INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

(Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

(Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#1 Post by jdc » October 27th, 2010, 6:56 pm

Blogged here: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/ ... ccination/ and the original article is here: hXXp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-132320 ... ealth.html (I've changed tt to xx to avoid boosting their google juice as I'm not sure if the forum automatically uses the rel="nofollow" attribute).

Basically, they raise concerns about the flu vaccine that's going to be offered and (hidden away at the end of the piece) post answers to the concerns raised. The comments from readers are amazing (but not in a good way). Here are some of the most important points:
  • * There isn’t enough capacity to produce an alternative vaccine for those worried about swine flu
    * The consequences of flu are a greater risk than any risk posed by the vaccine itself
    * Given that we expect the H1N1 virus to be the most common type this year, it would be negligent if we didn’t protect people against it
    * Every year people die in this country from complications caused by getting flu; these are deaths that could be prevented

ETA: sorry - on re-reading, this post seems horribly unclear. The most important points are made by experts and do not appear in the best-rated comments I quote in my blogpost. The comments are full of misinformation and conspiracy theory nonsense.
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#2 Post by Lifelinking » October 27th, 2010, 10:47 pm

good blog jdc, well said.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#3 Post by getreal » October 27th, 2010, 11:49 pm

Clearly "Paul from Essex" has suffered brain damage from his vaccine.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
grammar king
Posts: 869
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 2:42 am

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#4 Post by grammar king » October 31st, 2010, 12:54 pm

jdc wrote:Blogged here: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/ ... ccination/ and the original article is here: hXXp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-132320 ... ealth.html (I've changed tt to xx to avoid boosting their google juice as I'm not sure if the forum automatically uses the rel="nofollow" attribute).

What's that jdc? A lot of media bloggers don't like linking to the Mail because it boosts their advertising revenue and google ratings, is there a way to stop that?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#5 Post by Alan H » October 31st, 2010, 1:52 pm

jdc wrote:(I've changed tt to xx to avoid boosting their google juice as I'm not sure if the forum automatically uses the rel="nofollow" attribute).
Unfortunately not, jdc. Hopefully the next version will (and obfuscate email addresses as well).
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#6 Post by jdc » October 31st, 2010, 5:46 pm

grammar king wrote:
jdc wrote:Blogged here: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/ ... ccination/ and the original article is here: hXXp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-132320 ... ealth.html (I've changed tt to xx to avoid boosting their google juice as I'm not sure if the forum automatically uses the rel="nofollow" attribute).

What's that jdc? A lot of media bloggers don't like linking to the Mail because it boosts their advertising revenue and google ratings, is there a way to stop that?
When I link to the mail, my html looks like this:

Code: Select all

The Mail have published an <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323208/Patient-anger-swine-flu-jab-stealth.html" target="_blank">article</a> on the seasonal flu vaccine
I think I'm right in saying that the rel=nofollow attribute tells google not to count my link as a 'vote' for the page I link to.

I just add the link in wordpress as I normally would and then click on html to edit by adding the '"rel=nofollow"' after the '<a ' bit.
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#7 Post by jdc » October 31st, 2010, 5:47 pm

Alan H wrote:
jdc wrote:(I've changed tt to xx to avoid boosting their google juice as I'm not sure if the forum automatically uses the rel="nofollow" attribute).
Unfortunately not, jdc. Hopefully the next version will (and obfuscate email addresses as well).
Cool. In the meantime, there's always a manual workaround.
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: (Yet another) vaccine article in the Mail

#8 Post by Alan H » October 31st, 2010, 8:44 pm

Ah!

Just added a new custom BBCode.

There is a new item just above the edit window: urlx=.

Use it in the same way as URL and it will automatically add a rel="nofollow" attribute to the HTML anchor tag!

Sorted.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply