Covid: Wales' First Minister Mark Drakeford tests positive

"He is self-isolating and working remotely", he added. Be no need for that the End of the month be back to those with a cold getting on with life like it used to be .

He won't be able to visit his rapist son in prison now. It's just not fair.

Vaccinations don't stop you catching Covid. I am not sure how many times the OP has to be told this

It's not a vaccine then is it.


Vaccine noun
any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production.

Well done Frog for not calling those jabs a vaccine. Leave that to Lara and the other fake profiles.

PP in a desperate staTE HAD 40 hazmat SUITS ON ORDER

not to worry fourth jab available soon hopefully

PP will be queuing already. He's used to feeling a little prick.

Full video here all the claims vaccines stop transmission...

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1475894052113588231?s=20&t=snNjM2dTpBe3OcDPqRTTxQ

Fauci, Biden, Gates, Liberal media all claimed this.

They don't. How many times do you have to be told the same thing?

One thing that they certainly do is help prevent the illness becoming very serious and hopefully save you life.

They don't. How many times do you have to be told the same thing?   --- None, he didn't have a non vaccine jab Lara.

OP is a fool and continually posts half truths and "news" that he tries to twist as some sort of justification for his idiotic beliefs, but as far as the vaccine's initial hype is concerned, he is correct.  The vaccine trials claimed eg 90% protection from getting the disease.  There was no mention about the waning of immunity after a few months.  That said, he and the rest of the antivax filth that pollute this forum, should shut their mouths about the subject, unless they wish to thank the vast majority of this country's people who got vaccinated and took the pressure of the hospitals, allowing them to carry out their normal functions.

They lied,it was never 90% protection.

"Drakeford tests positive" certainly not for having a personality ,dour fecker...........now if someone said he had been partying

^^you typed some nonsense about this before, probably confusing the maths of false positives with the maths of vaccine trials.

No Dave, you didn't understand the maths. Print your maths again and I'll explain to you.

Print the maths Dave and I will enlighten you.

"One thing that they certainly do is help prevent the illness becoming very serious and hopefully save you life. "

ok so why is it anyone else's business whether you get jabbed or not?

"One thing that they certainly do is help prevent the illness becoming very serious and hopefully save you life. "  - - This is an assumption as well. It certainly can be shown how much it helped prevent the worsening of symptoms and whether or not they made things worse in the long run. It didn't help Israel much.

The maths of vaccine trials is risibly simple.  You give x1000 people the vaccine and a x1000 people the placebo and wait.  After x people have caught the virus you unblind and check how many of the infected were vaxxed and placebo.  If 100 were placebo and 10 were vaxxed, it is assuming the populations were homogenous, correct to say the vaccine is 90% effective.

So you not going to print the maths Dave. Never mind, I'll try with you anyway. The numbers are irrelevant if the bias from sample selection is not statistically removed. They will not disclose those numbers and apparently trying not to for 75 years. Nobody knows (definitely not you) if those trials had any bias.   It happens all the time here is an example from cancer drug trials.

In 2018, HAI co-funded a study investigating the risk of bias in cancer drug trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to inform the approval of the drugs for public use (Naci et al: 2019). The study found that half of cancer drug approvals between 2014 and 2016 were based on potentially biased clinical trial data.

So we don't have maths, just a conspiracy theory?

I said  it is assuming the populations were homogenous, correct to say the vaccine is 90% effective. that is correct. If you can't work out why I said you're a thicko.  hth

You're blocked, you aren't going to waste my time again like that.

Look Dave you can deflect with than nonsense all day, I don't care. If you don't understand statistical bias in sample populations you shouldn't be posting stats. Your daft comment about assuming the population was homogeneous is irrelevant. You posted numbers in you previous posts and said they proved it was 90% effective and then referred  to them when you said -- typed some nonsense about this before, probably confusing the maths of false positives with the maths of vaccine trials.--. I explained quite clearly why the maths is suspect.

There is no conspiracy, no one in their right mind thinks the vaccine is 90% effective, it clearly isn't.

Have some class and realise your mistake you numpty.

And I am blocked because you made a tw@t of yourself.

Someone cut and paste my response for Dave. I don't want him to live in ignorance.

The initial tests did not claim that the vaccine would stop 90% of people from catching  Covid but that it would stop you developing the symptoms , or the full range of symptoms
You will obviously have a possibility of a slight cough or sniffle or be asymptomatic - right through the range to full covid
It was thought to stop 90% from getting full life threatening Covid

They didn’t know at the time if the vaccine would stop you spreading the vaccine
Just from developing symptoms

Dave doesn’t know what he’s taking about , because he has  misunderstood what was said about the initial tests

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Dave doesn’t know what he’s taking about ---  You could have stopped there Ifc.

eyeball no point in posting that - truehoncho thinks 43k people who were randomly assigned placebo and vax were deliberately biased by Pfizer.

because he doesn't understand maths, only conspiracy theories.

There are obviously different levels of civid , different strains and different levels of different strains and different levels of the same strain that can be caught
There are also different people , different types of people , different ages , different levels of fitness, different genes etc etc

because he doesn't understand maths, only conspiracy theories.  -- I'm just not a gullible idiot. Again:

In 2018, HAI co-funded a study investigating the risk of bias in cancer drug trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to inform the approval of the drugs for public use (Naci et al: 2019). The study found that half of cancer drug approvals between 2014 and 2016 were based on potentially biased clinical trial data.

Regarding eyeballs link (at least he bothered to post some evidence Dave, not just make a idiot of himself like you), there are plenty of questions and its not conclusive:

Questionable results are reported in Table 3. In each trial group, the sum of the number of cases across age groups (9 in the vaccine group and 186 in the placebo group) does not equal the overall number of cases (8 and 162, respectively).

Polack et al. may have erroneously concluded that the differences in the absolute numbers of severe Covid-19 cases between the vaccine group and the placebo group provide preliminary evidence of protection against the development of severe Covid-19 illness. The percentage of Covid-19–positive patients in whom severe illness developed was 5.6% (9 of 162 patients) in the placebo group and 12.5% (1 of 8 patients) in the vaccine group — a difference of 6.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 7.6) (P

Dave Numbers and the rest of the pincushions have the hump now that the Russian has said it's BAU from the end of Feb.

Yammer awash with civil service bods sh1tt1ng their knickers with having to go back to the osssifices

Stretch elastic waistbands for those who've worked too close to the biscuit barrel and hid under the duvets for two years methinks.

The study I posted above concludes that Pfizer's vaccine protects against covid 19.

"A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older."

The vaccine does not induce "sterilizing" immunity.

Sterilizing immunity is the best-case scenario for a COVID-19 vaccine and something that is not altogether unimaginable. The vaccines developed for human papillomavirus (HPV), for instance, provide this level of immune protection.3 The difference, of course, is that HPV is not transmitted via respiratory droplets, and therein lies the central challenge for COVID-19 vaccine developers.

When COVID-19 infection occurs, the virus attaches to a protein called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) that proliferate in both the upper respiratory tract and lower respiratory tract. This provides the virus the means to hook onto these respiratory tissues and cells and establish an infection.4

Although the current vaccine candidates have demonstrated the ability the reduce symptoms and the number of viruses in the lower respiratory tract, there is as of yet no evidence of sterilizing immunity in the upper respiratory tract.5

https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterilizing-immunity-5092148#:~:text=For%20sterilizing%20immunity%20to%20be,causing%20organism%20like%20a%20virus.

The vaccine will NOT protect you from infection.

It will help you avoid being seriously ill. It can't 100% stop you from catching the virus.

Questionable results are reported in Table 3. In each trial group, the sum of the number of cases across age groups (9 in the vaccine group and 186 in the placebo group) does not equal the overall number of cases (8 and 162, respectively).

If it says

overall = 8
16 to 55 = 5
greater than 55 = 3
greater or equal than 65 = 1

Then indeed the age split makes it 9. However someone who is older than 55 can also be in the older or equal 65 group. I.e the one person in the older or equal 65 group will be listed in the older than 55 group.

Same story with the placebo group. There it's 162 overall. That is split into 114 for the 16 to 55 year olds and 48 in the older than 55 group. 114 + 48 = 162. Out of the 48 you then have 19 and 5 in the older groups. It's not an optimal way to list things, but it's also not that terribly hard to see and understand what's behind that apparent discrepancy.

How can anybody believe that a vaccine can somehow prevent an airborne  virus from ever going up your nose ?
What it can do however , is greatly reduce the chances of you becoming very sick or dying when the virus does go up your nose.

Seems obvious now JTG but what you stated above was called 'anti-vax' and a conspiracy theory a few short months ago.

It still is in other countries.

It blows apart the need for vaccine passports. No logic to them now.

Feb 11, 2022 -- 10:16AM, frog1000 wrote:

Seems obvious now JTG but what you stated above was called 'anti-vax' and a conspiracy theory a few short months ago.It still is in other countries.It blows apart the need for vaccine passports. No logic to them now.

Total nonsense.

yes probably best if he went back to not being able to reply

History being rewritten.

Just 8-10 months ago the US was discussing their surprise at 'breakthrough cases' - i.e. vaccinated people getting infected.

Remember before that the CDC told vaccinated people they could stop wearing masks but unvaccinated had to keep them on.

The strong suggestion was by getting vaccinated you could not spread Covid.

Why are people pretending that we were never told to get vaccinated to protect yourself and your friends and family and it was selfish not to?

Maybe you should move to the US if that's where you get all your conspiracy theory stories from?

Full video here all the claims vaccines stop transmission...

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1475894052113588231?s=20&t=snNjM2dTpBe3OcDPqRTTxQ

Fauci, Biden, Gates, Liberal media all claimed this.

Now history is being rewritten.

Clay Travis twitter account? Would that be the same Clay Travis USA conspiracy theorist?

Travis has attracted harsh criticism for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. Travis has repeatedly downplayed the severity of the disease, calling it "overrated", claiming that it is less severe than the seasonal flu, that fewer than several hundred would die of the disease in the US, that victims of the disease probably have been "killed a month or two earlier" than they would have been otherwise, and stated that the mortality rate for those under 80 and without pre-existing conditions is "virtually zero". He suggested that some advocates for mitigation measures to slow the spread were "rooting for the virus to triumph".

If that is the kinds of conspiracy theorist folks you follow and believe in, you need help.

Feb 11, 2022 -- 10:16AM, frog1000 wrote:

Seems obvious now JTG but what you stated above was called 'anti-vax' and a conspiracy theory a few short months ago.It still is in other countries.It blows apart the need for vaccine passports. No logic to them now.

An utter crock of sh!t. It was well advertised and known that vaccines only job was to stop it turning into a life threatening disease for most people. You're at the stage of the argument where you're just making things up.

I'm not a virologist, but if being vaccinated means your body 'zaps' the virus quicker than an unvaccinated person and you therefore carry the virus around with you for a shorter period, then it appears reasonable to me that you are less likely to transmit the virus to other people.

I've not read anything definitive that disproves this theory.

Hey frog, I am glad you are able to reply to threads again. What did you end up doing to enable you to do so again?

"How can anybody believe that a vaccine can somehow prevent an airborne  virus from ever going up your nose ?"

it doesn't stop the virus particles entering your body, but was supposed to stop those virus particles causing an infection

Feb 11, 2022 -- 12:17PM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:

I'm not a virologist, but if being vaccinated means your body 'zaps' the virus quicker than an unvaccinated person and you therefore carry the virus around with you for a shorter period, then it appears reasonable to me that you are less likely to transmit the virus to other people.I've not read anything definitive that disproves this theory.

In early 2021 this was the claim JTG. There was an early study saying having Pfizer had 94% effectiveness against asymptomatic transmission of Covid.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-vaccine-shows-94-effectiveness-asymptomatic-transmission-covid/story?id=76389615

Back then we had Biden and Fauci and Boris and Hancock telling us to get the vaccine to stop us giving it to others.

Since then history has been rewritten. Now being told it was to stop deaths and going to the hospital.

I'm not a virologist, but if being vaccinated means your body 'zaps' the virus quicker than an unvaccinated person and you therefore carry the virus around with you for a shorter period, then it appears reasonable to me that you are less likely to transmit the virus to other people.


you are taking an approach to this which is too simplistic

in order for a strategy of "mass vaccination to suppress case numbers" to work, the vaccine needs to provide a certian amount of protecion

1% protetcion is not enough

50% is not enough etc.

You and others continue to miss the point, because you have to of course . if you acknowledged the point it renders your arguments of 18 months worthless.

We underwent a mass vaccination policy to reduce sickness and death (not cases) . This works in two ways :-

- far and away the main benefit  of vaccination - it directly protects the recipient by reducing their own chances of becoming seriously ill or dying.

- a secondary indirect benefit of vaccination - it appears to reduce the chances of you passing on the virus onto somebody else as explained in my 12.17 post above.

"We underwent a mass vaccination policy to reduce sickness and death (not cases) "

wrong

after two years you still don't get it johnny, you're still on page one

Whitty wants young people vaxxed to keep case numbers down

the media and SAGE etc have played up the risk covid poses to young people in order to get them vaxxed

"- a secondary indirect benefit of vaccination - it appears to reduce the chances of you passing on the virus onto somebody else as explained in my 12.17 post above. "

yes mate we're vaccinating 5 year olds to prevent serious illness

As I said you can't acknowledge the point.
Young people were advised to get vaccinated so less of them would become sick and less of them would die. It isn't complicated.
Any transmissibility reduction is a bonus.

hospitals are snowed under with unvaxxed 5 year olds

"Young people were advised to get vaccinated so less of them would become sick and less of them would die. It isn't complicated. Any transmissibility reduction is a bonus. "

lol

wrong wrong wrong

Ireland

Age profile of deaths to 8 February

Age     Deaths

0–24     8(0.13%)

25–34     21(0.33%)

35–44     54(0.86%)

45–54     167(2.65%)

55–64     405(6.44%)

65–74     1,066(16.94%)

75–84     2,085(33.14%)

85+     2,480(39.42%)

in two years eight people under the age of 25 have died in Ireland

"It isn't complicated. "

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-resources-for-children-and-young-people/covid-19-vaccination-a-guide-for-eligible-children-and-young-people-aged-12-to-17
.

There you go crystal clear. No mention of transmissibility at all. It reduces the chance of the young person getting sick.

"Young people were advised to get vaccinated so less of them would become sick and less of them would die."

why would the giovernment care about reducing such a tiny number of hospitalisations and deaths?

why would there 24/7 effort in the media to push this if it wasn't about case numbers?

You've missed the point for 18 months you aren't going to see the light now.

Good job for you this is over - you can soon stop obsessing.

johnny

why isn't there a push to get kids vaccinated against the flu every year?

has Joe Biden ever addressed the nation and told young people it is their patriotic duty to get a  flu jab?

why would the giovernment care about reducing such a tiny number of hospitalisations and deaths?

You really have to ask that question ?

why is Spain insisting that all tourists above teh age of 12 are vaccinated?

is it because they are worried Spanish hospitals will be swamped with sick British teenagers?

yes johnny

they dont worry about other diseases that kill more youngsters than covid does

why is covid receiving so much attention?

"You've missed the point for 18 months you aren't going to see the light now."

Johny you'll go to your grave still not undersatnding what went on with covid

why were NHS staff fired for not being vaccinated?

what is the logic behind covid passports?

"No mention of transmissibility at all. "

probbaly because they no longer have any confidence in how much it actually redcues infection, and dont want to look stupid when the kid gets covid

On balance however, UK CMOs judge that it is likely vaccination will help reduce transmission of COVID-19 in schools which are attended by children and young people aged 12 to 15 years. COVID-19 is a disease which can be very effectively transmitted by mass spreading events, especially with Delta variant. Having a significant proportion of pupils vaccinated is likely to reduce the probability of such events which are likely to cause local outbreaks in, or associated with, schools. They will also reduce the chance an individual child gets COVID-19. This means vaccination is likely to reduce (but not eliminate) education disruption

johnny

why is California insisting all kids at public schools are vaccinated?

Reducing transmission is what they used to leverage the widespread vaccination (coercion) of kids to be vaccinated.

As we know, they subsequently went on to stiff them with enforced masking all day anyway.

SAGE etc clearly made a strategic decision that vaccinating kids would have a net postive effect ion overall case numbers

once you realise that, you need to take everything they say about the risk it poses to kids with a pinch of salt

Aaaah , so the ONS numbers that vaccination reduces hospitalisation and death numbers in young people was all false was it ? Or are the numbers true ?

If they are true then why wouldn't young people or the parents of young people want them to be vaccinated just on the back of these numbers alone  ?

johnny

California vaccine mandate for schoolkids

why

"If they are true then why wouldn't young people or the parents of young people want them to be vaccinated just on the back of these numbers alone  ? "

same reason most don't vaccinate kids against flu

Either they reduce hospitalisations and death in young people or they don't ?

If they do, then it is perfectly logical for those young people to wish to be vaccinated.

If you can't or won't understand that basic fact then nothing I can say will change your mind.

Aaaah , so the ONS numbers that vaccination reduces hospitalisation and death numbers in young people was all false was it ? Or are the numbers true ?

If they are true then why wouldn't young people or the parents of young people want them to be vaccinated just on the back of these numbers alone  ?

The reason why they went for vaccinating kids was to reduce transmission. You wrote There you go crystal clear. No mention of transmissibility at all. It reduces the chance of the young person getting sick.

So, you are wrong.

johnny can you answer my question about california please

Desperate times for the Pin Cushions among us ..

In reality this is how it works. The blob make a decision and the reach for evidence to back it up. It's the opposite of evidence based decision making.

They decided they wanted to vaccinate everyone, then they try to justify it.

"If they do, then it is perfectly logical for those young people to wish to be vaccinated.

If you can't or won't understand that basic fact then nothing I can say will change your mind. "

why don't they also get vaccainted against flu, which poses a greater risk to their health?

"The blob make a decision and the reach for evidence to back it up. It's the opposite of evidence based decision making."

yes it has been like this with everything, since day one