One reason is that people rarely receive negative feedback about their skills and abilities from others in everyday life. We can call this tact, being diplomatic, or respect for others, but the end result is the same: We typically shy away from telling people they messed up. But what DKE teaches us is that people need honest feedback.
And quoting out-of-date quotes from experts is irrelevant. And designed to mislead.
Which are? If it’s masks,it’s the same now. The only difference is,the vaccines have increased infections= more masks.
No. you know fine well. Lots of them. Like the 1 you posted at 03:10 this morning. Saying Prof Whitty said something "on Wednesday". When it was "Wednesday 4th March. 2020."
Still not answered my question.
You are looking more and more like a cult....
Thanks for confirming that Phil. It just did not look right. I'm an avid news consumer & rarely miss a Prof Whitty comment, but when I searched for it this morning I could not find it. Little wonder if it was almost 22 months ago.
Suggesting he said it "Wednesday" could only have been deliberately misleading.
You folks look for any angle to avoid the truth. I’d expect everything you’re referring to still applies. Highlight everything.
From when something was posted, to who shared a tweet, forgetting its the message that’s the focus. I could of course go through some of your tweets, Trump, nut jobs etc. Maybe a moderator should stay neutral.
Saying it was "Wednesday" was deliberately misleading, & you know it. Why even mention "Wednesday" if it was nearly 2 years ago?
And quoting out-of-date quotes from experts is irrelevant. And designed to mislead.
Which are? If it’s masks,it’s the same now. The only difference is,the vaccines have increased infections= more masks.
No. you know fine well. Lots of them. Like the 1 you posted at 03:10 this morning. Saying Prof Whitty said something "on Wednesday". When it was "Wednesday 4th March. 2020."
Still not answered my question.
You are looking more and more like a cult....
Thanks for confirming that Phil. It just did not look right. I'm an avid news consumer & rarely miss a Prof Whitty comment, but when I searched for it this morning I could not find it. Little wonder if it was almost 22 months ago.
Suggesting he said it "Wednesday" could only have been deliberately misleading.
You folks look for any angle to avoid the truth. I’d expect everything you’re referring to still applies. Highlight everything.
From when something was posted, to who shared a tweet, forgetting its the message that’s the focus. I could of course go through some of your tweets, Trump, nut jobs etc. Maybe a moderator should stay neutral.
Maybe you should leave the moderating to me.
I've warned you - politely - time & time again & you always respond with snarky backchat.
One more time - please - stop with deliberately misleading posts. It is going to end badly for you unless you take my well-intentioned advice.
Let's move on, I have absolutely no interest in losing any contributors, but deliberately misleading Posts have to stop or there will be consequences.
And quoting out-of-date quotes from experts is irrelevant. And designed to mislead.
Which are? If it’s masks,it’s the same now. The only difference is,the vaccines have increased infections= more masks.
No. you know fine well. Lots of them. Like the 1 you posted at 03:10 this morning. Saying Prof Whitty said something "on Wednesday". When it was "Wednesday 4th March. 2020."
Still not answered my question.
You are looking more and more like a cult....
Thanks for confirming that Phil. It just did not look right. I'm an avid news consumer & rarely miss a Prof Whitty comment, but when I searched for it this morning I could not find it. Little wonder if it was almost 22 months ago.
Suggesting he said it "Wednesday" could only have been deliberately misleading.
You folks look for any angle to avoid the truth. I’d expect everything you’re referring to still applies. Highlight everything.
From when something was posted, to who shared a tweet, forgetting its the message that’s the focus. I could of course go through some of your tweets, Trump, nut jobs etc. Maybe a moderator should stay neutral.
Saying it was "Wednesday" was deliberately misleading, & you know it. Why even mention "Wednesday" if it was nearly 2 years ago?
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
Same with @goldon Look at his last post on this thread. I always read his own thread. Don't agree with some of it. Don't understand more of it. But some posts are a pure joy. In a good way.
I like honest debate. With people who share my views, and people who disagree with them. That is what makes for good debate.
Take last night's Question Time. I nearly didn't watch it. Because I am not keen on Jess Phillips MP. And can't stand Isabel Oakeshott. 1 is quite far left. The other quite far right.
Before that programme, I had imagined that if you were to draw a Venn diagram to show their views, there would have been no overlap. If you asked people's opinions about the 2 of them, I would expect that the only overlap would be people hating everything both said. And, judging by their looks of both horror and amusement during the programme, so did they.
Because they agreed on most things. The need for Boris to go. Sympathy for the poor Tory trying to defend him. Why most workers should not be penalised for being unvaccinated, and why attempting to force people was usually wrong. The only disagreement they had was on NHS workers-even then it was a no and a not sure. Which made me think.
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
And quoting out-of-date quotes from experts is irrelevant. And designed to mislead.
Which are? If it’s masks,it’s the same now. The only difference is,the vaccines have increased infections= more masks.
No. you know fine well. Lots of them. Like the 1 you posted at 03:10 this morning. Saying Prof Whitty said something "on Wednesday". When it was "Wednesday 4th March. 2020."
Still not answered my question.
You are looking more and more like a cult....
Thanks for confirming that Phil. It just did not look right. I'm an avid news consumer & rarely miss a Prof Whitty comment, but when I searched for it this morning I could not find it. Little wonder if it was almost 22 months ago.
Suggesting he said it "Wednesday" could only have been deliberately misleading.
You folks look for any angle to avoid the truth. I’d expect everything you’re referring to still applies. Highlight everything.
From when something was posted, to who shared a tweet, forgetting its the message that’s the focus. I could of course go through some of your tweets, Trump, nut jobs etc. Maybe a moderator should stay neutral.
Saying it was "Wednesday" was deliberately misleading, & you know it. Why even mention "Wednesday" if it was nearly 2 years ago?
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
Same with @goldon Look at his last post on this thread. I always read his own thread. Don't agree with some of it. Don't understand more of it. But some posts are a pure joy. In a good way.
I like honest debate. With people who share my views, and people who disagree with them. That is what makes for good debate.
Take last night's Question Time. I nearly didn't watch it. Because I am not keen on Jess Phillips MP. And can't stand Isabel Oakeshott. 1 is quite far left. The other quite far right.
Before that programme, I had imagined that if you were to draw a Venn diagram to show their views, there would have been no overlap. If you asked people's opinions about the 2 of them, I would expect that the only overlap would be people hating everything both said. And, judging by their looks of both horror and amusement during the programme, so did they.
Because they agreed on most things. The need for Boris to go. Sympathy for the poor Tory trying to defend him. Why most workers should not be penalised for being unvaccinated, and why attempting to force people was usually wrong. The only disagreement they had was on NHS workers-even then it was a no and a not sure. Which made me think.
I do listen/read what your views are, that’s the reason for me to reply. That’s how it works.
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
I’ve obviously read what others have said,that’s the same as listening? So then you get a reply.
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
You have opened a thread in the past referring to ‘ nut jobs’ in the title. I’d doubt Mark calls his unvaxxed relatives or friends that. That’s a media propaganda term.
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
You have opened a thread in the past referring to ‘ nut jobs’ in the title. I’d doubt Mark calls his unvaxxed relatives or friends that. That’s a media propaganda term.
You don't even play on the site but you want to give us advice on how to run the place.
I'm virtually redundant as a Moderator, not one other Poster deliberately causes us trouble. And yet here I am at 11.30pm on a Friday night trying to be fair to you.
Mate, give it a rest, now, & let's move on sensibly without any need for Moderation.
Tennis star Novak Djokovic is sent back to notorious immigration detention hotel as visa battle rumbles on and Australian officials declare him a threat to public order who could spark 'civil unrest'
Having once failed to deport the unvaccinated 34-year-old from the country, Australia's conservative government is trying again, calling the tennis star a threat to public order who could spark 'civil unrest'. And again the tennis world no. 1 is fighting back, with a new federal court appeal scheduled for Sunday, the day before the Australian Open - and Djokovic's defence of his title - is scheduled to begin. The Serbian ace is back at a notorious Melbourne immigration detention facility after a few short-lived days of freedom following his first successful court appeal against the original decision to cancel his visa on January 5. Djokovic's presence in Australia 'may foster anti-vaccination sentiment', immigration minister Alex Hawke argued, justifying his use of broad executive powers to revoke the ace's visa. Not only could Djokovic encourage people to flout health rules, Hawke said, but his presence could lead to 'civil unrest'.
According to the latest PHS report, the Covid death rate has been consistently higher since December 4 in the double-jabbed compared to the unvaccinated - but much lower in the triple-jabbed.
The report defines a Covid death as "an individual who has tested positive by PCR for SARS-CoV-2 [the coronavirus which causes Covid] at any time point and has Covid-19 listed as an underlying or contributory cause of death on the death certificate".
In the final week of December, the death rate was 7.06 per 100,000 among the double-jabbed compared to 4.79 per 100,000 in the unvaccinated, and 0.21 per 100,000 in the triple-vaccinated.
In the week ending January 7, the hospitalisation rate was also twice as high in the double-jabbed compared to the unvaccinated - 130 admissions per 100,000 versus 59 per 100,000 - but fell to just 15 per 100,000 in the triple-jabbed.
The admissions data does not differentiate between patients in hospital 'because of' Covid and those who tested positive while being treated for other ailments, but PHS said the high hospitalisation rate for double-vaccinated individuals is being driven by increasing admissions among over-70s who are not yet boosted and whose immunity is waning.
It added: "In other age groups the rates remain lower for those with two doses compared to those with one dose or unvaccinated.
"This group of individuals aged 70-plus who have had two doses of vaccine but have not yet had a booster may include some very vulnerable individuals."
The hospitalisation was twice as high in the double-jabbed compared to the unvaccinated, but PHS said this was skewed by admissions in over-70s and was not being seen in younger age groups
Revealed: The very odd world of the top consultant who confronted Sajid Javid over mandatory jabs for NHS staff (but got his facts wrong) and has now become the poster boy for global anti-vaxx movement
This week, Dr Steve James was propelled to the front line of the most toxic - and perhaps least 'Zen' - controversy of our age. He became an overnight hero of the global anti-vaxx movement after making critical remarks about vaccination to Health Secretary Sajid Javid during a tour of King's College Hospital. In a filmed exchange, Dr James told the politician that he was 'not happy' with new rules due to take effect in April that will require all patient-facing staff in the NHS to become fully vaccinated. His remarks contained a number of factual errors. But that didn't stop them going viral, clocking millions of views on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and delighting conspiracy-minded opponents of vaccination who have hitherto struggled to find qualified doctors who voice views they approve of.
DR MICHAEL MOSLEY: Why vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity (and why unjabbed Novak Djokovic is so wrong to claim he's protected by antibodies after a recent bout of Covid)
DR MICHAEL MOSLEY: There are still about five million people in the UK who choose not to be vaccinated. Many seem convinced that they are not at risk or that 'natural' immunity will save them.
DR MICHAEL MOSLEY: Why vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity (and why unjabbed Novak Djokovic is so wrong to claim he's protected by antibodies after a recent bout of Covid)
DR MICHAEL MOSLEY: There are still about five million people in the UK who choose not to be vaccinated. Many seem convinced that they are not at risk or that 'natural' immunity will save them.
That article was good. But, there are other things that need to be considered alongside that.
Let's look firstly at the NHS, and whether the current position on mandatory vaccination is correct.
It is clear from all the relevant statistics that being unvaccinated poses an additional risk for those people. It is also clear that being unvaccinated leads to some form of additional risk for those around them. But-different variants, different risks. It is also clear that, with Omicron, the additional risk in relation to people near unvaccinated people is far less than before. This should lead to a reevaluation in relation to the unvaccinated in the NHS.
There are roughly 1.4 million people employed by the NHS. Doing a massive range of different jobs. And dealing with a massive range of people with considerable variations on risk in relation to Covid. Saying all 1.4 million people need full vaccination seems to me to be mere virtue signalling. There should be more thought given to this IMO.
It would be easy to modify those rules. Particularly where an Employer employs1.4 million people. So-for example-you could restrict compulsory vaccination to certain Departments. For example, Covid wards, Intensive Care, Midwifery. I'm no expert in where the risk would be higher.
But surely it would be far easier to identify the 10% of NHS employees who pose the most additional risk to themselves/others. To target those people-not to be jabbed or fired. To be jabbed or moved. Because I am really uncomfortable in forcing people to do anything.
As for those employers who want to change Sick Pay for the unvaccinated? Despicable. The law needs to be changed to outlaw such practices.
I can see why some people may think that the unvaccinated should receive less sick pay. Apparently, in Singapore they have to pay for their own covid related medical treatment. I am not arguing in favour of either, but can see why some people may think that both cases are self inflicted. I think the problem with trying to move unvaccinated staff to safer areas of hospitals, is that hospitals are populated by many older and more vulnerable patients. It is clear that sacking unvaccinated staff will only exacerbate staff shortages, and affect the care that they will be able to provide. Many people resent the unvaccinated, and think their excuses are bs. I think that the people that are least able to justify remaining unvaccinated, are NHS staff. "First do no harm".
Comments
One reason is that people rarely receive negative feedback about their skills and abilities from others in everyday life. We can call this tact, being diplomatic, or respect for others, but the end result is the same: We typically shy away from telling people they messed up. But what DKE teaches us is that people need honest feedback.
I've warned you - politely - time & time again & you always respond with snarky backchat.
One more time - please - stop with deliberately misleading posts. It is going to end badly for you unless you take my well-intentioned advice.
Let's move on, I have absolutely no interest in losing any contributors, but deliberately misleading Posts have to stop or there will be consequences.
Thank you.
I've lost two puppies , don't need to lose another ... Woof.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
Same with @goldon Look at his last post on this thread. I always read his own thread. Don't agree with some of it. Don't understand more of it. But some posts are a pure joy. In a good way.
I like honest debate. With people who share my views, and people who disagree with them. That is what makes for good debate.
Take last night's Question Time. I nearly didn't watch it. Because I am not keen on Jess Phillips MP. And can't stand Isabel Oakeshott. 1 is quite far left. The other quite far right.
Before that programme, I had imagined that if you were to draw a Venn diagram to show their views, there would have been no overlap. If you asked people's opinions about the 2 of them, I would expect that the only overlap would be people hating everything both said. And, judging by their looks of both horror and amusement during the programme, so did they.
Because they agreed on most things. The need for Boris to go. Sympathy for the poor Tory trying to defend him. Why most workers should not be penalised for being unvaccinated, and why attempting to force people was usually wrong. The only disagreement they had was on NHS workers-even then it was a no and a not sure. Which made me think.
THIS;
What gets really frustrating is 1 person's total inability to listen to anyone else.
And it is exactly that-1 person. I don't agree with lots of things @VespaPX says. I'm equally sure that he would say exactly the same about me. But he reads what I have to say, and considers it. As do I. I'm sure most of the time he disagrees. That's absolutely fine. But it is not 100% of the time. Which is the point of debate.
So then you get a reply.
I’d doubt Mark calls his unvaxxed relatives or friends that.
That’s a media propaganda term.
You don't even play on the site but you want to give us advice on how to run the place.
I'm virtually redundant as a Moderator, not one other Poster deliberately causes us trouble. And yet here I am at 11.30pm on a Friday night trying to be fair to you.
Mate, give it a rest, now, & let's move on sensibly without any need for Moderation.
Here's how Forum Chat Bans will work.
They will be imposed without further notice.
Duration will vary -1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, permanent.
Let's not have to go there, right?
Having once failed to deport the unvaccinated 34-year-old from the country, Australia's conservative government is trying again, calling the tennis star a threat to public order who could spark 'civil unrest'. And again the tennis world no. 1 is fighting back, with a new federal court appeal scheduled for Sunday, the day before the Australian Open - and Djokovic's defence of his title - is scheduled to begin. The Serbian ace is back at a notorious Melbourne immigration detention facility after a few short-lived days of freedom following his first successful court appeal against the original decision to cancel his visa on January 5. Djokovic's presence in Australia 'may foster anti-vaccination sentiment', immigration minister Alex Hawke argued, justifying his use of broad executive powers to revoke the ace's visa. Not only could Djokovic encourage people to flout health rules, Hawke said, but his presence could lead to 'civil unrest'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10405405/Tennis-star-Novak-Djokovic-sent-notorious-immigration-detention-hotel.html
According to the latest PHS report, the Covid death rate has been consistently higher since December 4 in the double-jabbed compared to the unvaccinated - but much lower in the triple-jabbed.
The report defines a Covid death as "an individual who has tested positive by PCR for SARS-CoV-2 [the coronavirus which causes Covid] at any time point and has Covid-19 listed as an underlying or contributory cause of death on the death certificate".
In the final week of December, the death rate was 7.06 per 100,000 among the double-jabbed compared to 4.79 per 100,000 in the unvaccinated, and 0.21 per 100,000 in the triple-vaccinated.
In the week ending January 7, the hospitalisation rate was also twice as high in the double-jabbed compared to the unvaccinated - 130 admissions per 100,000 versus 59 per 100,000 - but fell to just 15 per 100,000 in the triple-jabbed.
The admissions data does not differentiate between patients in hospital 'because of' Covid and those who tested positive while being treated for other ailments, but PHS said the high hospitalisation rate for double-vaccinated individuals is being driven by increasing admissions among over-70s who are not yet boosted and whose immunity is waning.
It added: "In other age groups the rates remain lower for those with two doses compared to those with one dose or unvaccinated.
"This group of individuals aged 70-plus who have had two doses of vaccine but have not yet had a booster may include some very vulnerable individuals."
The hospitalisation was twice as high in the double-jabbed compared to the unvaccinated, but PHS said this was skewed by admissions in over-70s and was not being seen in younger age groups
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19845092.amp/
This week, Dr Steve James was propelled to the front line of the most toxic - and perhaps least 'Zen' - controversy of our age. He became an overnight hero of the global anti-vaxx movement after making critical remarks about vaccination to Health Secretary Sajid Javid during a tour of King's College Hospital. In a filmed exchange, Dr James told the politician that he was 'not happy' with new rules due to take effect in April that will require all patient-facing staff in the NHS to become fully vaccinated. His remarks contained a number of factual errors. But that didn't stop them going viral, clocking millions of views on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and delighting conspiracy-minded opponents of vaccination who have hitherto struggled to find qualified doctors who voice views they approve of.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10404275/The-odd-world-consultant-took-Sajid-Javid-task-mandatory-jabs-NHS-staff.html
DR MICHAEL MOSLEY: There are still about five million people in the UK who choose not to be vaccinated. Many seem convinced that they are not at risk or that 'natural' immunity will save them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10404159/DR-MICHAEL-MOSLEY-vaccine-immunity-better-natural-immunity.html
Let's look firstly at the NHS, and whether the current position on mandatory vaccination is correct.
It is clear from all the relevant statistics that being unvaccinated poses an additional risk for those people. It is also clear that being unvaccinated leads to some form of additional risk for those around them. But-different variants, different risks. It is also clear that, with Omicron, the additional risk in relation to people near unvaccinated people is far less than before. This should lead to a reevaluation in relation to the unvaccinated in the NHS.
There are roughly 1.4 million people employed by the NHS. Doing a massive range of different jobs. And dealing with a massive range of people with considerable variations on risk in relation to Covid. Saying all 1.4 million people need full vaccination seems to me to be mere virtue signalling. There should be more thought given to this IMO.
It would be easy to modify those rules. Particularly where an Employer employs1.4 million people. So-for example-you could restrict compulsory vaccination to certain Departments. For example, Covid wards, Intensive Care, Midwifery. I'm no expert in where the risk would be higher.
But surely it would be far easier to identify the 10% of NHS employees who pose the most additional risk to themselves/others. To target those people-not to be jabbed or fired. To be jabbed or moved. Because I am really uncomfortable in forcing people to do anything.
As for those employers who want to change Sick Pay for the unvaccinated? Despicable. The law needs to be changed to outlaw such practices.
Apparently, in Singapore they have to pay for their own covid related medical treatment.
I am not arguing in favour of either, but can see why some people may think that both cases are self inflicted.
I think the problem with trying to move unvaccinated staff to safer areas of hospitals, is that hospitals are populated by many older and more vulnerable patients.
It is clear that sacking unvaccinated staff will only exacerbate staff shortages, and affect the care that they will be able to provide.
Many people resent the unvaccinated, and think their excuses are bs.
I think that the people that are least able to justify remaining unvaccinated, are NHS staff.
"First do no harm".