|
|
Post by eric on Jan 24, 2024 15:24:51 GMT
GPs get paid for each jab administered.The NHS spends alot of money on proper equipment aswell. Don't be fooled by the headlines. The NHS goes into crisis mode every winter and has done for decades. It's BS. They do. Each vaccine administered saves the NHS and/or the economy hundreds or thousands of pounds that it would cost if that person got ill, spread it and/or needed serious treatment. GPs are not part of the NHS and so what other incentive to provide vaccines would they have - and let's remember each vaccination incurs costs and risks.... During the rollout was it £15 per jab that GP’s were offered? I can see why that irked people as the GP partnership’s raked it in when it was actually volunteers putting most of the needles in arms. I know some of the nurses in my local surgery were not overly pleased about the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 24, 2024 19:06:06 GMT
They do. Each vaccine administered saves the NHS and/or the economy hundreds or thousands of pounds that it would cost if that person got ill, spread it and/or needed serious treatment. GPs are not part of the NHS and so what other incentive to provide vaccines would they have - and let's remember each vaccination incurs costs and risks.... During the rollout was it £15 per jab that GP’s were offered? I can see why that irked people as the GP partnership’s raked it in when it was actually volunteers putting most of the needles in arms. I know some of the nurses in my local surgery were not overly pleased about the situation. In a GP practice, who pays the employees of that practice? |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 24, 2024 19:44:35 GMT
"These revelations follow just 12 months after another pivotal study by Schulz's team. Their previous research found that people who had received at least one influenza vaccine saw a 40% reduction in Alzheimer's risk compared to those who hadn't."
Really 😯
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 24, 2024 20:51:21 GMT
During the rollout was it £15 per jab that GP’s were offered? I can see why that irked people as the GP partnership’s raked it in when it was actually volunteers putting most of the needles in arms. I know some of the nurses in my local surgery were not overly pleased about the situation. In a GP practice, who pays the employees of that practice? Where I’ve had all my jabs it’s was volunteers who were carrying out the majority and less so the practice nurses. The GP’s will have made a fortune out of it by “subbing” out the majority of the work to unpaid volunteers. I don’t really see profiteering being in the spirit of the national effort to get through this once in a lifetime pandemic emergency. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Jan 25, 2024 1:18:39 GMT
GPs get paid for each jab administered.The NHS spends alot of money on proper equipment aswell. Don't be fooled by the headlines. The NHS goes into crisis mode every winter and has done for decades. It's BS. They do. Each vaccine administered saves the NHS and/or the economy hundreds or thousands of pounds that it would cost if that person got ill, spread it and/or needed serious treatment. GPs are not part of the NHS and so what other incentive to provide vaccines would they have - and let's remember each vaccination incurs costs and risks.... "Each vaccine administered saves the NHS and/or the economy hundreds or thousands of pounds that it would cost if that person got ill, spread it and/or needed serious treatment." I'm all for a good back n forth, but this is nonsense. There's been alot of jabs administered-100m+? If you multiply that by 'hundreds of thousands' it's a number that makes no sense. Who pays for the NHS anyway? Many of the deceased were in private care. Most people who catch covid have minor or mild symptoms. The jab doesn't prevent transmission or illness, whilst it is becoming increasingly evident that people are getting ill for some unknown reason! GPs were getting paid per jab. That is an incentive and might encourage certain behaviours |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Jan 25, 2024 6:44:27 GMT
"...Each vaccine administered saves the NHS and/or the economy hundreds or thousands of pounds that it would cost if that person got ill, spread it and/or needed serious treatment..."I'm all for a good back n forth, but this is nonsense. There's been alot of jabs administered-100m+? If you multiply that by 'hundreds of thousands' it's a number that makes no sense. Who pays for the NHS anyway? Many of the deceased were in private care. Most people who catch covid have minor or mild symptoms. The jab doesn't prevent transmission or illness, whilst it is becoming increasingly evident that people are getting ill for some unknown reason! GPs were getting paid per jab. That is an incentive and might encourage certain behaviours Well if it wasn't GPs (who already have the buildings, storage facilities, equipment, trained staff and trust of the community) then the government would have had to pay for buildings, storage facilities, equipment and trained staff to roll out the vaccine delivery... ...so actually cost-effective... |
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jan 25, 2024 7:58:13 GMT
supergas, maybe some doctors are wary about openly voicing concerns about the potential effects of Covid vaccines? This isn't intended as being provocative, just something that has been going round the void between my ears.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 25, 2024 10:39:38 GMT
supergas, maybe some doctors are wary about openly voicing concerns about the potential effects of Covid vaccines? This isn't intended as being provocative, just something that has been going round the void between my ears. Personally I would be surprised if there were not some medical practitioners who harbour some doubts over vaccines, particularly any new vaccine predicated upon new technology. They are human after all with the the fears, prejudices and contradictions that this entails. The question is not can we find some who feel this way, but what is the majority consensus. From my perspective it is clear that the vast majority of practitioners push FOR vaccination, across all diseases. I note that mass vaccination is taking place in equatorial regions against Malaria. Thousands of deaths amongst children each year maybe avoided, we hope. "R21/Matrix-M™ the highly effective malaria vaccine developed by The University of Oxford and the Serum Institute of India, leveraging Novavax's adjuvant technology, has been awarded prequalification status by the World Health Organization – meaning it is one step closer to being deployed in populations most at risk.21 Dec 2023" Oxford....again, in collaboration. I am sure some numb nut (not you) will tell us it's all a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Jan 25, 2024 12:34:43 GMT
Debating covid jabs and linking the argument to malaria vaccines that is pretty lame.
Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general.
As for Dr Fs point. Of course they would be wary of voicing concerns. Look at what they did to people who spoke out and the language used at the time. It was vicious. Coercion, blackmail, threats, everything that wasn't fitting the narrative was 'disinformation' and dangerous. Yet they changed the rules on jabs to eventually include healthy children! Some progression from elderly and vulnerable🤨
Cash rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jan 25, 2024 13:50:00 GMT
Debating covid jabs and linking the argument to malaria vaccines that is pretty lame. Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general. As for Dr Fs point. Of course they would be wary of voicing concerns. Look at what they did to people who spoke out and the language used at the time. It was vicious. Coercion, blackmail, threats, everything that wasn't fitting the narrative was 'disinformation' and dangerous. Yet they changed the rules on jabs to eventually include healthy children! Some progression from elderly and vulnerable🤨 Cash rules. At the risk of being called names, I agree with most of this. Having a concern about the efficacy of Covid vaccines is most definitely not the same as saying: "vaccines = bad". |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 25, 2024 16:00:20 GMT
Debating covid jabs and linking the argument to malaria vaccines that is pretty lame. Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general. As for Dr Fs point. Of course they would be wary of voicing concerns. Look at what they did to people who spoke out and the language used at the time. It was vicious. Coercion, blackmail, threats, everything that wasn't fitting the narrative was 'disinformation' and dangerous. Yet they changed the rules on jabs to eventually include healthy children! Some progression from elderly and vulnerable🤨 Cash rules. So On what basis do you trust the new malaria vaccine? |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 25, 2024 16:02:12 GMT
Debating covid jabs and linking the argument to malaria vaccines that is pretty lame. Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general. As for Dr Fs point. Of course they would be wary of voicing concerns. Look at what they did to people who spoke out and the language used at the time. It was vicious. Coercion, blackmail, threats, everything that wasn't fitting the narrative was 'disinformation' and dangerous. Yet they changed the rules on jabs to eventually include healthy children! Some progression from elderly and vulnerable🤨 Cash rules. "Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general." Such as? |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 26, 2024 12:59:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jan 26, 2024 16:04:16 GMT
Debating covid jabs and linking the argument to malaria vaccines that is pretty lame. Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general. As for Dr Fs point. Of course they would be wary of voicing concerns. Look at what they did to people who spoke out and the language used at the time. It was vicious. Coercion, blackmail, threats, everything that wasn't fitting the narrative was 'disinformation' and dangerous. Yet they changed the rules on jabs to eventually include healthy children! Some progression from elderly and vulnerable🤨 Cash rules. "Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general." Such as? That's not difficult to understand, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 26, 2024 16:36:17 GMT
"Try to remember that there could be a difference between covid jab hesitancy and resistance to vaccinations in general." Such as? That's not difficult to understand, is it? Absolutely is from my perspective. GH79 decries bringing in the new Malaria vaccine into the debate, but cannot explain why. That is hard to understand... |
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Jan 26, 2024 17:01:53 GMT
That's not difficult to understand, is it? Absolutely is from my perspective. GH79 decries bringing in the new Malaria vaccine into the debate, but cannot explain why. That is hard to understand... Don't know him from Adam, but reading his comments to mean that having concerns or outright scepticism about Covid vaccines doesn't mean the same doubts apply to all vaccines. I share that view and absolutely support any government that encourages MMR and other proven vaccines. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 26, 2024 19:37:58 GMT
Absolutely is from my perspective. GH79 decries bringing in the new Malaria vaccine into the debate, but cannot explain why. That is hard to understand... Don't know him from Adam, but reading his comments to mean that having concerns or outright scepticism about Covid vaccines doesn't mean the same doubts apply to all vaccines. I share that view and absolutely support any government that encourages MMR and other proven vaccines. When are vaccines "proven"? On the test bench or live, in real time? |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Jan 27, 2024 20:04:54 GMT
supergas , maybe some doctors are wary about openly voicing concerns about the potential effects of Covid vaccines? This isn't intended as being provocative, just something that has been going round the void between my ears. ...maybe some doctors are. But the good doctors won't be relying on the small sample that is their patients, nor some of the borderline nonsense reports being claimed by some people to be the signs of either a huge health risk or a huge cover-up. The trouble with this debate is that 79 (and others, I'm have similar lengthy debates in lots of other forums/groups) can't back up their claims with decent reliable evidence. When evidence is shared it takes ten minutes to find out why its flawed, normally other people have done the hard work debunking it but when they are leading experts in their field, I think all of us on an internet forum can assume they're right and the claims/evidence/data is wrong... ...and we move on. The person who posted the claim rarely comes back with secondary proof from another source - often they don't even try to defend their primary proof. We either get the topic changed or the claim that it's all 'opinions' or 'a coverup' or other deflection... So I can see why some doctors and other healthcare professionals might have concerns and might be wary about raising them - but covid-19 has been one of the most open medical events ever. There is so much raw data available to the relevant experts that if there was a problem of the magnitude that is being claimed (2 in 100 vaccinated people suffering serious heart issues?!?) not only would it be very clear in the data but we'd also all be seeing it in our day-to-day lives.... During the pandemic mis-information almost certainly led to severe illness and possibly death in some people. There's no reason we shouldn't continue to call out people sharing mis-information several years later |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Jan 28, 2024 10:03:31 GMT
supergas , maybe some doctors are wary about openly voicing concerns about the potential effects of Covid vaccines? This isn't intended as being provocative, just something that has been going round the void between my ears. ...maybe some doctors are. But the good doctors won't be relying on the small sample that is their patients, nor some of the borderline nonsense reports being claimed by some people to be the signs of either a huge health risk or a huge cover-up. The trouble with this debate is that 79 (and others, I'm have similar lengthy debates in lots of other forums/groups) can't back up their claims with decent reliable evidence. When evidence is shared it takes ten minutes to find out why its flawed, normally other people have done the hard work debunking it but when they are leading experts in their field, I think all of us on an internet forum can assume they're right and the claims/evidence/data is wrong... ...and we move on. The person who posted the claim rarely comes back with secondary proof from another source - often they don't even try to defend their primary proof. We either get the topic changed or the claim that it's all 'opinions' or 'a coverup' or other deflection... So I can see why some doctors and other healthcare professionals might have concerns and might be wary about raising them - but covid-19 has been one of the most open medical events ever. There is so much raw data available to the relevant experts that if there was a problem of the magnitude that is being claimed (2 in 100 vaccinated people suffering serious heart issues?!?) not only would it be very clear in the data but we'd also all be seeing it in our day-to-day lives.... During the pandemic mis-information almost certainly led to severe illness and possibly death in some people. There's no reason we shouldn't continue to call out people sharing mis-information several years later I believe that the evidence, data, expert opinion that is out there is skewed. I believe that transparency and the actual science was disrupted and prevented. Its only my opinion, but I also believe that as time goes on, more proof that this was a well played campaign will emerge. The recent BBC info is no surprise to me(or anybody surely) and they were all part of it anyway. There's an interview with Ed Dowd kicking around where he calls it all out, but no doubt he gets labelled as untrustworthy.. x.com/hughosmond/status/1750547143750815876?s=20x.com/VigilantFox/status/1705243186384236576?s=20Apologies for the twitter links btw. Apologies for also not responding to the bait. I'm not a researcher or medical expert, neither do I engage across multiple forums on covid..that sounds obsessive but hey ho. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jan 28, 2024 18:56:09 GMT
...maybe some doctors are. But the good doctors won't be relying on the small sample that is their patients, nor some of the borderline nonsense reports being claimed by some people to be the signs of either a huge health risk or a huge cover-up. The trouble with this debate is that 79 (and others, I'm have similar lengthy debates in lots of other forums/groups) can't back up their claims with decent reliable evidence. When evidence is shared it takes ten minutes to find out why its flawed, normally other people have done the hard work debunking it but when they are leading experts in their field, I think all of us on an internet forum can assume they're right and the claims/evidence/data is wrong... ...and we move on. The person who posted the claim rarely comes back with secondary proof from another source - often they don't even try to defend their primary proof. We either get the topic changed or the claim that it's all 'opinions' or 'a coverup' or other deflection... So I can see why some doctors and other healthcare professionals might have concerns and might be wary about raising them - but covid-19 has been one of the most open medical events ever. There is so much raw data available to the relevant experts that if there was a problem of the magnitude that is being claimed (2 in 100 vaccinated people suffering serious heart issues?!?) not only would it be very clear in the data but we'd also all be seeing it in our day-to-day lives.... During the pandemic mis-information almost certainly led to severe illness and possibly death in some people. There's no reason we shouldn't continue to call out people sharing mis-information several years later I believe that the evidence, data, expert opinion that is out there is skewed. I believe that transparency and the actual science was disrupted and prevented. Its only my opinion, but I also believe that as time goes on, more proof that this was a well played campaign will emerge. The recent BBC info is no surprise to me(or anybody surely) and they were all part of it anyway. There's an interview with Ed Dowd kicking around where he calls it all out, but no doubt he gets labelled as untrustworthy.. x.com/hughosmond/status/1750547143750815876?s=20x.com/VigilantFox/status/1705243186384236576?s=20Apologies for the twitter links btw. Apologies for also not responding to the bait. I'm not a researcher or medical expert, neither do I engage across multiple forums on covid..that sounds obsessive but hey ho. I believe in Father Christmas |
|
