I am so sick of Covid

[Unlucky4Sum]

I dont think anyone (maybe scott ) would argue that the initial vaccine helped us out of lockdown and protected the vunerable people from getting serious infection . But we have moved on from that to boosters and suchlike which have been an absolute nightmare for lots of people .
The vaccines are not a fix all for the general population and should only be used going forward for the vulnerable  who have not had side effects . Everyone else can take their chances which are pretty good

You seen the death stats?  Seems not

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1april2021and31december2022/referencetablefeb213.xlsx 



Note x indicates zero

[BeElBeeBub]

The definition was not intended to prove anything except that an official definition, used within Britain, does not have to be the thing that you ASSUMED.  Maybe you forgot your claim that such a definition would be like torturing language.  Stop back-tracking, and trying to avoid answering my question: is this official definition, used in Britain, torturing language, or are you back-tracking?

Given you can't provide the source of the Scottish definition, it's doubly irrelevant. I suspect it is a general definition for vaccination programs rather than specific to covid, but I could be wrong so let's pretend that is *an* official definition in Scotland of "vaccinated" in relation to COVID.

So what? The ONS define it as "having had one or more doses". As you say definitions can vary. This.is.why studies define the cohorts. What matters the definition used by the study and not the definition some random found ont he internet.

You spectacularly failed to explain any of your claims.  Why should someone with a dose be in the vaccinated cohort?  You just claim such a thing as fact, with absolutely nothing to back it up.  If the dose has not taken effect, then they may very well not include it in the vaccinated cohort.  You are absurdly suggesting, in the Scottish study, that a person with 1 dose could be simultaneously in the unvaccinated cohort and the vaccinated cohort.  Again, are you torturing language, or back-tracking?

You spectacularly fail to read.

The definition of "vaccinated" *as defined in the study* is "has had at least one dose of COVID vaccine"

So it's really simple to sort people.in to the two cohorts. Even you could do it (though I suspect you'd manage to balls it up)

Have they had at least one dose of the study?
Yes> "Vaccinated"
No> "Unvaccinated"

Let's.try.some examples

Kid never had any COVID vaccinations at all > unvaccinated
Kid injected with 3 doses of any COVID vaccine > vaccinated
Kid injected with 1 dose of any COVID vaccine > vaccinated
Kid injected with 1 dose of any COVID vaccine 12 months ago> vaccinated
Kid injected with doses of any COVID vaccine 6 months ago> vaccinated

You see how easy it is? As soon as anyone gets a dose of COVID vaccine, they would be considered "vaccinated" *for the purposes of the study*

[Streetwalker]

So Barry show us that the jab did not protect against infection.  Given that the infections fell drastically with the roll out of vaccines

And, as you'll have to concede infections fell, then you'll have to concede that the number of infectious people fell and so the vaccinations protected many unvaccinated from being infected.

PS That Mr Icke you so love to parrot isn't going to help you here

I dont think anyone (maybe scott ) would argue that the initial vaccine helped us out of lockdown and protected the vunerable people from getting serious infection . But we have moved on from that to boosters and suchlike which have been an absolute nightmare for lots of people . 
The vaccines are not a fix all for the general population and should only be used going forward for the vulnerable  who have not had side effects . Everyone else can take their chances which are pretty good 

[Unlucky4Sum]

So Barry show us that the jab did not protect against infection.  Given that the infections fell drastically with the roll out of vaccines

And, as you'll have to concede infections fell, then you'll have to concede that the number of infectious people fell and so the vaccinations protected many unvaccinated from being infected.

PS That Mr Icke you so love to parrot isn't going to help you here

[Barry]

I am sorry to hear you have a condition where you trigger so easily.  Sometimes, in a conversation, other people may disagree with you.  If that looks like trolling, take a chill pill.  😁

You claim the lurgy must be worse, just because you had it worse than the flu.  Did it not occur to you that a person could have a bad case of flu or an easy case, depending on many circumstances such as the current state of your immune system, or the viral load.  All my cases of the lurgy were manageable.  Yours might have been worse, but that can be explained if your immune system was low at the time, so your anecdote does not show the lurgy must be worse than the flu.  Some people die of flu, you didn't die of lurgy, so your logic that it must be worse based on your anecdote, is just nonsense. If lurgy is so bad, explain why my cases were no worse than the flu.  There must be a reason.

The jab suppressed the immune system, didn't it?
Now, Stevie doesn't like to admit that, because he put all his faith in the jab, and deleted posts that said that the jab did not protect against infection or transmission, even though it was true.
Stevie could have been working for the government's "Ministry of Truth" which turned out to be the "Ministry of suppressing truth".
Slowly and surely those darn conspiracy theorists and people dubbed anti-vaxxers are being vindicated.
All Stevie can now do is accuse you of trolling with a one liner.

[Unlucky4Sum]

I am sorry to hear you have a condition where you trigger so easily.  Sometimes, in a conversation, other people may disagree with you.  If that looks like trolling, take a chill pill.  😁

You claim the lurgy must be worse, just because you had it worse than the flu.  Did it not occur to you that a person could have a bad case of flu or an easy case, depending on many circumstances such as the current state of your immune system, or the viral load.  All my cases of the lurgy were manageable.  Yours might have been worse, but that can be explained if your immune system was low at the time, so your anecdote does not show the lurgy must be worse than the flu.  Some people die of flu, you didn't die of lurgy, so your logic that it must be worse based on your anecdote, is just nonsense. If lurgy is so bad, explain why my cases were no worse than the flu.  There must be a reason.

DNFTT time

[Scott777]

'Logic not my strong point'  Well Scotty lets be blunt here:  you are a rude illogical prat that only comes on here to be a pain in the arse.

I know it's worse than flue because
- I've had both and only one (guess which) had my temperature rising that fast and me feeling that shit
- I've lived over 60 years and no one I know of has ever died of flu, yet two people I knew died of Covid
- Also I've not known anyone that's been crippled by flu, yet I know two that were by Covid
- And of course the deaths stats show which is worse - and it aint flu

So do F@@@ off with these tiresome trolling expeditions of yours.  If you think you're fooling anyone then you're not.

I am sorry to hear you have a condition where you trigger so easily.  Sometimes, in a conversation, other people may disagree with you.  If that looks like trolling, take a chill pill.  😁

You claim the lurgy must be worse, just because you had it worse than the flu.  Did it not occur to you that a person could have a bad case of flu or an easy case, depending on many circumstances such as the current state of your immune system, or the viral load.  All my cases of the lurgy were manageable.  Yours might have been worse, but that can be explained if your immune system was low at the time, so your anecdote does not show the lurgy must be worse than the flu.  Some people die of flu, you didn't die of lurgy, so your logic that it must be worse based on your anecdote, is just nonsense. If lurgy is so bad, explain why my cases were no worse than the flu.  There must be a reason.

[Unlucky4Sum]

The flu also kills people, and yet you manage to infer that Covid MUST be worse just because it kills people.  Is logic not your strong point?  The fact is, many people had Covid, including myself with each variant, and I was fine even without the snake oil, so therefore you ought to be able to explain why it is that Covid is the big bad wolf.

'Logic not my strong point'  Well Scotty lets be blunt here:  you are a rude illogical prat that only comes on here to be a pain in the arse.

I know it's worse than flue because
- I've had both and only one (guess which) had my temperature rising that fast and me feeling that shit
- I've lived over 60 years and no one I know of has ever died of flu, yet two people I knew died of Covid
- Also I've not known anyone that's been crippled by flu, yet I know two that were by Covid
- And of course the deaths stats show which is worse - and it aint flu

So do F@@@ off with these tiresome trolling expeditions of yours.  If you think you're fooling anyone then you're not.

[Scott777]

I note you didn't actually engage in the argument above, and instead went and dug up an irrelevant (as in it has nothing to do with the study) definition.

All that definition proves is different jurisdictions, different study groups even, can use different definitions. Great. So what?

Why did you pick the Scottish one? Why not use a Brazilian or German or Japanese one? 

The important definition is what the study used and not what a Scottish definition is.

The definition was not intended to prove anything except that an official definition, used within Britain, does not have to be the thing that you ASSUMED.  Maybe you forgot your claim that such a definition would be like torturing language.  Stop back-tracking, and trying to avoid answering my question: is this official definition, used in Britain, torturing language, or are you back-tracking?

The text itself leaves no other interpretation of what the "unvaccinated" cohort can be. If any child in the study had been given a dose, they would be in the "vaccinated" cohort.

A child with a Vax dose could be considered unvaccinated in the Scottish definition you gave but they would still be in the "vaccinated" study cohort.

The only way a child can be in the unvaccinated cohort is to not have had any doses of vax

You spectacularly failed to explain any of your claims.  Why should someone with a dose be in the vaccinated cohort?  You just claim such a thing as fact, with absolutely nothing to back it up.  If the dose has not taken effect, then they may very well not include it in the vaccinated cohort.  You are absurdly suggesting, in the Scottish study, that a person with 1 dose could be simultaneously in the unvaccinated cohort and the vaccinated cohort.  Again, are you torturing language, or back-tracking?

[Streetwalker]

I had the two doses of the AstraZenuca ? Vaccine and one Pfizer booster

The first vaccine jab was administered two months after the stroke.

There was no vaccine at all when i was hit with the pox the first time in Dec 2019 because we didn't know China was piled high with dead then.

There was no vaccine in WALES when i was hit with the pox the second time, It was not used in Wales until Spring 2021 because the mincing T@@@ in the bay refused to release it without user instructions in welsh just as he refused to release Test kits earlier. Hence the directive to welsh NHS staff to travel to England to get tested.

The pfizer jab was available (just) in Weston Super Mare the weekend i had the stroke. I know because my daughter was offered it through her public facing work there for the DWP.

The GP's surgery was frantically trying to get me to have an astrazenuca jab a week aftee i was released after the stroke. I told them i was in no state to get to the surgery and i needed the side effects fucking my already fucked lungs like i needed a bullet in tbe head

months later i recovered enough to walk 400 yards and i had moira run me to get the first jab

i had the second in between two INR tests that oroved Astrazenuca's jab caused blood thickening. It overpowered my warfarin

I think it was a year later i had an invite to have a booster. I went for one which they said was made by Pfizer.

i never made it out of the vaccination centre i collapsed and needed paramedics. After 30 mins i was able to walk out. I was invited for a further booster and declined. Actually i think i accused them of trying to kill off leave voters.

they have not asked me back

My infection sounds pretty weak compared to yours JoG ,at least I haven't been hospitalised . But yes the Pfizer done for me as well . I got home and slept for a week after the first followed by various post viral infections . The second wasn't any better and left me unable to breath without pain and even now if I put myself under any physical  stress Im looking for the nearest place to park myself .
But there is nothing wrong with me according to the quack though he has sent me for some tests on my ticker ? Ive had the impression since day one that the medical people haven't got a clue whats what and though Im sure they mean well I like you wont be having  any more jabs .
The cure it seems has become worse than the desease . 

[johnofgwent]

Pretty much all I have got since March 2020 is there is nothing noticeable wrong with me  though my fatigue could be this and it could be that . At least you have had a probably JoG which is a step in the right direction with regard the medical people admitting the virus/jabs  did more damage to some than they seem to want to admit .

Just out of curiosity did you have the boosters ?

I had the two doses of the AstraZenuca ? Vaccine and one Pfizer booster

The first vaccine jab was administered two months after the stroke.

There was no vaccine at all when i was hit with the pox the first time in Dec 2019 because we didn't know China was piled high with dead then.

There was no vaccine in WALES when i was hit with the pox the second time, It was not used in Wales until Spring 2021 because the mincing T@@@ in the bay refused to release it without user instructions in welsh just as he refused to release Test kits earlier. Hence the directive to welsh NHS staff to travel to England to get tested.

The pfizer jab was available (just) in Weston Super Mare the weekend i had the stroke. I know because my daughter was offered it through her public facing work there for the DWP.

The GP's surgery was frantically trying to get me to have an astrazenuca jab a week aftee i was released after the stroke. I told them i was in no state to get to the surgery and i needed the side effects fucking my already fucked lungs like i needed a bullet in tbe head

months later i recovered enough to walk 400 yards and i had moira run me to get the first jab

i had the second in between two INR tests that oroved Astrazenuca's jab caused blood thickening. It overpowered my warfarin

I think it was a year later i had an invite to have a booster. I went for one which they said was made by Pfizer. 

i never made it out of the vaccination centre i collapsed and needed paramedics. After 30 mins i was able to walk out. I was invited for a further booster and declined. Actually i think i accused them of trying to kill off leave voters.

they have not asked me back

[johnofgwent]

You kids don't know what suffering is.

I had just made it to the loo and was feeling pretty pleased with myself. So I rang up the Podiatry Clinic to arrange a check up and the little lass at the far end asked for the name of my next of kin.

Jesus Christ dolly I whimpered, it is only my feet.

But she insisted, so if it turns out that I have terminally smelly feet then, well, God bless you all and that is that

I think i am going to find out. It has become clear tome in perhaps the last nine months that stuff that i generally felt worked now sometimes doesn't, random bouts of failures injuries confusion etc cut in depressingly and worst if all every one of the GP's i was in uni with, or trained, and therefore had the respect of have retired and the new lot are for the most part bloody tiresome not least because they get extra money for ordering me about and get told off by the practise manager if they let me push back.

[BeElBeeBub]

What a crock of shite.  How can you possibly know their goal is non-partisan?  Have you researched all the funding they receive?  How the hell do you know who or what influences them?  Once again, instead of checking facts, you just make assumptions.  It's simple, if government organisations can stray from your "simple and common" definitions, then anyone can, and they have no obligation to tell you.  So if they have not provided a definition, then you don't know it, and therefore don't know what the results mean.
Bullshit.  Although I cannot find the study I mentioned from 2 years ago, I have found this:

"Unvaccinated: An individual that has had no doses of COVID-19 vaccine and has tested
positive for COVID-19 by PCR or has had one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and has tested
positive less than or equal to 21 days after their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine."

Now, are you going to describe this as torturing language?  I hope so, but it isn't me doing it, it's Public Health Scotland, so stick your accusations up your arse.

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11807/22-02-09-covid19-winter_publication_report-revised.pdf

I note you didn't actually engage in the argument above, and instead went and dug up an irrelevant (as in it has nothing to do with the study) definition.

All that definition proves is different jurisdictions, different study groups even, can use different definitions. Great. So what?

Why did you pick the Scottish one? Why not use a Brazilian or German or Japanese one?  

The important definition is what the study used and not what a Scottish definition is. 

The text itself leaves no other interpretation of what the "unvaccinated" cohort can be. If any child in the study had been given a dose, they would be in the "vaccinated" cohort.

A child with a Vax dose could be considered unvaccinated in the Scottish definition you gave but they would still be in the "vaccinated" study cohort.

The only way a child can be in the unvaccinated cohort is to not have had any doses of vax

[Scott777]

1) the simple and common reading of "unvaccinated" is not vaccinated at all.
2) any deviation from that reading, especially one as pertinent as that, would certainly be mentioned. This is a scientific study, the goal.is to be clear not to score partisan points by obfuscation.
3) from the study,

What a crock of shite.  How can you possibly know their goal is non-partisan?  Have you researched all the funding they receive?  How the hell do you know who or what influences them?  Once again, instead of checking facts, you just make assumptions.  It's simple, if government organisations can stray from your "simple and common" definitions, then anyone can, and they have no obligation to tell you.  So if they have not provided a definition, then you don't know it, and therefore don't know what the results mean.

The study states

"results of this relatively small study of children found long COVID was more prevalent and severe in unvaccinated children than in children who had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.".

Therefore the only children who could be in the "unvaccinated" cohort are ones who had not received any doses of vaccine.

Bullshit.  Although I cannot find the study I mentioned from 2 years ago, I have found this:

"Unvaccinated: An individual that has had no doses of COVID-19 vaccine and has tested
positive for COVID-19 by PCR or has had one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and has tested
positive less than or equal to 21 days after their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine."

Now, are you going to describe this as torturing language?  I hope so, but it isn't me doing it, it's Public Health Scotland, so stick your accusations up your arse.

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11807/22-02-09-covid19-winter_publication_report-revised.pdf

[BeElBeeBub]

It doesn't matter whether it's the same in England as Scotland, what matters is the official definitions are not necessarily what YOU happen to think they are, so unless you can provide the definition for YOUR study, you are just a time-waster.  So, is that your claim, that if the definition is not what you imagine, then they are torturing language?  I hope you will stand by that claim if I can find the definition.

Ok,

1) the simple and common reading of "unvaccinated" is not vaccinated at all.
2) any deviation from that reading, especially one as pertinent as that, would certainly be mentioned. This is a scientific study, the goal.is to be clear not to score partisan points by obfuscation.
3) from the study,

The study states

"results of this relatively small study of children found long COVID was more prevalent and severe in unvaccinated children than in children who had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.".

Therefore the only children who could be in the "unvaccinated" cohort are ones who had not received any doses of vaccine. There is no possibility the "unvaccinated" cohort can include any child who has had any doses of vaccine.

There is no other construction you can put on the composition of the cohort that is *not* the vaccinated one.