I received an email this morning from David Livermore, Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia, about the Government’s latest ad (see above). Apart from the inadvertent admission that ‘pinging’ is a woefully inefficient way of interrupting the chain of transmission, it’s breathtakingly illiterate. The drudge working for 23Red or Freuds, or whichever agency the Government has paid hundreds of millions of pounds to write its propaganda, has no idea how to use the simple comma. Prof Livermore queries one of them, but by my reckoning the commas after “virus”, “every day”, “need” and “together” are all superfluous. I would make a crack about the copywriter lacking a good GCSE pass in English, but, alas, you can get a First in English at Oxford these days and still be semi-literate.
Dear Toby,
Did you see this Govt advert… torn (rather badly) from Friday’s D Tel, and doubtless published elsewhere too?
Put aside the peculiar use of the royal “we”, the slippery “up to” and the redundant comma after “need”.
It’s the rare candour that matters.
First, the Govt is paying to say en claire that “Even if we have been vaccinated, we can still get the virus and pass it on”. That one sentence, which is supported by mounting evidence, demolishes their whole argument for Vaccine Passports.
Second, the “up to 2,000 new infections per day” sounds a lot until one sets it against the current daily tally of c. 30,000-35,000 positives by PCR and the fact that the App pinged around 600,000 souls in July, or an average of just under 20,000 per day.
Taking the upper limit of “2000 cases per day” therefore suggests that the App prevents far fewer than 10% of cases and that a maximum of 10% of those pinged are actually infected. Counterwise, 90% of cases are not forewarned by the App and 90% of those pinged are inconvenienced or frightened when they are not infected
Such figures would ordinarily lead any developer to conclude ‘Not fit for purpose’ and it is rare to see a ‘vendor’ damn their own product so comprehensively in so few of their own words. Gerald Ratner famously did it in the 1980s, describing a sherry decanter that his eponymous company was selling for £4.95 as “Total crap”. Which it doubtless was. But, at least he hadn’t developed the wretched thing using £22 billion of our money and didn’t have the temerity to suggest it was our moral duty to start using it.
Best,
David
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
No-one need be ‘pinged’ by the app as one does not have to download it. You won’t be finding it on my phone, for example. I assume that those who have downloaded it actively wish to be ‘pinged’ as it then allows them to relax at home rather than going to work. The app is clearly acting as a barrier to the government’s desire to get people back to the office and the country functioning normally again. It is a menace and should be switched off at once.
Not only do I not have the app, I’ve also blocked the NHS number they use 0300 0135000 and I suggest others block it as well. Last year I had a call from this number (before I blocked it) asking why I hadn’t had the so called vaccine. No problems now.
Don’t just block the track and treason phone numbers, block your local council’s phone number range too as track and treason calls can also come from local teams operating at council phone numbers.
I don’t block any Gov phone number. I named it [these names are glorious] in the thing and I let the thing make some noise for less than a minute (that’s the rule).
Or we can associated any number to “no tone”.
I do not open a SMS from any “unknown” number because opening a SMS returns a bit showimg there is a live being on the other end.
+1
Returning to functioning normally would defeat the whole purpose of the Covid scam. We won’t be going down the normality road without one hell of a fight.
It takes a special kind of person to willingly download such an intrusive App and which then subjects them to state intrusion and digital shackles.
Glad I have a non-Google dumb phone.
Quite right. Interesting how the direction of traffic for these things has changed from the individual using them to communicate outwards and receive wanted inbound stuff, to the individual now being the target of anything from scams to Government intrusions, including the NHS, GCHQ’s newest offshoot.
No doubt the day will come when not being in possession of a “smartphone” loaded with Government-approved or mandated apps will be as big an offence as not having a vaccine passport, or refusing to show one to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
I have none of these things, nor will I ever. I have no intention of ever being part of the beast system. I’ll fight every step of the way. I’d rather die standing on my feet than living on my knees for the rest of my life.
No need to die or sacrifice. Ten years ago I bought an Apple smartphone because of its camera. In less than six (6) months I turned it to function as my Notebook and Camera.
I removed the chip and put it on an old Nokia stupidphone. I live in peace.
“I have your back”
There seems to be lots of gullible numb nuts lazy bastards about. Nothing special about those half wits.
I believe they are called MORONS!
Our so called leaders are not “fit for purpose”.
Amen to that. I assume that it’s your middle finger with the ache?
Anyone dumb enough to use this app deserves everything they get.
Last time I looked you protect those you love by earning your salary and by not handing their details over to state tracing teams. And given they probably chose to be vaccinated if they’re vulnerable its not like the spread of covid is any real threat to them anyway, certainly less so than regular flu.
Who would publish an advert in a national newspaper without having it proofread first?
This seems sadly typical of the Government’s shambolic approach throughout the pandemic.
Frankly by not proof reading their ads shows a definite lack of attention to detail.
First, the Govt is paying to say en claire that “Even if we have been vaccinated, we can still get the virus and pass it on”. That one sentence, which is supported by mounting evidence, demolishes their whole argument for Vaccine Passports.
I am surprised that a professor of microbiology could write something so silly. Sure the vaccinated can get the virus and pass it on – but they are less likely to get it (this may be weakening but it is still true). So a vaccine passport means you are less likely to have it and therefore pass it on.
It was never true, because vaccination is supposed to enable people to produce a trained immune response to an infection with some pathogen without risking an infection with it while the immune system is still untrained.
Can one of the people who gave this a thumbs up explain the logic. RW appears to be asserting:
A) “vaccination is supposed to enable people to produce a trained immune response to an infection with some pathogen without risking an infection with it while the immune system is still untrained”
therefore it is false that
B) “vaccinated can get the virus and pass it on – but they are less likely to get it then unvaccinated people”
I just cannot see how A entails not B.
Credibility is like virginity. You only loose it once.
”this may be weakening but it is still true”
how weakened must it be before it is no longer true, which would mean it was never actually true and was therefore false/misinformation/bollocks?
It was never true, just another case of boldly claim that gravity causes bricks to fly.
“how weakened must it be before it is no longer true” well strictly it would have to be completely weakened i.e. have no efficacy whatever
“which would mean it was never actually true “
Eh? You seem to be saying that if it becomes untrue then it can never have been true. That’s just invalid logic. It is no longer true that I can run 5 miles. It doesn’t I never could run 5 miles.
your initial comment suggested that the evidence the vaccine prevents the victim catching or passing on covid is weakening over time. We were told that the vaccines stopped people from catching and passing on covid – seems to be become evident over time that that is bollocks – wishful thinking.
I understand people believe the vaccine offers some reduction in severity of illness but this protection reduces over a very short time – but that is not relevant to the article or your original comment.
Cant work you out – did you get the jab and now just can’t accept you made a bad ill informed decision – a flat earth ” i can’t be wrong” type of mentality – or are you involved in the gene therapy experiment industry in some way – or something else
There is a difference between the evidence of preventing infection weakening over time and evidence that the probability of preventing infection is weakening over time. The first is false. The second is true. Nevertheless there is still a significant probability of preventing infection which can, we hope, be topped up with a booster jab.
The protection against severity of illness is weakening much less than the protection against infection.
I am just someone who likes to get at the truth.
Please see whai I wrote to this person.
“less likely” as much as “masks protect other people” – i.e not at all.
I’m surprised that an unqualified person is commenting on a qualified person’s opinion on something that they are qualified to have a view on.
Quite bizarre……
It is a curse on Humanity. There will be many stupid.
“So a vaccine passport means you are less likely to have it and therefore pass it on.”
Let’s suppose for a minute that this is true (which i doubt). Two questions: 1. How much less likely? and 2. Since choosing not to have other men’s dicks up your ass makes you considerably less likely to be a spreader of HIV, should we also have a ‘passport’ to show that?
How much less likely?
Depends on the vaccine and how long ago you had the second dose. The Oxford vaccine efficacy study has the details.
Since choosing not to have other men’s dicks up your ass makes you considerably less likely to be a spreader of HIV, should we also have a ‘passport’ to show that?
No – because HIV is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids and is also very rare in the population as a whole. But anyway I am not arguing for vaccine passports – I am just pointing out that Livermore’s argument is invalid.
“very rare in the population as a whole”
Ditto Covid currently.
A passport would be no guarantee of anything is the point being made. If enough people are moving through the same space it doesn’t matter how less likely they are to spread anything, they will be spreading it regardless.
Agreed. It is not a guarantee – that would only be true if the vaccines had 100% efficacy which has never been suggested and is not true of any vaccine.
However, it can be jolly useful even if it is not a guarantee. Having a lifeguard swimming qualification is not a guarantee that you will save people from drowning but it helps shorten the odds.
When it infringes on the freedoms of others, like those in France refused entry into supermarkets to buy food, then fuck no. You go swimming knowing there’s a risk you might drown, you don’t assume anyone will save you.
And to correct you, Dr Sara Kayat did make the claim of 100% effectiveness, although what ‘effective’ actually means seems to change on a daily basis with these clowns. President Biden also made the claim that you won’t get Covid if you take the vaccine. How many impressionable idiots took the jab after hearing these bogus claims?
These same charlatans support segregating the population using passports based on nothing but PCR junk science.
How the passport is used is a different issue.
You are right – some people have said that some of the vaccines are 100% effective in unguarded moments. Biden is notorious for gaffes. Sara Kayat was talking about deaths not infections but nevertheless was wrong. However, the official announcements and materials do not claim this.
“in unguarded moments” lol what does that even mean? They were fucking lying, end of story.
Prof Devi Sridar was quite insistent that the vaccines are 100% effective. Certainly didn’t look like a “unguarded moment” to me when she was put forward to speak on tv as a “Covid expert”.
Please see what I wrote to this person.
Of course – as never getting out of bed considerably lengthens the odds of not getting run over.
Are you sure its ‘MTF’ and not ‘MDF’? – as in ‘… as a plank’.
Please see what I wrote about this person.
~1% ARR. (at best)
‘Nuff said.
What a load of gobbledegook
How relative is the lesser likelihood of transmission to the possession of a “passport”
How are you defining “it” – original SARS COV2 non natural, designed on a computer or a subsequent host generated mutating variant?
As a confirmed non scientist it appears to me that Israel and elsewhere are now experiencing up ticks in positive cases and there appears to be no discernible difference in the relative positions of the “vaccinated – but of course they are not vaccinated at all – to the “unvaccinated” – but of course they are not vaccinated either. I don’t know but has there been a corresponding uptick in hospitalisations and “Coved mutation deaths”?
How are the positive cases measured is a key point and I hope pages 57 – 70 of the report I recommended proved informative.
I may be missing something very fundamental , but if the purpose of the “Vaccine Passport” is to delineate between two allegedly distinct population entities for the purpose of restricting the possibility of transmission….“Even if we have been vaccinated, we can still get the virus and pass it on” ….that sounds like a classic self defeating statement and the Professor is perfectly accurate in his judgement; I do not know him , not a member of his family and am not a sycophant either.
Are you a proponent of “immunity by vaccine” over “immunity by exposure”, i.e the PM’s recent lightbulb moment statement – if the former may it be conferred that you do not agree with the statement made by non SAGE scientists in the field of virology, epidemiology, bioscience and the development of pharmaceuticals that viruses that proliferate in the population mutate naturally, become more transmissible but less pathogenically harmful? Perhaps you consider that a so called novel virus not previously transmissable between humans – where is the documented chain of infection, morbidity and death from bat cave to WIV or other involved Chinese labs – can only be dealt with by a novel vaccine. If so, and I am not putting words into your mouth but you seem very keen to extend an argument from a position A to conclusion B; that is like saying because Hitler was seen to pat a child on the cheek, he must have loved children, so how could he possibly have sent thousands of children, who he clearly loved, to the gas chambers?
Am I correct in concluding that you do not consider the Great Barrington Declaration worthy of consideration – protect the vulnerable, allow otherwise healthy people to get on with their lives, and provide treatments to reduce the risk of infection and thus “protect the NHS”; and extrapolation, that a virus that over 99% of the population will survive requires eradication by “vaccine” . What other endemic virus with similar morbidity and mortality effects has required mass population testing and mass population “vaccination” – as a non scientist I am happy to be enlightened.
186NO
That is a long comment and I don’t have an awful lot of time. So I will have to be a bit selective in my response.
How relative is the lesser likelihood of transmission to the possession of a “passport”
I don’t understand this question.
How are you defining “it” – original SARS COV2 non natural, designed on a computer or a subsequent host generated mutating variant?
Any variant of SARS-Covid-2. I don’t accept your assumption that the original was designed on a computer. You can get a reference copy of the virus from the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html.
I may be missing something very fundamental , but if the purpose of the “Vaccine Passport” is to delineate between two allegedly distinct population entities for the purpose of restricting the possibility of transmission….“Even if we have been vaccinated, we can still get the virus and pass it on” ….that sounds like a classic self defeating statement and the Professor is perfectly accurate in his judgement;
No. Because the professor’s statement is only about whether it is possible to pass it on. He seems to ignore the fact that those with vaccinations may be less likely to pass it on (but still possible)
Are you a proponent of “immunity by vaccine” over “immunity by exposure”, i.e the PM’s recent lightbulb moment statement – if the former may it be conferred that you do not agree with the statement made by non SAGE scientists in the field of virology, epidemiology, bioscience and the development of pharmaceuticals that viruses that proliferate in the population mutate naturally, become more transmissible but less pathogenically harmful? Perhaps you consider that a so called novel virus not previously transmissable between humans – where is the documented chain of infection, morbidity and death from bat cave to WIV or other involved Chinese labs – can only be dealt with by a novel vaccine. If so, and I am not putting words into your mouth but you seem very keen to extend an argument from a position A to conclusion B; that is like saying because Hitler was seen to pat a child on the cheek, he must have loved children, so how could he possibly have sent thousands of children, who he clearly loved, to the gas chambers?
I am not sure what position A and position B are. However, I am guessing that position A is “I think immunity by vaccine is better than immunity by infection”. I don’t hold that position. I don’t favour one form of immunity over another (it appears that the greatest immunity is gained from both!). It is far more complicated than that. Consider:
Am I correct in concluding that you do not consider the Great Barrington Declaration worthy of consideration – protect the vulnerable, allow otherwise healthy people to get on with their lives, and provide treatments to reduce the risk of infection and thus “protect the NHS
The Great Barrington Declaration is certainly worthy of consideration. Its big problem is the difficulty of identifying and protecting the vulnerable. I suspect this is not practical.
”; and extrapolation, that a virus that over 99% of the population will survive requires eradication by “vaccine” . What other endemic virus with similar morbidity and mortality effects has required mass population testing and mass population “vaccination” – as a non scientist I am happy to be enlightened.
I don’t think we can eradicate the virus – but we can limit its effects as we do for flu. I am not aware of previous mass population testing for a virus but we certainly do mass population vaccination – flu for adults and all sorts for children
For someone without much time you managed a whole lot more gobbledegook.
Shock: European Union Reports 1.5 Million Vaccine Injuries, 15,472 Deaths
It is inconceivable that all of these gene therapy “vaccines” are not summarily terminated by every nation on earth. The EU counterpart to the U.S. VAERS database reports deaths and injuries that are likely understated because not all cases are reported. Even still, the actually reported numbers are staggering.
https://www.technocracy.news/shock-european-union-reports-1-5-million-vaccine-injuries-15472-deaths/
Leave out the ‘it’s all gone to hell in a handcart’ nostalgic whinging about commas – the important thing about Oxbridge is that it’s consistently produced generations of fuckwits like Johnson and contemporaries – the latest manifestation – who might know where to place a comma, but are marked only by wordy ignorance.
Having attended Oxbridge should from now on should automatically disqualify anyone from been in the government.
The awful punctuation was obvious to me immediately.
I wrote to an upmarket estate agent in my town recently, complaining about the horrendous abuse of the english language in the blurb of a £700k house advertised on Rightmove. Sadly it has not been changed. If I was the house owner, I would withdraw from the contract.
“fee´s apply”
The English language.
“prevents up to 2,000 new infections per day”
How can you count something that hasn’t happened?
Use some iffy modelling to come up with a highly unfeasible number, then subtract what actually happens – and Hallelujah, you’ve “saved” X number of lives due to whatever dystopian restriction you are trying to claim works this week.
What must never be done is to make like for like comparisons with any country or US state which doesn’t impose said dystopian restriction, as that would probably show that what actually happed would likely have happened identially without the restriction…
It’s been the tried and tested way of doing things for 18 months now, and although everyone on sites like this can see straight through it, the sheeple still mostly haven’t cottoned on!
Indeed! : Modelling ! That infallible wonder of the Covid era.
No!!! Don’t laugh – it is infallible! : Never knowingly right.
Computer games for the otherwise unemployed.
Keep this in mind as the FDA is set to give full approval to the Pfizer vaccine next week.
I heard the Quebec vax passport app was hacked in 15 hours. (I’ll post a link when I get a chance this weekend.) It’s a nice bit of spyware, eh?
Very sincerely, I feel (and hope) that these inhuman stuff will be bypassed by people more intelligent (and able) than the politicians.
From le Journal de Montreal
(via Google Translate)
The security flaws allow hackers to:
Only idiots use these apps, though there’s enough of them to keep this nonsense pinging along.
They love it, it makes them feel as if they are important and at the centre of events, lol.
If all of this had happened in the mid-eighties: https://youtu.be/2oPEnISgg3c
FIGHT. BACK. BETTER. Updated information, resources and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
Clearly this advert is aimed at very stupid people – people who need their sentences broken up into nice little understandable chunks so they can absorb the message. People who can’t concentrate for too long, or think too hard.
Or maybe I’m referring to the person who wrote it? And our politicians, doctors, and journalists?
Incidentally, I’ve always been a mild supporter of the Oxford Comma. But Churchill – in my view one of the best writers in the English language – didn’t like commas.
Again: It is a curse on Humanity. There will be many stupid people.
This is not written in the Bible, or the Koran, nor on any religion basic papers.
Long ago as a junior civil servant I used to draft stuff like this, the advice was to aim for a reading age of eleven.
Yes, although wouldn’t a low reading index require full stops instead of commas?
Maybe instead of the commas they should have had line breaks. Then it would almost look like a child’s poem.
Why didn’t the article mentioned that the first phrase in the picture is against anyone who know what a vaccine is for? That is totally against ‘the science’?
They are deliberately laughing at us…
Looks like Blairs “Education, Education, Education” is paying off as expected. In other news this morning I read the Government, no surprises here, has not yet decided about vaccine passports for nightclubs but “they will definitely go ahead”. How can they justify that when even the NHS admits the pretend vaccines do not protect people from catching or spreading covid? What is the point of a passport? To prove you are stupid presumably.
The recent study reporting viral levels in those doubly vaccinated are similar to those in unvaccinated individuals, seems to me to have been badly misinterpreted by the media. What it actually shows is that the small minority of vaccinated people who fail for whatever reason to mount a protective immune response and then become infected with SARS-CoV2 have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people. Interestingly those doubly vaccinated still have less severe illness/risk of hospitalisation or death presumably due to their weaker immune response which limits the damage from the overblown immune response in more severely ill patients. However, this still means that for the vast majority, double vaccination does work at protecting against infection, disease and onward transmission and the minority are only at risk of a mild infection. Either way no justification for future Government lockdowns, mask wearing or restrictions on civil liberties unless the end goal is Zero Covid…
Fortunately my phone won’t load this NHS app. I’ve no intention of upgrading to one that will. I won’t have my life controlled by technology and have opted out as much as possible. My days are spent on my smallholding with my animals, my dumb phone left in the cabin, and twice a day I will check it for messages. That’s it. My iPad stays at home. I don’t use it much. I don’t have a desktop computer, nor do I want one. I see no point in this app unless you want to be pinged thus getting time off work. My animals would take a dim view of me staying at home and not feeding them! I opted out of Covid nonsense some months ago and have been much happier for it. This is my only source of “news” other than sometimes listening to the voice of common sense on TalkRADIO sometimes! I’ve no idea why the world has gone bonkers over a virus that clearly isn’t the Plague, but I certainly don’t need an “app” ordering me about.
This shows that the testing regime is of paramount importance- without its existence and the uploads to the NHS app the degrading of the economy and society could not continue. Why else would a massive new testing lab be constructed other than to keep the digital ID dystopia on track.