Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 78
By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 17:48
He is the king of forum strawmanning
By:
Charlie
When: 09 Oct 21 17:49

Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:48PM, dave1357 wrote:


I did insult him to be fair, but note how he quickly slips into strawman mode.


I find him good fun, he makes me laugh, long may he continue to post.

By:
Charlie
When: 09 Oct 21 17:50
He needs some new insults though as they are becoming a tad repetitive.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 17:54
A thread highlighting the lack of transparency of government data has Charlie and dave not discussing that at all but conducting an online cyber romance...poor sods, no wonder this place is dead.
By:
Charlie
When: 09 Oct 21 17:58

Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:54PM, wolf3011 wrote:


A thread highlighting the lack of transparency of government data has Charlie and dave not discussing that at all but conducting an online cyber romance...poor sods, no wonder this place is dead.


Next thing you know you'll be supporting Doris. Surely you've never done that?

By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 18:04
wolf3011 • October 9, 2021 5:45 PM BST
Imagine how thick dave must be to think it takes over 5 weeks to publish minutes



from wolf's link

the committee’s own policy stating that draft minutes would be published within six weeks of each meeting

The irony being that there isn't a problem with the minutes he is screaming and shouting about, but apparently previous minutes.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:08
No idea what you are dribbling on about dave, perhaps you missed the part which says

"In a letter dated 5 October academics from Independent SAGE wrote to the JCVI highlighting the fact that, despite the committee’s own policy stating that draft minutes would be published within six weeks of each meeting, the last publicly available minutes were from February 2021.

They urged the JCVI to “abide by its code of practice and be open and transparent through rapid publishing of all agendas, supporting papers and minutes,” arguing that “public confidence in vaccination programmes is assisted by clear and consistent processes and messaging.”
By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 18:17
Of course I read that, you imbecile.  I quoted from it.  The policy is to publish minutes within six weeks.  The meeting you refer to was not six weeks ago, so the minutes aren't due yet.  Charlie told you that you were an ignoramus in this regard, but as usual you ploughed on and still carry on regardless.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:20
Keep hiding behind your bf soft lad- the fact you think that kids are being vaccinated before any clear publication from a health body which recommended against is made public shows you up to be the thick retard we all know you are. I haven't stopped laughing at your pension thread btw
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:22
Why do you think Sage have felt it necessary to write to the jcvi if they were being transparent " urging them to be fully transparent" if there are no issues you thick b*stard?
By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 18:24
You are a desperate human being, ignorant and bigoted. You've never had a decent job, or any academic achievement, it all shows.  Instead of doing anything to improve your life, you spend time on the internet trying to get some approval from other pathetic losers.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:26
As I asked and will again, Why do you think Sage have felt it necessary to write to the jcvi if they were being transparent " urging them to be fully transparent" if there are no issues you thick b*stard?
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:28
Just admit what you are dave, a dosser that probably still lives with parents with special needs and a likely restraining order from women locally
By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 18:28
nice projection there
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:28

Oct 9, 2021 -- 6:24PM, dave1357 wrote:


You are a desperate human being, ignorant and bigoted. You've never had a decent job, or any academic achievement, it all shows.

By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:29
As for approval of others, I'm not the one with a tongue lodged up Charlies backside
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:29
For a third and final time Dave

Why do you think Sage have felt it necessary to write to the jcvi if they were being transparent " urging them to be fully transparent" if there are no issues you thick b*stard?
By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 18:36
Your quote from OP

The government has refused to release the minutes of the meeting in which its vaccine advisory committee decided not to recommend vaccinating all 12-15 year olds against covid-19.1

This meeting was early September and the committee’s own policy stating that draft minutes would be published within six weeks of each meeting

Whether there are issues about other minutes is another matter - the minutes that you, in about ten different ways, claim should have been published already and due to your utter ignorance of normal systems and controls insisted were late are not yet due.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:39
You still haven't answered as to why the JCVI have been written to who have clearly broken their 6 week rule updating  previous minutes lists. Whether there are issues with other minutes is not " another matter", it should be open with the public at all times not be written to in order to fulfil their pledge for basic transparency. Any parent wanting to make an informed decision on vaccination for their kids should have full access to all minutes
By:
SontaranStratagem
When: 09 Oct 21 18:41
The government are now well past the nuremburg code, they jumped over that fence 2 years ago, but now they are well and truly down the other side of the mountain
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:44
That's leaving aside the basic premise that given the importance of such minutes, any minutes should not be delayed for 6 weeks whilst vaccinations for kids are occurring. The fact you are too ignorant to separate " normal systems/ protocol " from an unprecedented vaccination programme for kids where a full publication of minutes to make informed decisions for parents which may literally involve life or death decisions is embarrassing even for a numbskull like you Dave
By:
dave1357
When: 09 Oct 21 18:50
^^I don't have to answer anything you mug, your entire post was about the committee not publishing minutes that aren't due yet. You didn't mention previous meetings in your post. Only the most recent meeting, and when you were told that they are probably not due yet you exploded into an ignorant rant showing that you have never had a job anywhere other than at a menial level.

and ^ whatever the procedure is the procedure for the reasons stated. You completely missed that because you didn't bother reading your own link.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:58
You can't answer it, you are just dribbling gibberish as usual Dave. Ignore the fact that the JCVI haven't kept to their 6 week promise and pretend it is irrelevant.. if the minutes aren't produced in the next couple of weeks you will look even more ridiculous than you do presently. They have already been written to ignoring the 6 week rule yet you think it is reasonable to vaccinate kids with no access to minutes from an organisation which hasn't recommended it.... using a 6 week time frame they have repeatedly ignored lol to fully explain why. The reasons being from you are " normal protocol " when in the last 18 months we were told covid is so dangerous, make sure you walk your dog in an isolated area with police drones following people in deserted moorland. What an absurd poster you are
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 18:59

Oct 9, 2021 -- 6:53PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:


I can't wait until we get our hands on the likes of Handcock and co, give them such a fooking hiding they wont know if its christmas or pancake day the little bas*ards


Grin I actually walked past a house months ago where hancocks face was on a wall with a  wanted dead or alive message on it

By:
potlis
When: 09 Oct 21 19:00
WND
Moderna COVID shot halted for all ages in Iceland
Follows pause by Sweden, Denmark, Finland for younger people

Art Moore    By Art Moore
Published October 8, 2021 at 2:42pm


After three Nordic nations halted the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger people, Iceland's health ministry announced Friday it will stop administering the shot to everyone.

Iceland's chief epidemiologist said the Moderna vaccine will not be used while further information is obtained on its safety, reported the Icelandic online newspaper Vísir.is.


The government's announcement cited data from the Nordic countries on the increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination with the Moderna vaccine. For the past two months, the Moderna vaccine has been used in Iceland almost exclusively as a booster shot, a third dose.

Earlier this week, Sweden and Finland announced a halt to the Moderna messenger RNA vaccine for people under 30, citing the concern about heart inflammation. Demark said it will not give Moderna shots to those under 18.



Iceland, along with Norway, is recommending that the Pfizer shot, which also uses the mRNA technology, be used instead.

However, last month, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel voted 16-2 vote against recommending Pfizer booster shots for those from ages 16 to 65, citing indications of an increased risk of myocarditis.


On Thursday, nevertheless, Pfizer asked the Food and Drug Administration for emergency authorization to administer its vaccine to children ages 5 to 11.

WND reported Wednesday three Pfizer scientists were captured on hidden camera in the latest Project Veritas investigation acknowledging that natural immunity is superior to the company's vaccine. Pfizer scientist Rahul Khanke said employees are "bred and taught" to insist that the "vaccine is safer than actually getting COVID." He said "we cannot talk about this" in
Moderna has asked the FDA for permission to use its vaccine in 12- to 17-year-olds. It's also studying its shots in elementary school children.

Both Pfizer and Moderna are studying even younger children, down to 6 months. They anticipate results later this year.

The main difference between the two vaccines is that Moderna's contains 100 micrograms of vaccine, which is more than three times the 30 micrograms in the Pfizer shot. Pfizer's two doses are given three weeks apart, while Moderna's has a four-week gap.


By:
SontaranStratagem
When: 09 Oct 21 19:03
Everytime I see Handcock I'm utterly amazed at the absolute stupidity of the "voters", people actually voted for that little c*nt

He doesn't even have to open his gob for us to realise what a little gobs*ite snivelling little weasel he is

ffs
By:
SontaranStratagem
When: 09 Oct 21 19:08
https://youtu.be/KslXveK-qw8

Like for instance this, there's just something really sad and pitiful about him here, like a child in a mans lifeless body its truly strange and odd, something really off about him Plain
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 19:12
They all need holding to account- stooges like Dave don't question anything and talk about " protocol " set by clowns like Hancock. These sock puppets would vaccinate their pet cats if they were told to
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 19:15
lol yep, are you watching the boxing later?
By:
SontaranStratagem
When: 09 Oct 21 19:15
Yes, late one mind 5am
By:
leif
When: 09 Oct 21 19:54
Davenumbers is an academician then?

Plain

what is he doing on a punting forum.
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 09 Oct 21 20:18
nothing to do with discussion on unknown risks medium/long term for a group that doesn't need the jab


Asked this several times now, but this place seems as good a bet as any of finally getting an answer.

What's the study that proves there's no medium/long term risk to kids from catching the virus?
By:
leif
When: 09 Oct 21 20:26
Must have gone with chinese data because it seems the mad scientists were stating that the young, unless immune compromised, were statiscally at a very low rate of harm from the Rona.

Conversation has changed somewhat with a move to protecting children's school attendance and mitigating detriment to their education.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 20:28

Oct 9, 2021 -- 8:18PM, PorcupineorPineapple wrote:


nothing to do with discussion on unknown risks medium/long term for a group that doesn't need the jab Asked this several times now, but this place seems as good a bet as any of finally getting an answer.What's the study that proves there's no medium/long term risk to kids from catching the virus?


There aren't any medium/ long term studies done on the risks of covid to kids, but as the vaccine doesn't stop kids getting it then it's a moot point

By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 09 Oct 21 21:24
Fair point.



I don't think "the vaccine doesn't stop" is entirely true though.
By:
wolf3011
When: 09 Oct 21 21:39
It apparently reduces chances of getting covid but even if it does, virtually everyone will get it anyway. If we were lay betting an event happening, lay betting a 10-1 shot is a reduced chance of it coming in ( getting covid) than a 2-1 chance but if you were continually betting ( kid being exposed to covid at school etc) it would only delay the inevitable.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 10 Oct 21 09:47
Direct impact on hospitalisations
The number of hospitalisations averted by vaccination, can be estimated by considering vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation, vaccine coverage and observed hospitalisations and through modelling using a range of parameters.
PHE estimates to 8 August 2021 based on the direct effect of vaccination and vaccine coverage rates, are that around 82,100 hospitalisations have been prevented in those aged 65 years and over in England (approximately 17,400 admissions in those aged 65 to 74, 30,500 in those aged 75 to 84, and 34,200 in those aged 85 and over) as a result of the vaccination programme (Figure 4). There is increasing evidence that vaccines prevent infection and transmission. The indirect effects of the vaccination programme will not be incorporated in this analysis, therefore the figure of 82,100 hospitalisations averted is likely to be an underestimate.
Please note this analysis will be updated every 2 weeks.


Only 82000 hospitalisations avoided by the so-called fake vaccines. Real figures. Real evidence. Not drivel hidden under the fake moon landing idiots’ dream world.
By:
cryoftruth
When: 10 Oct 21 09:55
The work presented in this section is joint work completed by PHE and Cambridge University’s MRC Biostatistics Unit.
Estimates suggest that 105,900 deaths and 24,088,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, up to 20 August.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1013553/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_34.pdf

Oh dear 105,900 deaths prevented by the fake and imaginary vaccines as well! Can this really be true or are drivelling Trump supporters like timbucktooth who spread utter bilge on a betting forum really know more than professors of medicine and experts in vaccines? I suspect we really know the truth. And the balance is against the betting forum drivelling divots.


But wait for the defence.

Here it comes……

But of course these are “not real vaccines” and Instead some sort of GM experiment funded by Bill Gates and George Sauros, and “they” are making the figures up to prevent us focusing on the paedophile conspiracy led by the enemies of Donald Trump.
By:
wolf3011
When: 10 Oct 21 11:27
and none of those will be kids which is what the thread is discussing dimwit
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com