Politics
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2452?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage
.
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
The UK Health Security Agency, which replaced Public Health England, rejected a freedom of information request for the document on the grounds that it intended to publish the minutes “in due course.”
The agency argued that it was in the public interest to withhold the information until it could be released in a “simultaneous, coordinated manner” and that disclosing the minutes before they were finalised could “result in a false impression of the contents of the meeting.” The decision is being appealed.
On 3 September the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said that it would not be recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds because although the health benefits of vaccination were “marginally greater than the potential known harms,” the margin of benefit was considered too small. The committee did not explain what factors its conclusion was based on, and neither the minutes nor the data behind the decision have been made public.
that will all come out when
the inquiry to the handling
of this whole affair is held.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 3:58PM, wolf3011 wrote:
Why shouldn't minutes from a medical body regarding a vaccine for children be made available immediately for the public unless they have something to hide?
I suggest you read your OP, that may give you a clue.
The definition of minutes from any meeting " Minutes, also known as minutes of meeting (abbreviation MoM), protocols or, informally, notes, are the instant written record of a meeting or hearing"... I think the key word is "instant"
Oct 9, 2021 -- 4:37PM, wolf3011 wrote:
Why would minutes " need to be finalised" when they are direct quotes of what is said and given the importance of these minutes over 1 month later, we are expected to believe they are still being typed up? The definition of minutes from any meeting " Minutes, also known as minutes of meeting (abbreviation MoM), protocols or, informally, notes, are the instant written record of a meeting or hearing"... I think the key word is "instant"
You may well think the key word is instant; which is more someone taking a note of what was being said. But the minutes have to be analysed to see if they were indeed a correct representation of what was said.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:07PM, Charlie wrote:
Or put simply, minutes are not minutes until they are approved.
Which bit of this don't you understand?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:12PM, wolf3011 wrote:
Given the crucial nature of the meeting, 5 weeks and counting isn't suspicious is it of publishing minutes when it could be done in less than 24 hours. Just face facts Charlie, you're determined to push the vaccine agenda at any cost even when supporting a political party you openly despise- there is no reason for minutes from a JCVI meeting not to be published after 5 weeks. You're floundering as usual and have only appeared once again to argue night is day due to the vaccine obsession you have and trying to win an online argument which you fail at continually.
Just face facts in that you don't understand what approving minutes means.
Again and again we are witness to centralization of information and knowledge instead of helping the populace coming to an 'INFORMED DECISION'
Just wrong
Only a hysterical idiot would argue the other side
correction : Only a hysterical idiot or a troll would argue the other side
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:17PM, wolf3011 wrote:
It doesn't take weeks to publish and approve minutes Charlie- just face facts you're a bored old troll just creating an argument for the hell of it once again
Hooray our little furry friend I was wondering how long it would take before you resorted to insults. I supposes you think that adds to your stance?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:18PM, clouded leopard wrote:
YEPcorrection : Only a hysterical idiot or a troll would argue the other side
Very well done, unfortunately it adds nothing to your argument apart from making you look foolish.
But on no account actually inform
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:21PM, clouded leopard wrote:
So coerce, intimidate, incentivize, threaten, bribe, cajole, force, scare, lie is ok on a daily basisBut on no account actually inform
Impressive, sums you up succinctly.
You offer nothing to the forum, if the thread was started by pp you wouldn't say a thing. I stand by my comments, a bored old troll.
In a decentralized world they would be immediate
In order to help people make 'immediate' judgement on such a pressing issue as a deadly virus that may kill their 15 year old
walofs
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:27PM, clouded leopard wrote:
What would be a reasonable timeframe to 'approve' such important minutes ?In a decentralized world they would be immediateIn order to help people make 'immediate' judgement on such a pressing issue as a deadly virus that may kill their 15 year oldwalofs
Perhaps important decisions take a while.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:30PM, wolf3011 wrote:
You can talk about furry friends all day Charlie, it's embarrassing you are defending a policy not to publish minutes from a health body discussing vaccines for kids just to try to troll yet another thread. The funniest thing about Charlie is half the time he doesn't even believe what he is arguing but argues it anyway if it is a poster he perceives as an adversary. " Perhaps important decisions take a while " to release minutes from a meeting that could be done next day- what can anyone say to that other than laugh at poor charlie.
Now you're a mind reader in saying: The funniest thing about Charlie is half the time he doesn't even believe what he is arguing, you could make a living out of that.
Perhaps important decisions take a while " to release minutes from a meeting that could be done next day- what can anyone say to that other than laugh at poor charlie. Perhaps they do our little furry friend.
How many pointers do people actually need ?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:36PM, wolf3011 wrote:
What time would you consider reasonable to release minutes- years or just enough time to make sure the vast majority of kids have been vaccinated?
Not my decision.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:38PM, clouded leopard wrote:
Just another dodgy matter to be filed in the massive folder of 'dodgy going ons since the start of this bullshine'How many pointers do people actually need ?
What other dodgy decisions are you referring to?
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:42PM, wolf3011 wrote:
Maybe you believe they shouldn't be released at all Charlie and we should just watch some new graphs produced by whitty forecasting a winter of health oblivion. A few lines held up in charts at 5 pm daily by professor Fergusons successor telling us anyone over the age of a foetus is doomed saying " they will keep us updated and we will show you all the data" will be enough for some people.
You're not very good at this clairvoyance.
Oct 9, 2021 -- 5:45PM, wolf3011 wrote:
Imagine how thick dave must be to think it takes over 5 weeks to publish minutes
Another insult, now you're back on form.
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.
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?
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.
"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.”
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.
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?
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.
and ^ whatever the procedure is the procedure for the reasons stated. You completely missed that because you didn't bother reading your own link.
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
I actually walked past a house months ago where hancocks face was on a wall with a wanted dead or alive message on it
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.
He doesn't even have to open his gob for us to realise what a little gobs*ite snivelling little weasel he is
ffs
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
what is he doing on a punting forum.
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?
Conversation has changed somewhat with a move to protecting children's school attendance and mitigating detriment to their education.
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
I don't think "the vaccine doesn't stop" is entirely true though.
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.
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.
