I have never smoked or taken drugs, I watch what I eat and I drink sparingly. I take note of what I put in my body hence why I donât feel the need to take a vaccine for a mild respiratory virus that will likely be of little threat to me.
Of course The Rubberbandit wannabee would be too busy trying to give his hot new take that all heâs done is provide us with another unoriginal illogical post that has that trademark sense of neediness off it.
Yawn.
Pfizer - same as my first two
I got the moderna yesterday after 2 Pfizer in the summer
Drank 4 pints after it and ok today
I got my third Pfizer on Friday. Then I had a heap of outdoor pints and some whiskey. Then one of my brothers had to separate me and another brother from boxing the heads off each other. The booster can make you very fighty.
Tony will claim credit for it if they keep falling, canât lose
The Meath crowd are probably using dirty syringes on the neighbours
Getting my booster in the morning. Hup ya boy ya!!
You wonât take 3 doses but if a fella wouldnât take 2 doses heâs the fool?
Theyâve a load of Moderna in stock that they need to use before it expires.
Reverting to type,
Youâre an awful nasty bollix, that sort of shit make you feel like a hard man or what??
You seem very put out with mention of Michael OâLeary
Like the pub trade with beer 
I think youâre showing your toxic nature again.
Youâve made a fool out of yourself the past year and you have shown your selfishness and white male privilege has come to the fore so often so itâs hardly surprising to see you throw out the labels, misrepresentations and slurs once again when you find yourself under pressure.
You wonât substantiate any of the nonsense you spread as you canât even lie straight. Have you got another cause you want to leech yourself onto so you can demean it with your narcissism?
The Great Barrington Declaration was badly named. Time has proven it to be an absolute crock of shite. You hang in there though, youâll get something right eventually.
This one seems to be going after the David McWilliams in the crisis role - this time specialising in fucking architecture. Sheâs shilling for the schools to be remodelled constantly. https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1472869949198712834
She needs to get with the program and start rowing like the rest of us.
Itâs clear to me now we all just need to accept being vaccine junkies for the rest of our days
Itâs insane whatâs happening here.
Omnicron will be over by New Years
You knew what you were doing bringing up OâLearys bullshit on mandatory vaccination up.
Snide aul guff out of you. Nothing new there.
Denmark looking good too.
From the Torygraph today, Fraser Nelson
Over the weekend, the latest Sage document arrived with some blood-curdling figures on what could await us if we fail to lock down. The omicron wave could be the deadliest yet, weâre told, killing up to 6,000 of us in a single day. This would be at least five times more than the peak of previous wave - and this from an omicron variant that South Africans say is far milder! We are a highly vaccinated country whose people are teeming with antibodies. Yet somehow, after all of these jabs we are, once again, sitting ducks.
But dig deeper, and the Sage story changes. The 6,000 is the top of a rather long range of âscenariosâ, not predictions. The bottom is 600 deaths a day, which certainly
would not pose an existential threat to the National Health Service. Why wonât they tell us how likely (or otherwise) these scenarios are? I was mulling all this when, on my Twitter feed, up pops the chairman of the Sage modelling committee Prof. Graham Medley. I thought Iâd try my luck and ask him.
Itâs a strange place, Twitter. People turn up who should not be there, but sometimes, if youâre lucky, you can get a response. Prof Medley is with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), which last weekend published some grim omicron scenarios. A bank, JP Morgan, spotted a flaw: each LSHTM scenario assumed that omicron was just as deadly as Delta. âBut evidence from South Africa suggests that omicron infections are milder,â it said. Adjust for this and Covid hospital numbers end up at just one-third of the January peak. So this omicron wave âwould be manageable without further restrictionsâ. Quite a spot.
I asked Prof Medley: why not say so? When giving his scenarios, why couldnât he say what JP Morgan had said: that if itâs as mild as the South Africans seem to think there could be no real problem and no need for lockdown? âWhat would be the point of that?â he replied. âNot a snarky question. Genuine to know what decision-makers would learn from that scenario.â To me, this seems odd: wasnât the JP Morgan point rather relevant? That we might be able to live with Covid and carry on as usual without lockdown? Why not include that as a possible scenario?
âYou know the answer,â he replied. âDecision-makers are generally only interested in situations where decisions have to be made.â But isnât it just as vital to be told if action is not needed? I asked him straight. âSo you exclusively model bad outcomes that require restrictions and omit just-as-likely outcomes that would not require restrictions?â
âWe generally model what we are asked to model,â came the reply. âThere is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform them with their policy.â Again, quite the revelation. Until now, weâve been told that policy is informed by the data: the impartial independent Sage scientists come down with their figures, and ministers act on this advice. Lockdown is always said to follow the science. But Prof Medley suggests the scientists are doing what they are âaskedâ during a âdialogueâ with a pre-existing âpolicyâ.
At this point our conversation was interrupted by âRegâ. âThis entire exchange has left me open-mouthed,â he told us both. âTo think of the livelihoods at stake here, mainly because they donât see the need to model accurate outcomes as it will not make the government take any action. Scandalous.â Prof Medley gave âRegâ the same cryptic reply. âWe model the scenarios that are useful to decisions.â He then left, and started to responding to others who asked him if heâd model in his Speedos if asked.
What to make of all this? Is this how Sage really works? Are we all going to be locked down again based not on evidence-based policymaking, but policy-based evidence-making? Since our Twitter exchange went viral Iâve been contacted by a few government ministers saying they were alarmed to think Sage modellers are not giving the probability of various outcomes and cooking up gloomy scenarios to order.
Perhaps weâre all reading too much into what Prof Medley said. But given whatâs at stake, these issues may be worth clearing up before Sage âscenariosâ are used to lock us down again.