old strain, you should have said the vaccine did reduce transmission, not that it does.  I'm afraid your 'common sense' contradicts the Lancet.

[B0ycey]

@Scott efficency rate is the prevention rate, it has nothing to do with symptoms. And we were talking about Covid transmission not what f**king stain we have today. But it should be said that was the reason for the booster, was to boost immunity for those who were fully vaccinated to protect them from the Omicron strain. But given this all started about vaccinating NHS staff, which we both agree shouldn't be coerced and the logic given by the government for their uturn was because Omicron is less severe, what are we even debating here. Anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to see vaccination would reduce the transmission rate and they don't need a bloody study to know that anyway. If you cant see that well that isn't my problem and I don't care whether you like New Scientist or not.

[Scott777]

Borchester, the New Scientist is up there as one of the most trusted scientific journals, up there with the Lancet and Nature. It has to adhere to standards that go far beyond f**king twitter rants. It doesn't just make shit up. It isn't the Daily Sport. If the article is bogus, it would then have to retract it. Given it remains online, you can be sure they are just publishing the facts. I am struggling to understand the type of argument going on here. Are users seriously doubting the authenticity of the findings because it was published in a respected journal and they would rather go through the hundreds of PDF files instead. That is some major crazy just there.

It's all irrelevant now, because having looked at the article and source, which you probably didn't bother to check, the study relates to the Delta variant, so it has no bearing on Omicron.  Waste of time.

[Scott777]

It should be said that New Scientist as a publisher has to abide by the standards of OfCom which isn't the case for opinions on Facebook so can't just make shit up. They have also summarised the report so others don't have to read the hundreds of pages of results. But sure, I haven't read the findings in the report but the summary within this article. I also haven't gone to Ukraine to see if there is a 100000 troop on the border and I wasn't an attendee at one of BoJos parties. I haven't been to the moon to check out the moon landings, wasn't behind the grassy knoll to see who fired the gun and I haven't gone into the Area 51 hanger to see what's inside. Most people get their information from media sources than first hand experience but whatever. Logic stats if the vaccines have a 90% efficiency rate that it also will reduce transmission in any case as most people become immune. But the vaccine also reduces viral loads as well it should be said. But if you want to disagree with the scientists or journals that publish their findings on some absurd notion that results can't be trusted and that you won't trust anything that is published which is against your narrative, then as I said before, you cannot argue that.

I wasn't asking you to do the study yourself.  You continue to make strawman arguments.  I never said I won't trust anything published against my narrative.  I said I won't trust it from the New Scientist, which has been shown to be not always correct.  The 90% efficiency rate refers to severity of symptoms only, and is not accurate.

[Borchester]

Borchester, the New Scientist is up there as one of the most trusted scientific journals,

Of course it is is Boysie

[papasmurf]

What is  'peer- reviewed ' ? 

Checked for veracity by experts in the same discipline. In some cases results have to be able to be replicated. Peer reviewed has uncovered charlatans in the past.  Pons and Fleischmann, cold fusion being just one example.

[B0ycey]

No it doesn't.

The New Scientist abides by the basic tenet of journalism which is will the outrage caused by this article increase circulation to such an extent that it will pay any resultant legal fees.

Mostly it does. Whatever your thoughts on the Grumpy Goblin, no one is going to end up in court because they disagree with Greta Glumburg's figures.

Borchester, the New Scientist is up there as one of the most trusted scientific journals, up there with the Lancet and Nature. It has to adhere to standards that go far beyond fucking twitter rants. It doesn't just make shit up. It isn't the Daily Sport. If the article is bogus, it would then have to retract it. Given it remains online, you can be sure they are just publishing the facts. I am struggling to understand the type of argument going on here. Are users seriously doubting the authenticity of the findings because it was published in a respected journal and they would rather go through the hundreds of PDF files instead. That is some major crazy just there.

[Borchester]

It should be said that New Scientist as a publisher has to abide by the standards of OfCom

No it doesn't.

The New Scientist abides by the basic tenet of journalism which is will the outrage caused by this article increase circulation to such an extent that it will pay any resultant legal fees.

Mostly it does. Whatever your thoughts on the Grumpy Goblin, no one is going to end up in court because they disagree with Greta Glumburg's figures.

[B0ycey]

That's a nice big strawman.  When did I ask you to phone New Scientist, or publish the whole study?  I asked if you have read the summary of findings from the source.

According to you, not trusting a magazine is a conspiracy theory.  What has conspiracy got to do with not trusting an article?  You make giant presumptions, and expose that fact that you haven't verified any science, then get triggered.  You can't admit that the New Scientist is not always correct, and cling to it religiously.  How embarrassing.

It should be said that New Scientist as a publisher has to abide by the standards of OfCom which isn't the case for opinions on Facebook so can't just make shit up. They have also summarised the report so others don't have to read the hundreds of pages of results. But sure, I haven't read the findings in the report but the summary within this article. I also haven't gone to Ukraine to see if there is a 100000 troop on the border and I wasn't an attendee at one of BoJos parties. I haven't been to the moon to check out the moon landings, wasn't behind the grassy knoll to see who fired the gun and I haven't gone into the Area 51 hanger to see what's inside. Most people get their information from media sources than first hand experience but whatever. Logic stats if the vaccines have a 90% efficiency rate that it also will reduce transmission in any case as most people become immune. But the vaccine also reduces viral loads as well it should be said. But if you want to disagree with the scientists or journals that publish their findings on some absurd notion that results can't be trusted and that you won't trust anything that is published which is against your narrative, then as I said before, you cannot argue that.

[Scott777]

As there have been many studies /articles by doctors/professors /scientists  stating and all in agreement  that  vaccines reduce transmission ,reduce levels of infection reducing deaths ect , ect  then surely its a peer reviewed science .

So maybe 10 scientists agree it reduces transmission by 50%, and 10 agree that it is 10%, and 10 agree that it's 1%.  So they all agree it reduces transmission, right?  But which is it, and how does that help?  In a peer-review process, you don't just agree on an ambiguous conclusion, you examine how the study was done.  Of course it isn't perfect, but better than nothing.

[Scott777]

The article is the facts Scott. But have you ever thought that if I did everything you asked, phoned New Scientist and asked which study the article was based on, then went on line to find the PDF, published the hundreds of pages of the study on here for you to read, that you are somehow going to spend the next few days reading that so you can respond back to me. We all know that was never going to happen so why waste my time. So my response was fair. You don't trust the article. Which means you trust the conspiracy theories instead. You can't debate that. Which is why you have guys shoot up pizza parlors because of the notion that the Democrats are running a pedophile ring, or climate deniers ignoring record global temperatures each year. Just keep your Tin Foil hat on if you like. I don't care.

That's a nice big strawman.  When did I ask you to phone New Scientist, or publish the whole study?  I asked if you have read the summary of findings from the source.

According to you, not trusting a magazine is a conspiracy theory.  What has conspiracy got to do with not trusting an article?  You make giant presumptions, and expose that fact that you haven't verified any science, then get triggered.  You can't admit that the New Scientist is not always correct, and cling to it religiously.  How embarrassing.