CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)

[Taylor James]

320d is all you need said:

djohnson said:

320d is all you need said:

Question is of safety

If :

1) The vaccine manufacturers are not subject to any legal ramification for any mistakes
2) The Government is exempt from any legal ramifications for any mistakes
3) The vaccine can be administered by non trained personnel
4) The vaccine may or may not be mandatory (??)

It's really opening pandora's box.

I will not be having any vaccine for Coronavirus.

We surely wouldn’t be in a position whereby the developers and / or manufacturers of a vaccine had no accountability for its effects? If those who develop and make it won’t stand behind it then you’d be nuts to take it unless it was an absolute last chance, which for 99.9% of people it won’t be.

Last time I read, Governments made vaccine manufacturers immune from issues which arise from the vaccine.

As well as it being administered by non-medically trained specifically.

Indemnifying the pharma companies is commonplace. Of course questioning that makes you a tinfoil hat wearing, flat earther.

As for administering it by non-medically trained personnel, I'm sure some crony company can put together a zoom based training course for a billion or so.

[djohnson]

johnboy1975 said:

Is Hancock incompetent? Or malicious? I'm kinda on the fence as being deliberately malicious makes no sense. On the other hand, if its incompetence, he could do a couple of hours research and be in a better place to deal with covid than he is currently....

I suspect he’s got three objectives, trying to cover himself for the inevitable public enquiry, distracting attention from the initial overreaction (closing the nhs to other conditions, trashing the economy and pushing the infected elderly into care homes) and generating some positive PR. All these objectives are served (or at least obfuscation is more possible) by him and the government having suppressed the second wave. This is why he’s going to such lengths to find (or indeed to manufacture) a second wave and is prepared to impose any cost on these economy, civil liberties and the population generally to ‘suppress’ it.

[Taylor James]

djohnson said:

johnboy1975 said:

Is Hancock incompetent? Or malicious? I'm kinda on the fence as being deliberately malicious makes no sense. On the other hand, if its incompetence, he could do a couple of hours research and be in a better place to deal with covid than he is currently....

I suspect he’s got three objectives, trying to cover himself for the inevitable public enquiry, distracting attention from the initial overreaction (closing the nhs to other conditions, trashing the economy and pushing the infected elderly into care homes) and generating some positive PR. All these objectives are served (or at least obfuscation is more possible) by him and the government having suppressed the second wave. This is why he’s going to such lengths to find (or indeed to manufacture) a second wave and is prepared to impose any cost on these economy, civil liberties and the population generally to ‘suppress’ it.

I think what looked like a sensible move - we will follow the science - has backfired. I think the scientists they chose/were in place at the time looked at this as a most interesting experiment. The government went hook, line and sinker for the glamour of a global pandemic and the scientific advice on suppression. Any voices talking about money were shouted down or ignored.

Now the economic and other consequences are becoming clear, what do the government do? Stop following the science or sack the current group of scientific advisers? Not a good political choice.

I think they've chosen to try and sneak out the back door and hope no-one notices. That translates into fudging everything over the next year or so and hiding their tracks through a blizzard of contradictory and fudged statistics and a general policy in line with social media and focus group opinion. They can identify some scapegoats along the way. The vaccine represents a mythical cavalry just over the hill.

[panholio]

France is seeing an exceptional amount of positive test results. Anyone know where the data is for how many tests they carry out?

[anonymous-user]

djohnson said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

djohnson said:

The effectiveness of the vaccine doesn’t matter, so long as we get some sort of vaccine out there. This hasn’t been about medical issues for some months now. A vaccine which had some but not much impact is enough of a basis for the government to drop the current nonsense, whilst still delivering the true objective of protecting their position. Doing this is less of a distortion of the truth than they’ve employed thus far.

My concern about a vaccine is how much daily life will be open to you unless you have had the vaccine. The covid pass scheme concerns me as I have no desire to have a vaccine which has been rushed through.

As an example, will you have to have the vaccine to go into large gatherings such as football matches or for travel on public transport?

That’s a good point.

Oi, want a fake covipass? £20 to you Squire, good as the real thing!

[djohnson]

Taylor James said:

Indemnifying the pharma companies is commonplace. Of course questioning that makes you a tinfoil hat wearing, flat earther.

.

Interesting. If it’s usual procedure then I’d be unconcerned about it. I know nothing off the pharma industry, it’s not one I’ve ever worked with and hence this is a genuine question. What’s the commercial rationale for government providing these indemnities? If a private company has developed a drug and gone through all the approval process why would government indemnify them? Wouldn’t the objective of safety be better served if they didn’t do so? I get that you might not want a big drug company to fail due to the social consequences but the same is true of many industries (eg audit) which certainly don’t get any government backed PI cover and surely if you had an issue with a drug so significant that government needed to bail you out of the claims your brand is finished anyway?

[Taylor James]

djohnson said:

Taylor James said:

Indemnifying the pharma companies is commonplace. Of course questioning that makes you a tinfoil hat wearing, flat earther.

.

Interesting. If it’s usual procedure then I’d be unconcerned about it. I know nothing off the pharma industry, it’s not one I’ve ever worked with and hence this is a genuine question. What’s the commercial rationale for government providing these indemnities? If a private company has developed a drug and gone through all the approval process why would government indemnify them? Wouldn’t the objective of safety be better served if they didn’t do so? I get that you might not want a big drug company to fail due to the social consequences but the same is true of many industries (eg audit) which certainly don’t get any government backed PI cover and surely if you had an issue with a drug so significant that government needed to bail you out of the claims your brand is finished anyway?

I think the argument (get your tissues ready) goes something along the lines of we might not make any money out of this and someone else might make a vaccine as well us us, then there's the tiny chance it might result in some big claims. We're doing this for you really. If it was down to us it wouldn't be worth our while. So indemnify us or we won't do it.

Of course, that might be grossly unfair.

[djohnson]

Taylor James said:

I think the argument (get your tissues ready) goes something along the lines of we might not make any money out of this and someone else might make a vaccine as well us us, then there's the tiny chance it might result in some big claims. We're doing this for you really. If it was down to us it wouldn't be worth our while. So indemnify us or we won't do it.

Of course, that might be grossly unfair.

Understood. Thanks

[rich888]

pneumothorax said:

I still think that the big thing we could have done in early March that could have changed what's happened since to the NHS was dedicated hospitals for cases. It's an idea that has many easily seen flaws, but it would imo have made a big difference to the overall death rate (collateral ones mainly)

pneumothorax thanks for your input and it's somewhat reassuring to hear your side of what is going on at ground level rather than the twisted versions we are being fed from the government and the press.

In terms of your comments made I emailed my MP back in March when this all kicked off and suggested they take over one or more Amazon size warehouses and kit them out specifically for dealing with Covid-19 patients, I also suggested they draft in military doctors and nurses to deal specifically with these cases and of course wear the appropriate clothing and masks, my reasoning for doing this was to save disrupting existing hospitals which would not be geared up for dealing with the virus, and also to ensure that in the event of an outbreak it would be contained, now when I sent the email we were all under the impression that it was a killer virus on par with Ebola which we now know is not the case. However, if they had used the Nightingale hospitals for dealing with Covid patients from the outset I can safely assume that considerably less people would have been killed both then and now, and I'm not even a medic, just watch too many films like Outbreak and Contagion (2011) - BTW, this one put the hairs up on the back of my neck when I watched it.

[irc]

djohnson said:

We surely wouldn’t be in a position whereby the developers and / or manufacturers of a vaccine had no accountability for its effects? If those who develop and make it won’t stand behind it then you’d be nuts to take it unless it was an absolute last chance, which for 99.9% of people it won’t be.

If your enquiry relates to an indemnity given by the Government to vaccine
manufacturers to cover civil claims for damages in certain circumstances,
I can confirm that a qualified indemnity of this sort was given in
relation to the following manufacturers and vaccines:

• GlaxoSmithKline – Pandemrix
• Baxter International – Celvapan
• Sanofi Pasteur SA – Liquid Smallpox Vaccine VV Lister/CEP

I hope this reply is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Nicholas Curry
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health"

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vaccine_man...

So looks like in most circumstances the drug companies can not be sued if their vaccine causes serious side effects. Presumably the phrase "qualified indemnity" covers things like if a drug company knowingly covered up any issues. But that is speculation on my part.

I guess if the drug companies reasonably believed their vaccines were safe then they are bulletproof.

Me? I'm not an anti vaccer. All our kids had the standard ones. Approaching 60 I took the flu vaccine last year and will take it again this year. Covid Vaccine. I'll give it a miss for the moment until it has been tested on the general population for a year or so.

[rich888]

Elysium said:

I am going to post an article from this morning again, because I think it has been missed and it is quite extraordinary.

Sweden has just recorded its lowest ever all cause death toll for Sept:

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/10/24/how-dead...

Its not just that they have no excess deaths. Less people died in Sweden last month than in any previous year.

They have no mask mandates and nothing even remotely close to our lockdown.

It does not look as if October is going to be any different:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explor...

But hey .. lets continue to ignore them.

Well spotted Elysium and thank you for bringing this news to our attention, yet no mention on the BBC or any other news network be it TV or web, have the government really taken control of all the news outlets? It's almost like we are in North Korea!

[djohnson]

irc said:

djohnson said:

We surely wouldn’t be in a position whereby the developers and / or manufacturers of a vaccine had no accountability for its effects? If those who develop and make it won’t stand behind it then you’d be nuts to take it unless it was an absolute last chance, which for 99.9% of people it won’t be.

If your enquiry relates to an indemnity given by the Government to vaccine
manufacturers to cover civil claims for damages in certain circumstances,
I can confirm that a qualified indemnity of this sort was given in
relation to the following manufacturers and vaccines:

• GlaxoSmithKline – Pandemrix
• Baxter International – Celvapan
• Sanofi Pasteur SA – Liquid Smallpox Vaccine VV Lister/CEP

I hope this reply is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Nicholas Curry
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health"

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vaccine_man...

So looks like in most circumstances the drug companies can not be sued if their vaccine causes serious side effects. Presumably the phrase "qualified indemnity" covers things like if a drug company knowingly covered up any issues. But that is speculation on my part.

I guess if the drug companies reasonably believed their vaccines were safe then they are bulletproof.

Me? I'm not an anti vaccer. All our kids had the standard ones. Approaching 60 I took the flu vaccine last year and will take it again this year. Covid Vaccine. I'll give it a miss for the moment until it has been tested on the general population for a year or so.

Thanks. I know nothing of this industry but I guess what this means is that we’re not taking these vaccines at our own risk. The government has indemnified the developer / manufacturer (possibly in part / with limitations) but this is, presumably, exactly what it says on the tin, Ie an indemnity. If I take the drug and suffer serious issues I can sue the manufacturer/ developer and if I’m successful they will pay me out and reclaim from the government under the indemnity.

[ORD]

rich888 said:

Well spotted Elysium and thank you for bringing this news to our attention, yet no mention on the BBC or any other news network be it TV or web, have the government really taken control of all the news outlets? It's almost like we are in North Korea!

Yes. It suggests to me that many of the deaths now occurring in the U.K. have been caused by the measures, rather than CV. I thought it would take a while for the deaths caused by the hysteria to catch up with deaths from the virus, but I now think it might only take 2-3 years.

[rich888]

If you listen to the Dr Mike Yeadon podcast he makes it quite clear that a vaccine is a pretty pointless exercise and provides reasons why he thinks this.

Here's the download page: https://www.podbean.com/site/EpisodeDownload/PBEFC...

Download the podcast: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/download/cwx3wc/Yeadon...

Ought to mention the podcast is over 1hr 48mins long but well worth listening to before making up your own mind.

I appreciate that some on here are trying to discredit him, but I have a feeling that they haven't actually listened to the podcast, question is why are they doing this, and what are they scared of?

[Elysium]

Good chart from Alistair Haimes on Twitter, July, August and Sept all low mortality compared to previous years:

[2gins]

Taylor James said:

I think what looked like a sensible move - we will follow the science - has backfired. I think the scientists they chose/were in place at the time looked at this as a most interesting experiment. The government went hook, line and sinker for the glamour of a global pandemic and the scientific advice on suppression. Any voices talking about money were shouted down or ignored.

Now the economic and other consequences are becoming clear, what do the government do? Stop following the science or sack the current group of scientific advisers? Not a good political choice.

I think they've chosen to try and sneak out the back door and hope no-one notices. That translates into fudging everything over the next year or so and hiding their tracks through a blizzard of contradictory and fudged statistics and a general policy in line with social media and focus group opinion. They can identify some scapegoats along the way. The vaccine represents a mythical cavalry just over the hill.

I think your first paragraph is close to the money. I really use the quote as a lead in to the below.

I said on a previous page 395 or thereabouts, the central problem here is that the politicians (Boris, Matt, and their hangers on) are 'following the science' but they're just not equipped to understand it. So unless they're getting really good, impartial and honest scientific advice, they're wide open to being led by the nose. There are 2 people in the cabinet with STEM degrees, and neither of them have been anywhere near the argument (Alok Sharma - Physics, and Therese Coffey, Chemistry). The rest of them are Law and Politics/PPE, and haven't a hope of being able to even ask the advisors the right questions or properly drill into the advice they're given. That might be OK if the advic was good, but as someone pointed out, and as Yeadon states, SAGE is not constituted sufficiently robustly to give a good view of the state of the science (it is very one sided - with Fraser 'we're doomed' syndrome).

I closed that comment pondering whether the Labour front bench were in any better shape. Have a guess?

I got bored after about 40 shadow ministers, but I found more or less exactly the same thing. Loads of Law and PPE, hardly any practical STEM experience. The closest you get in the first 20 shadow ministers is Thangham Debbonaire who studied maths, but seems to have quit in favour of some sort of management bks, although Miliband did Maths & Physics A Levels. Rosina Allin Khan did Medicine after some spectacularly poor A Levels, Valerie Vaz has a background in Biochemistry. Where are they?

It's quite amazing, I've long held a belief that the HoC is filled with PPE drones doing a circuit from Oxbridge to Peership while milking as much from the state coffers as possible, but I'd never really bothered to drill in and verify my hypothesis until now. We are in a scientific crisis with no scientific leadership or understanding whatsoever. This is why we're completely fked. They're not even capable of understanding the problems, even if your drew them a picture. These useless s need to be shaken from their torpor and then kicked out, but who is going to do the shaking? The media aren't much better. I'm not saying everyone in the commons needs to be a member of a learned society but for Christs' sake if we're dealing with a technical problem let's get some bloody appropriately qualified people at the front!

[gazapc]

Elysium said:

Sweden has just recorded its lowest ever all cause death toll for Sept:

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/10/24/how-dead...

Thanks for all your posts Elysium, but important to add this was not just the lowest ever all cause death toll for September, it was the lowest of any month!

[isaldiri]

2gins said:

It's quite amazing, I've long held a belief that the HoC is filled with PPE drones doing a circuit from Oxbridge to Peership while milking as much from the state coffers as possible, but I'd never really bothered to drill in and verify my hypothesis until now. We are in a scientific crisis with no scientific leadership or understanding whatsoever. This is why we're completely fked. They're not even capable of understanding the problems, even if your drew them a picture. These useless s need to be shaken from their torpor and then kicked out, but who is going to do the shaking? The media aren't much better. I'm not saying everyone in the commons needs to be a member of a learned society but for Christs' sake if we're dealing with a technical problem let's get some bloody appropriately qualified people at the front!

You perhaps put far too much emphasis on what someone may or may not have studied whoch I have to say I don't think is at all relevant.

It is I think perhaps far more a question of what the politicians have actually done with their lives and whether they have ever proven any capability outside of backstabbing others in politics. Most of them have been just doing nothing other than politicking, public relations in politics or journalism ie purely in the political bubble.

[Boringvolvodriver]

isaldiri said:

You perhaps put far too much emphasis on what someone may or may not have studied whoch I have to say I don't think is at all relevant.

It is I think perhaps far more a question of what the politicians have actually done with their lives and whether they have ever proven any capability outside of backstabbing others in politics. Most of them have been just doing nothing other than politicking, public relations in politics or journalism ie purely in the political bubble.

I agree with your second point - there is no real life experience in these politicians and all they know is how to play politics.

I would say that having someone with some knowledge would be beneficial but perhaps more importantly the ministers should have enough about them to ask the pertinent questions, admit that they don’t understand the issues rather than play power games.

They don’t want to appear to be stupid by asking a question of the so called experts but in reality they don’t have the intelligence or self awareness to do so. I was once told that there is no such thing as a stupid question.

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[2gins]

isaldiri said:

2gins said:

It's quite amazing, I've long held a belief that the HoC is filled with PPE drones doing a circuit from Oxbridge to Peership while milking as much from the state coffers as possible, but I'd never really bothered to drill in and verify my hypothesis until now. We are in a scientific crisis with no scientific leadership or understanding whatsoever. This is why we're completely fked. They're not even capable of understanding the problems, even if your drew them a picture. These useless s need to be shaken from their torpor and then kicked out, but who is going to do the shaking? The media aren't much better. I'm not saying everyone in the commons needs to be a member of a learned society but for Christs' sake if we're dealing with a technical problem let's get some bloody appropriately qualified people at the front!

You perhaps put far too much emphasis on what someone may or may not have studied whoch I have to say I don't think is at all relevant.

It is I think perhaps far more a question of what the politicians have actually done with their lives and whether they have ever proven any capability outside of backstabbing others in politics. Most of them have been just doing nothing other than politicking, public relations in politics or journalism ie purely in the political bubble.

Yes, it's a fair point. I studied chemistry but what I do now, while still in the same field, is very far removed from what I studied. But, a scientific training teaches you about properly analysing problems, testing a hypothesis, having controls, and being sceptical. I have no confidence that Boris (classics!) or Hancock (PPE) are in any way capable of challenging what SAGE presents. Law teaches you similar disciplines, and may go a long way to making up that ground in (e.g.) constitutional or other non-technical problems, but this right now is a technical, scientific problem - test probabilities, immunology, vaccine efficacy, viral spread, etc. Law does not teach you the language of these subjects. My wife is a very talented lawyer, she hasn't got a clue about technical matters, even basic DIY she doesn't get why certain things can/can't be done.

If one were a physicist, you'd have a hope of engaging with an immunologist. You're from the same world. You don't speak the same language but you have a common base to start from. A lawyer? Completely different species. And in this moment, if the politicians are going to be led by the science, they must be able to challenge the scientists, otherwise they will end up being led by the nose instead. It's like the plumber telling Mrs Jones she needs a new boiler and the whole house will need to be re-piped. At the mercy of the 'experts'.

edit
And I agree too with your second paragraph - post-grad experience is very relevant. I don't really care if they've done a degree in humanities but then spent 10-15 years running a business (a proper one, not some charity or consultancy) or teaching or working in medical practice, for example. But most of them have just gone straight for the political role. And I have to ask - most of us, probably, had some idea what we wanted to do in life from A Level. We targeted our A levels at a certain career direction to enable certain degrees. Engineering in my case. These guys chose politics. Ergo: career politicians. This is what we have leading us through a technical crisis. Hence, no confidence here. Even more important we have a genuinely free press, but it seems we don't. I haven't checked the Ofcom details yet, link much appreciated.

Edited by 2gins on Sunday 25th October 23:51