CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)
Discussion
pocty said:
I had a feeling based on the fact that the trails are all pointing to a few years and then I supported the fact with evidence, https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/10/10/a-sars-co...
You on the other hand, just sent me a BBC news article. if your that gullible then be the first in line.
Riddle me this with all the mishaps producing the vaccine as I have clearly pointed out, will you still take it if its released in a months time.
Pocty
" just sent me a BBC news article." A BBC interview with the head of the vaccine task force.You on the other hand, just sent me a BBC news article. if your that gullible then be the first in line.
Riddle me this with all the mishaps producing the vaccine as I have clearly pointed out, will you still take it if its released in a months time.
Pocty
"I supported the fact with evidence" Some random GP from the internet.
"will you still take it if its released in a months time" - it won't be. Mid next year ? Maybe - I'll decide nearer the time.
"if your (sic) that gullible " - says the man who believe that a blog from some internet random is evidence.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/italy-coronavirus-...
Even italy saw the light.....
Oh and just to let you know, full lockdown is on its way, announcement expected in 3 weeks.
Even italy saw the light.....
Oh and just to let you know, full lockdown is on its way, announcement expected in 3 weeks.
Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
Graveworm said:
He didn't disagree with the papers, he disagreed with what you would like them to say. There will almost certainly never be strong evidence for most of this as randomised controlled studies are pretty much impossible. He disagreed with Professor Heneghan as does most of the scientific and medical community. Including another professor from his own university who literally wrote the text book on evidence based medicine, who is advocating practice based medicine for this pandemic.
So you have nothing else then - just an attempt to argue that ‘weak’ means something else and falling back on a flawed argument based on a logical fallacy. Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 15th October 18:48
There was a time when Einstein was the only person who believed in relativity, when Watson and Crick were in the minority over DNA and when people thought Darwin was blasphemous on evolution.
The majority of scientists used to believe the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the world.
The majority is not always right.
The minority scientists, who are opposed are doing so without submitting to scientific rigor and not actually gathering any evidence or conducting any studies themselves. They are just pointing out possible flaws in others work. Which in isolation is valid but as the body of evidence grows the consensus becomes more and more compelling.
All graveworm can do is appeal to authority, and its tiring because its mostly unconvincing s
t. Pretty spot on troll tactics though.
The info on clintials.gov is from August and is an initial estimate of dates. Without seeing the protocol in its entirety it's a little hard to work out if the primary endpoint is enough for registration, although the info states it needs 12 months of data which contradicts the December 2020 timeframe given that the study only started in August.
My guess is that December 2020 was the estimate for last subject in, although that will have been delayed by the subject who had a paralysis adverse event. Given that 12 months follow up is needed, plus time for analysis and submission preparations, the end of study date of 2022 is more likely for when the trial will be submitted for approval. Then there's the review time, plus regulatory questions to be answered etc.
The vaccine isn't arriving any time soon, hence the less optimistic attitude these days of Boris et al.
My guess is that December 2020 was the estimate for last subject in, although that will have been delayed by the subject who had a paralysis adverse event. Given that 12 months follow up is needed, plus time for analysis and submission preparations, the end of study date of 2022 is more likely for when the trial will be submitted for approval. Then there's the review time, plus regulatory questions to be answered etc.
The vaccine isn't arriving any time soon, hence the less optimistic attitude these days of Boris et al.
BlackTails said:
Elysium said:
So you have nothing else then - just an attempt to argue that ‘weak’ means something else and falling back on a flawed argument based on a logical fallacy.
There was a time when Einstein was the only person who believed in relativity, when Watson and Crick were in the minority over DNA and when people thought Darwin was blasphemous on evolution.
The majority of scientists used to believe the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the world.
The majority is not always right.
This is becoming very hard to follow. There was a time when Einstein was the only person who believed in relativity, when Watson and Crick were in the minority over DNA and when people thought Darwin was blasphemous on evolution.
The majority of scientists used to believe the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the world.
The majority is not always right.
Today you have compared favourably your dishonesty about complying with some covid-related laws to do with meeting people indoors with those genuinely heroic people who risked their lives by lying to the Nazis about protecting Anne Frank.
Now you are comparing your insight favourably with that of Einstein, Crick & Watson and Darwin.
Whereas in reality (squint into the far distance, and you might just be able to make it out) you're a rather unhealthily obsessed bloke with a hobby horse, a liking for graphs, an excess of pomposity and self-regard, and a keyboard.
Somehow, I doubt that "Elysium" will go down as one of history's great and revered thinkers.
But please, do crack on. Your fanbase needs you.
Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
Graveworm said:
He didn't disagree with the papers, he disagreed with what you would like them to say. There will almost certainly never be strong evidence for most of this as randomised controlled studies are pretty much impossible. He disagreed with Professor Heneghan as does most of the scientific and medical community. Including another professor from his own university who literally wrote the text book on evidence based medicine, who is advocating practice based medicine for this pandemic.
So you have nothing else then - just an attempt to argue that ‘weak’ means something else and falling back on a flawed argument based on a logical fallacy. Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 15th October 18:48
There was a time when Einstein was the only person who believed in relativity, when Watson and Crick were in the minority over DNA and when people thought Darwin was blasphemous on evolution.
The majority of scientists used to believe the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the world.
The majority is not always right.
The minority scientists, who are opposed are doing so without submitting to scientific rigor and not actually gathering any evidence or conducting any studies themselves. They are just pointing out possible flaws in others work. Which in isolation is valid but as the body of evidence grows the consensus becomes more and more compelling.
Your further comments are pure fiction. You don’t know if the majority of scientists support or oppose the Govts position. We know that SAGE are recommending lockdown and that the WHO are recommending against it. But we don’t know who is in the majority, unless you have a straw poll of every scientist on the planet?
You equally don’t know that scientists who oppose the Govt have done no work on it. That’s certainly not true for Sunetra Gupta and Michael Levitt who have both submitted papers for peer review. Or Carl Heneghan, who has published extensive work on the CEBM website and directly invited comments and review of the available evidence.
If anything, the consensus appears to be breaking down with ever more dissent amongst experts, ranging from those who support zero COVID, to moderate views to those who believe we need to lift restrictions.
The foundation of your argument is non existent.
Carol McGiffin was on talk radio earlier asking why has the world gone mad? France now has curfews, Italy and Poland mandated masks everywhere outdoors, what happened in Victoria, NZ shutting itself off, Thailand still shut off etc...
It's good to see pushback from the likes of Burnham and the gym owner in Liverpool. Any pushback from any party is welcome.
But what is going on globally?
I do hope that Trump wins another term and leads the US out of this nonsense and then the world might follow.
Follow Trump you say? Madness. But hey we all followed China with the lockdowns. Since when has the world followed China?
It's good to see pushback from the likes of Burnham and the gym owner in Liverpool. Any pushback from any party is welcome.
But what is going on globally?
I do hope that Trump wins another term and leads the US out of this nonsense and then the world might follow.
Follow Trump you say? Madness. But hey we all followed China with the lockdowns. Since when has the world followed China?
markyb_lcy said:
It really is painful that not a single journalist has asked this pretty fundamental question. It should be staring them in the face considering we are talking about doing now more-or-less what we did 6 months ago.
Ofcom is now the censorEamonn Holmes said:
... I pointed out that if Ofcom is going to prohibit views being discussed on television that might risk undermining viewers’ trust in public authorities during this crisis, that could easily be extended to anyone challenging the government’s official line on a number of issues, ...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ofcom-shouldn-...and has new powers online since February
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/11/ofco...
worsy said:
The central position of the author is flawed. She suggests that serology proves that Gupta is wrong about herd immunity. The serology just tells us the minimum number of people who have been exposed to the virus.
Elysium said:
We know that SAGE are recommending lockdown and that the WHO are recommending against it. But we don’t know who is in the majority, unless you have a straw poll of every scientist on the planet?
See again nuanced emphasis by you. WHO said:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus
No one is saying it should be the primary means of control and no one is underestimating the damage they do. isaldiri said:
Graveworm said:
The measures in place, that have virtually eliminated flu deaths in other countries flu season have not reduced Covid to the same levels and still resulted in 50000 Covid deaths here. Those who oppose the measures, will start from a position that it would still only have been 50,000 without the measures,
Odd that. I seem to remember plenty of infections etc had taken place and been seeded long before end of march. So 50k dead was with measures implemented halfway through the outbreak. Comparing it to flu in the southern hemisphere this year is utterly stupid when they had measures right from the start of flu season.
Or the pneumonia that killed someone, and would previously have been put down to flu, was put down to covid.
Or the measures worked against flu, but not covid
Either way, pneumonia is the real killer. Anyone working on a vaccine?
Elysium said:
The central position of the author is flawed. She suggests that serology proves that Gupta is wrong about herd immunity.
The serology just tells us the minimum number of people who have been exposed to the virus.
She was wrong about herd immunity because, if it pre-existed, then it's impact would have prevented the incidence of cases at anywhere near the levels it reached or covid is far more virulent than anything ever seen before. In any event the low levels of serology cases added to an existing immunity that couldn't prevent the initial cases, wouldn't make any real difference. The serology just tells us the minimum number of people who have been exposed to the virus.
In Austria testing by SORA-Prävalenzstudie found there was a factor of 2.35 officially infected to immune. For her figures to be correct the figure would need to be 440.
For her theory to be correct you also need to postulate that established T-Cell theory is stood on it's head and the young have it and the old and people who have underlying conditions don't.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 15th October 21:19
Graveworm said:
WHO said:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus
No one is saying it should be the primary means of control and no one is underestimating the damage they do. I've formed the distinct impression that this government's only means of control is lockdown. It's all they ever suggest. Ditto Keir Starmer. And the likes of Andy Burnham. There's plenty of arguments about precisely how severe any lockdown should be, and to which postcodes it might apply, but if they're talking about anything else then I've missed it.
And every time I look at social media, I see lots of people who hugely underestimate the damage lockdown does. I suspect comments such as "shut everything down for six months, that'll eradicate the virus" come from people with public sector jobs, or large savings, or comfortable pensions. Those people have no clue about the economic disaster that a prolonged national lockdown would create.
Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
We know that SAGE are recommending lockdown and that the WHO are recommending against it. But we don’t know who is in the majority, unless you have a straw poll of every scientist on the planet?
See again nuanced emphasis by you. WHO said:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus
No one is saying it should be the primary means of control and no one is underestimating the damage they do. Brave Fart said:
Really?
I've formed the distinct impression that this government's only means of control is lockdown. It's all they ever suggest. Ditto Keir Starmer. And the likes of Andy Burnham. There's plenty of arguments about precisely how severe any lockdown should be, and to which postcodes it might apply, but if they're talking about anything else then I've missed it.
And every time I look at social media, I see lots of people who hugely underestimate the damage lockdown does. I suspect comments such as "shut everything down for six months, that'll eradicate the virus" come from people with public sector jobs, or large savings, or comfortable pensions. Those people have no clue about the economic disaster that a prolonged national lockdown would create.
Just so we are clear compared to a lot of the world we have never been locked down. None of the three tiers are lock down. I've formed the distinct impression that this government's only means of control is lockdown. It's all they ever suggest. Ditto Keir Starmer. And the likes of Andy Burnham. There's plenty of arguments about precisely how severe any lockdown should be, and to which postcodes it might apply, but if they're talking about anything else then I've missed it.
And every time I look at social media, I see lots of people who hugely underestimate the damage lockdown does. I suspect comments such as "shut everything down for six months, that'll eradicate the virus" come from people with public sector jobs, or large savings, or comfortable pensions. Those people have no clue about the economic disaster that a prolonged national lockdown would create.
Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
The central position of the author is flawed. She suggests that serology proves that Gupta is wrong about herd immunity.
The serology just tells us the minimum number of people who have been exposed to the virus.
She was wrong about herd immunity because, if it pre-existed, then it's impact would have prevented the incidence of cases at anywhere near the levels it reached or covid is far more virulent than anything ever seen before. In any event the low levels of serology cases added to an existing immunity that couldn't prevent the initial cases, wouldn't make any real difference. The serology just tells us the minimum number of people who have been exposed to the virus.
In Austria testing by SORA-Prävalenzstudie found there was a factor of 2.35 officially infected to immune. For her figures to be correct the figure would need to be 440.
For her theory to be correct you also need to postulate that established T-Cell theory is stood on it's head and the young have it and the old and people who have underlying conditions don't.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 15th October 21:19
What do you think Gupta’s theory is?
Graveworm said:
Brave Fart said:
Really?
I've formed the distinct impression that this government's only means of control is lockdown. It's all they ever suggest. Ditto Keir Starmer. And the likes of Andy Burnham. There's plenty of arguments about precisely how severe any lockdown should be, and to which postcodes it might apply, but if they're talking about anything else then I've missed it.
And every time I look at social media, I see lots of people who hugely underestimate the damage lockdown does. I suspect comments such as "shut everything down for six months, that'll eradicate the virus" come from people with public sector jobs, or large savings, or comfortable pensions. Those people have no clue about the economic disaster that a prolonged national lockdown would create.
Just so we are clear compared to a lot of the world we have never been locked down. None of the three tiers are lock down. I've formed the distinct impression that this government's only means of control is lockdown. It's all they ever suggest. Ditto Keir Starmer. And the likes of Andy Burnham. There's plenty of arguments about precisely how severe any lockdown should be, and to which postcodes it might apply, but if they're talking about anything else then I've missed it.
And every time I look at social media, I see lots of people who hugely underestimate the damage lockdown does. I suspect comments such as "shut everything down for six months, that'll eradicate the virus" come from people with public sector jobs, or large savings, or comfortable pensions. Those people have no clue about the economic disaster that a prolonged national lockdown would create.
Graveworm said:
She was wrong about herd immunity because, if it pre-existed, then it's impact would have prevented the incidence of cases at anywhere near the levels it reached or covid is far more virulent than anything ever seen before.
I'm not sure I follow - how could there have been any (let alone widespread) immunity to a novel coronavirus ?Edited by SS2. on Thursday 15th October 21:29
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff