CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[Gadgetmac]

i4got said:

Gadgetmac said:

You also said that the only people that will die will be those that would have anyway or some such junk.

Well thats true. Unless you think some people are immortal.

It’s not true short term.

[Gadgetmac]

i4got said:

Gadgetmac said:

i4got said:

Gadgetmac said:

You also said that the only people that will die will be those that would have anyway or some such junk.

Well thats true. Unless you think some people are immortal.

It’s not true short term.

Typical. Make a statement - get challenged - move the goalposts

Typical, misunderstand the response and then double down on it.

[Gadgetmac]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Gadgetmac said:

You’ve created lizards from the same fertile imagination thats also likening Covid 19 to a common cold. It’s like saying that me with AK47 is only as dangerous as me without one. The hospitals don’t overflow around the world with people on ventilators due to the common cold.

You also said that the only people that will die will be those that would have anyway or some such junk.

Hospitals haven't been overflowing with covid patients though.

If you're in your 80s with pre-existing conditions then lots of things can be deadly.

Of course they can but that wasn’t what you said. You insinuated that it was only the vulnerable (who would die shortly anyway) that would die from this covid outbreak.

It’s not. It’s killing people who are vulnerable but wouldn’t neccessarily die shortly. Myself included.

[Gadgetmac]

As for it being about as serious as a cold or flu...

How scientists know COVID-19 is way deadlier than the flu

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-t...

Extract:

“Using the handful of studies that have calculated infection-fatality rates for seasonal flu, Meyerowitz-Katz determined that somewhere between 1 and 10 people die for every 100,000 that are infected. For COVID-19, that number ranges between 500 and 1,000 deaths per 100,000 infections. By his calculations, the coronavirus is likely to be 50 to 100 times more deadly than the seasonal flu, which supports the Columbia University findings.”

[Gadgetmac]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Gadgetmac said:

As for it being about as serious as a cold or flu...

How scientists know COVID-19 is way deadlier than the flu

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-t...

Extract:

“Using the handful of studies that have calculated infection-fatality rates for seasonal flu, Meyerowitz-Katz determined that somewhere between 1 and 10 people die for every 100,000 that are infected. For COVID-19, that number ranges between 500 and 1,000 deaths per 100,000 infections. By his calculations, the coronavirus is likely to be 50 to 100 times more deadly than the seasonal flu, which supports the Columbia University findings.”

Necessarily based on very new and uncertain data, and relies on accuratelt teasing out those who died with and of Covid, which appears to be waters that some have deliberately muddied.

It’s the last bit that betrays your stance...can you provide proof that the data looked at in that study quoted in the National Geographic has been “muddied”?

[Gadgetmac]

i4got said:

Gadgetmac said:

i4got said:

Gadgetmac said:

i4got said:

Gadgetmac said:

You also said that the only people that will die will be those that would have anyway or some such junk.

Well thats true. Unless you think some people are immortal.

It’s not true short term.

Typical. Make a statement - get challenged - move the goalposts

Typical, misunderstand the response and then double down on it.

You made a (dumb) statement thinking you were saying something else and when you get pulled up on it you react with bluster. This will teach you that we aren't answering to what's in your head - we're replying to what you write.

What it shows is that you’ve jumped in on something said about 2 weeks ago and don’t have a clue whats going on in the conversation. It’s a common mistake made by people who aren’t very good at following a thread.

And who’s this “we” you speak for

Talk about delusions of granduer.

[Gadgetmac]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Gadgetmac said:

It’s the last bit that betrays your stance...can you provide proof that the data looked at in that study quoted in the National Geographic has been “muddied”?

It's in the article. They don't actually know how many people have or have had covid so they use estimates, based on either random tests of the population as a whole or statistical estimates - which amount to an educated guess. I'm not saying that's malice or mischief in that article. It's a reasonable way to look at it, but it also seems reasonable to temper the response in light of the lack of reliable information.

But you are. You called it deliberately muddied. It’s a study carried out by epidemiologists at Columbia University and even using statistics, which is a valid field of mathematics, it’s still far more likely to be nearer the truth than any arguments made on here.

Still, you at least now seem to be tempering your assertions in that respect. I’ll leave it there as I have a couple of films to watch. Cheers.

[Gadgetmac]

grumbledoak said:

And yes, the current environment is very much dodgy times for science.

No it's really not. Of course in the post truth world we all live in now anyone can post that sort of bks and think they've made some kind of point scoring statement - then when it's found to be rubbish they can walk away and come back again tomorrow with no sense of shame or humiliation and make another similar accusation. Trump is the ultimate exponent of that.

There are thousands of papers published every single week and in many-many journals (I know I subscribe to a few, including the Lancet) covering every subject under the sun - an order of magnitudes more than ever before - so of course there will be the odd rogue paper that gets through scientific scrutiny and/or peer review but it's rare - to say that it's "dodgy times for science" is laughable. It's the greatest period for scientific advance in the history of mankind and it's not slowing up.

[Gadgetmac]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Gadgetmac said:

No it's really not. Of course in the post truth world we all live in now anyone can post that sort of bks and think they've made some kind of point scoring statement - then when it's found to be rubbish they can walk away and come back again tomorrow with no sense of shame or humiliation and make another similar accusation. Trump is the ultimate exponent of that.

There are thousands of papers published every single week and in many-many journals (I know I subscribe to a few, including the Lancet) covering every subject under the sun - an order of magnitudes more than ever before - so of course there will be the odd rogue paper that gets through scientific scrutiny and/or peer review but it's rare - to say that it's "dodgy times for science" is laughable. It's the greatest period for scientific advance in the history of mankind and it's not slowing up.

You forgot to mention that we have a government of enlightened geniuses who understand every one of these developments and are determined to make the absolute best of them for the liberty, prosperity and general long term weal of the nation, a civil service who will implement every policy faithfully, a corporate sector which can see past short term self interest and a state broadcaster who will report on it all with impeccable candour, thoroughness and impartiality.

All of which has sweet-fanny-adams to do with “dodgy times for science”.

[Gadgetmac]

I think the poster is suffering from No.6 already

[Gadgetmac]

Breaking News

Oxford vaccine peer review and all data now published online for any questions the anti-vaxxers might have.

Zero side effects noted.

[Gadgetmac]

Link to The Lancet here:

https://www.contagionlive.com/view/oxford-publishe...

[Gadgetmac]

Electro1980 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Breaking News

Oxford vaccine peer review and all data now published online for any questions the anti-vaxxers might have.

Zero side effects noted.

But what about the side effects in 20 years time! How do we know that we won’t all turn in to apes!

It's a clear and obvious danger I'll grant you...

[Gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

Gadgetmac said:

Breaking News

Oxford vaccine peer review and all data now published online for any questions the anti-vaxxers might have.

Zero side effects noted.

Near zero but not quite zero:

Paper on interim results said:

Three cases of transverse myelitis were initially reported as suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, with two in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine study arm, triggering a study pause for careful review in each case. Independent clinical review of these cases has indicated that one in the experimental group and one in the control group are unlikely to be related to study interventions, but a relationship remained possible in the third case. Careful monitoring of safety, including neurological events, continues in the trials.

I'm am not anti vaccinations/immunisations but with MS in the family do have some concerns over the results, given - "There were two additional cases of transverse myelitis that were originally reported as potentially related but later determined to be unlikely to be related to vaccination by an independent committee of neurological experts. One case that occurred 10 days after a first vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was initially assessed as possibly related, but later considered unlikely to be related by the site investigator when further investigation revealed pre-existing, but previously unrecognised, multiple sclerosis. "

I feel you shouldn't have used the footnote as It's difficult to read being so small so I've quoted you and removed it for clarity. I'd say, given what you yourself have added, that it's as near as zero as you are ever going to get with that sample size - you are always going to get study participants who either have unrecognised pre-existing conditions or who develop something during the study itself that causes eyebrows to be raised until further investigation is carried out whereupon a decision is reached as to whether it's pertinent or not. As you have shown in your examples.

[Gadgetmac]

ORD said:

isaldiri said:

Gadgetmac said:

I'd say, given what you yourself have added, that it's as near as zero as you are ever going to get with that sample size - you are always going to get study participants who either have unrecognised pre-existing conditions or who develop something during the study itself that causes eyebrows to be raised until further investigation is carried out whereupon a decision is reached as to whether it's pertinent or not. As you have shown in your examples.

Disagree. Transverse myelitis seems to be a very rare event to show up in vaccine trials. 37 events from all published trials in various publications from 1970-2009.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19880568/

for 3 such events to show up in the oxford trial is unusual to put it mildly.

The desire to explain away really quite worrying results is about as far from “following the science” as you can get. TM is very rare and extremely nasty. Any increase of risk from the vaccine should mean it’s simply a “no, thanks” from anyone under 70.

“To have a clinical hold, as has been placed on AstraZeneca as of yesterday, because of a single serious adverse event is not at all unprecedented,” Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told a Senate panel on Wednesday. “This certainly happens in any large-scale trial where you have tens of thousands of people invested in taking part, some of them may get ill and you always have to try to figure out: Is that because of the vaccine, or were they going to get that illness anyway?”

[Gadgetmac]

isaldiri said:

Gadgetmac said:

“To have a clinical hold, as has been placed on AstraZeneca as of yesterday, because of a single serious adverse event is not at all unprecedented,” Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told a Senate panel on Wednesday. “This certainly happens in any large-scale trial where you have tens of thousands of people invested in taking part, some of them may get ill and you always have to try to figure out: Is that because of the vaccine, or were they going to get that illness anyway?”

I repeat, that linked showed only 37 cases of transverse myelitis showed up in all published trials in a whole heap of medical journals for decades. It most certainly does not happen in any large scale trial. Serious adverse events are one thing, that particular serious adverse event is quite another.

I understand only one case of this has been found.

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

67Dino said:

I’m guessing some of the people posting on this thread don’t know anyone who has had Covid badly.

I know three people who have directly died as a result of the failure of the NHS to treat them due to "covid". HTH.

Perhaps when a vaccine is available you’ll be advising everybody to take it to ensure that the situation you quote doesnt happen again.

[Gadgetmac]

ORD said:

Gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

67Dino said:

I’m guessing some of the people posting on this thread don’t know anyone who has had Covid badly.

I know three people who have directly died as a result of the failure of the NHS to treat them due to "covid". HTH.

Perhaps when a vaccine is available you’ll be advising everybody to take it to ensure that the situation you quote doesnt happen again.

I love the implicit threats. ‘Either go hysterical in favour of these fairly poor vaccines or you’ll get more hysterically stupid st from the government’. Really attractive.

How about neither? Maybe some composure and rationality?

How about we all do what we can to make it so that it doesn't happen again? Just a thought.

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Gadgetmac said:

Perhaps when a vaccine is available you’ll be advising everybody to take it to ensure that the situation you quote doesnt happen again.

I presume you didn't read it properly. It was due to the failures of the NHS to treat them though in one case he starved to death as they weren't looking after him and his kids weren't "allowed" to see him, which includes a now very unhappy nurse. Not Covid.

Really not sure how you think a vaccine would cure cancer that wasn't treated or starvation.

Well if it has nothing to do with Covid why post it?

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well if it has nothing to do with Covid why post it?

It had to do with the NHS shutting down and failing to treat people or allowing family to visit "due to covid". Not the disease, the ridiculous over reaction to it. Though I presume as you appear to have an IQ sufficiently high enough to access the internet that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Well then my point stands

Start encouraging people to take the vaccine, less people will catch the disease and they’ll be less pressure on the NHS so they won’t have to prioritise care.

I’m not expecting that simple logic to get through to an anti-vaxxer though.