Another thread arguing about the value of vaccines (Ed.)

[Notch7]

This from the transcript

"scientific evidence experts say proves fully vaccinated people are protected two ways essentially vaccines block you from getting and giving the virus" ---infectious disease specialist dr monica gandhi
And

cdc director dr rachelle walinski our data from the cdc today suggests you know that that vaccinated people do not carry the virus don't get sick

Lets not forget this one "You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."

that was true based on the available data at the time and the variants the vaccine was based on

you keep on being wrong because you are desperate to prove something that is not true

No I am not claiming that at all--

you are literally claiming that the vaccine did not protect you -it did

here you are literally saying what you claim you didnt:

This was the official line that we were constantly told and yet a it turns out it did not "protect" you neither did it "protect" your family

it seems you do not understand the English language, have you considered evening classes?

 

[aveatry]

you are a disgusting liar

you said

that is a lie -the graphic shows 74% had the booster

the 3rd dose was still being rolled at the time of the graphic -ya muppet


the graphic only shows the state of the rollout at the time (it states Dec 2020 on it)................so its not showing the total % that got boosted, only how many had had it when the data was recorded

poor Aveatry always wrong

that is a lie -the graphic shows 74% had the booster

The booster is the 3rd shot not the 2nd shot you quote as 74% -that is part of the first shot that was given in 2 stages its was not the booster. The booster is the 3rd dose at 59.4% = My statement stands and is correct OVER 40% were not fully jabbed with a booster. Now read my post #426 about how unless you had the booster in some circumstances you were not considered "fully jabbed without the booster.

 

[aveatry]

Bullshiiiiiit.

So you consider anecdotal experience bullshiiiit do you ?

 

[JohnD]

...Most statements you will see about nurse uptake are based on quoting at least 1 jab - which is not considered as taking the vax. As soon as the threat of job loss was over they never got their second jab.
According to this from the RCN over 40% were not fully jabbed with a booster....

Nurse uptake, you said.

Not true

 

[JohnD]

You would of thought that trained professional nurses were not ignorant and yet 80,000 of them were 1 week away from being sacked for not taking the vax.

Not true

 

[aveatry]

you are literally claiming that the vaccine did not protect you -it did

here you are literally saying what you claim you didnt:

This was the official line that we were constantly told and yet a it turns out it did not "protect" you neither did it "protect" your family

The piece was saying - categorically "Protected" - it did not quantify that statement. What I said was that was not true you were not "protected" as the statement implied --- you will see that I put it in quote marks to indacate I was quoting the statement.

The college said it was critical that all nurses had a Covid vaccine so that they, their families and patients were protected,
This was the official line that we were constantly told and yet a it turns out it did not "protect" you neither did it "protect" your family

For clarity I accept that the vax helped protect you from catching covid - its a shame medics and Gov and scientist did not make that bit clear all the time. Its one of the reasons people were sceptical of the vax

 

[aveatry]

Not true

Correct - the figure of 80,000 was staff and not all staff are nurses. But to blanket it with "Not True" sounds like you are attempting to state that there were NO nurses without the full jab. Which is also not true. Depending of the source its between 52,000 and 60,000 that were not fully jabbed.
Do you want to go and google the correct number for nurses and put it straight. Or are you just.

 

[IT Minion]

Yes the 80,000 figure was for total NHS staff so the figure for nurses was slightly less.

Nurses make up roughly 350,000 roles in the NHS out of 1.5 million people. Do you have any reason to believe that they were less likely to be vaccinated than, for example, administrative staff who don't come into contact with patients?

If not then we can say that it's far less. Have the moral courage to accept when you got things wrong.

 

[Deleted member 265726]

Yawn

 

[IT Minion]

It is tedious, but it's important to get things right.

Avetry likes numbers, but he doesn't bother to check if they are true or not. Did he pull his latest 52,000 out of his arse or does he have a source? Since he didn't bother to even read his own one about the 80k figure, and then insisted it said something completely different, how can we trust his honesty or comprehension.

It's performative, Avetry thinks that scientists use numbers to prove their case, but just grabs numbers he likes without understanding them. It's a pattern you see wit AI tools where they can parrot intelligence but don't understand the concepts properly.

 

[JohnD]

Correct - the figure of 80,000 was staff and not all staff are nurses. But to blanket it with "Not True" sounds like you are attempting to state that there were NO nurses without the full jab.

No, I am stating that your original claim was false.

Which it was.

 

[aveatry]

Nurses make up roughly 350,000 roles in the NHS out of 1.5 million people. Do you have any reason to believe that they were less likely to be vaccinated than, for example, administrative staff who don't come into contact with patients?

If not then we can say that it's far less. Have the moral courage to accept when you got things wrong.

I think the phrase is "patient facing rolls" so not just "nurses" So I mistakenly said 80,000 Nurses when the 80,000 was NHS staff incl nurses. But then that does not include the 40,000 care workers who were not NHS that were going to loose their jobs because they were not fully vaxed.

 

[JohnD]

The piece was saying - categorically "Protected" - it did not quantify that statement. What I said was that was not true you were not "protected" as the statement implied --- you will see that I put it in quote marks to indacate I was quoting the statement.

For clarity I accept that the vax helped protect you from catching covid - its a shame medics and Gov and scientist did not make that bit clear all the time. Its one of the reasons people were sceptical of the vax

And also saved many people from death and serious illness.

Which was the most important point.

You seem very reluctant to admit the life-saving benefits of vaccination.

Which is protection.

 

[aveatry]

It is tedious, but it's important to get things right.

Avetry likes numbers, but he doesn't bother to check if they are true or not. Did he pull his latest 52,000 out of his arse or does he have a source?

It came out of channel 4s arse.
just over 52,000 are not thought to have a medical exemption, which means they’re at risk of losing their jobs in April if they don’t get vaccinated in the next fortnight.
That’s roughly 3.5 per cent of all staff who work with patients.

FactCheck: tens of thousands of NHS England staff face dismissal over compulsory vaccines

Health workers have until 3 February to get their first dose.

www.channel4.com

(who work with patients ) - are you going to argue the semantics about defining the word nurses for 100 pages.
And then you can add the 40,000 care home staff on top of that

 

[IT Minion]

I think the phrase is "patient facing rolls" so not just "nurses" So I mistakenly said 80,000 Nurses when the 80,000 was NHS staff incl nurses. But then that does not include the 40,000 care workers who were not NHS that were going to loose their jobs because they were not fully vaxed.

No, that 80k included non-patient facing roles. It's in the bloody article you quoted.