How many have been vaccinated so far?
Discussion
GnuBee said:
Have to agree with this sentiment. MX5Bioligst is just one of a list of examples. Brave enough to put their head above the parapet ultimately to leave.. I've considered responding to some of the inflammatory content across this discussion from the POV of someone on the inside of the Big Pharma effort with direct contact with safety and efficacy monitoring but what's the point?
It, like other emotive subjects, has become a "religious" argument, a binary discussion all be it one heavily loaded in a one direction with a certain narrative.
To try and offer counter points based on direct experience, per MX5Biolgist, it the virtual equivalent of taking a p!ss in the wind caused by the shouting from the "new experts".
Well i disagree. I've been on some of the covid threads for a while and I don't believe there were many cases if at all where MX5Biologist was being 'attacked' for an opinion or fact that he had posted that 'the PH masses' as referred to dared to disagree with especially as the earlier post auggested a mass pile in of posts 'attacking' him for holding that opinion.It, like other emotive subjects, has become a "religious" argument, a binary discussion all be it one heavily loaded in a one direction with a certain narrative.
To try and offer counter points based on direct experience, per MX5Biolgist, it the virtual equivalent of taking a p!ss in the wind caused by the shouting from the "new experts".
Questioned - sure but that's not exactly disallowed to query the basis for someone, even an expert, holding said opinion I'd have hoped and to point out other (referenced) sources as to why it might not be unreasonable to hold a different opinion.
At the end of the day, not all that much discussion here boils down to detailed technical knowledge (and quite sensibly so) where someone in the field clearly would know more in their specific area but rather a more general public health question that is a balancing of various tradeoffs.
GnuBee said:
Have to agree with this sentiment. MX5Bioligst is just one of a list of examples. Brave enough to put their head above the parapet ultimately to leave.. I've considered responding to some of the inflammatory content across this discussion from the POV of someone on the inside of the Big Pharma effort with direct contact with safety and efficacy monitoring but what's the point?
It, like other emotive subjects, has become a "religious" argument, a binary discussion all be it one heavily loaded in a one direction with a certain narrative.
To try and offer counter points based on direct experience, per MX5Biolgist, it the virtual equivalent of taking a p!ss in the wind caused by the shouting from the "new experts".
The response to 'experts' is familiar and predictable. It, like other emotive subjects, has become a "religious" argument, a binary discussion all be it one heavily loaded in a one direction with a certain narrative.
To try and offer counter points based on direct experience, per MX5Biolgist, it the virtual equivalent of taking a p!ss in the wind caused by the shouting from the "new experts".
The more disappointing aspect is MX5 receiving a 7 day ban without warning for trolling? His post count was modest. This suggests that either moderation is not impartial, or that moderation has some degree of automation.
Either way...
isaldiri said:
GnuBee said:
Have to agree with this sentiment. MX5Bioligst is just one of a list of examples. Brave enough to put their head above the parapet ultimately to leave.. I've considered responding to some of the inflammatory content across this discussion from the POV of someone on the inside of the Big Pharma effort with direct contact with safety and efficacy monitoring but what's the point?
It, like other emotive subjects, has become a "religious" argument, a binary discussion all be it one heavily loaded in a one direction with a certain narrative.
To try and offer counter points based on direct experience, per MX5Biolgist, it the virtual equivalent of taking a p!ss in the wind caused by the shouting from the "new experts".
Well i disagree. I've been on some of the covid threads for a while and I don't believe there were many cases if at all where MX5Biologist was being 'attacked' for an opinion or fact that he had posted that 'the PH masses' as referred to dared to disagree with especially as the earlier post auggested a mass pile in of posts 'attacking' him for holding that opinion.It, like other emotive subjects, has become a "religious" argument, a binary discussion all be it one heavily loaded in a one direction with a certain narrative.
To try and offer counter points based on direct experience, per MX5Biolgist, it the virtual equivalent of taking a p!ss in the wind caused by the shouting from the "new experts".
Questioned - sure but that's not exactly disallowed to query the basis for someone, even an expert, holding said opinion I'd have hoped and to point out other (referenced) sources as to why it might not be unreasonable to hold a different opinion.
At the end of the day, not all that much discussion here boils down to detailed technical knowledge (and quite sensibly so) where someone in the field clearly would know more in their specific area but rather a more general public health question that is a balancing of various tradeoffs.
I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
oyster said:
It’s not an issue specific to PH though, it seems wider. Brexit and Covid are a classic examples of this recent phenomenon, where armchair experts proclaim real experts are wrong, not because of the strength of their counter-argument, but simply because the real expert opinion works against the viewpoint of the armchair expert.
I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
Gove's quote was;I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”
He wasn't critical of actual expertise, he was criticising people who claim to be experts who'll keep telling people what to do long after they've been shown to be wrong.
ruggedscotty said:
thing is its been shown the vaxx reduces the spread - isnt that a good thing ? isnt that something that we need to embrace ?
Has it though? Once again it depends which 'experts' you are listening to?
The ones like Whitty and Fauci who are paid by our government to get the needed message across or the thousands of others who simply see it differently.
If you take the statement above that the vaxx is reducing the spread, it once again depends who you listen to.
For everyone standing there representing the governments view there are more who are saying.....
Why then are the curves for infections and deaths pretty similar in countries that have very different vaccine rollouts?
The curves may start at different points, but overlay the graphs and they are incredibly similar waves whether the population is vaxxed heavily or not.
What about the countries where the deaths have shot up considerably after vaccine rollout?
Not saying the vaccine is the cause, but there is no proof these vaccines are reducing spread at all.
Why are we testing in the UK at 40 cycles still on a PCR test? When not one person will stand up and say that is an absolute nonsense?
CDC testing unvaxxed at 45 cycles vs 26 cycles for the vaxxed? Why do they feel the need to do that?
CDC now not including positive cases for the vaxxed unless hospitalised or dying. Why is that?
Who knows if we would be any different now if we had not vaxxed anyone? We don't, but under normal times we would be looking at countries who haven't and doing better than us and saying "Hold on a minute?"
Anyone can find an expert who backs up their narrative.
Northernboy said:
oyster said:
It’s not an issue specific to PH though, it seems wider. Brexit and Covid are a classic examples of this recent phenomenon, where armchair experts proclaim real experts are wrong, not because of the strength of their counter-argument, but simply because the real expert opinion works against the viewpoint of the armchair expert.
I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
Gove's quote was;I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”
He wasn't critical of actual expertise, he was criticising people who claim to be experts who'll keep telling people what to do long after they've been shown to be wrong.
Or Fergie
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-mode...
oyster said:
In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity,...
I've never understood why UK governments are so keen on STEM graduates given the UK invests so little in R&D. Last time I checked only around 20% of UK graduates actually went on to work in STEM. I'm equally as guilty as my degree was in natural sciences but I now work outside of that field.Harrison Bergeron said:
Interesting. I don’t think gove really thought that answer through.
Or Fergie
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-mode...
Why are you posting Covid graphs? His quote is from 2017.Or Fergie
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-mode...
Northernboy said:
oyster said:
It’s not an issue specific to PH though, it seems wider. Brexit and Covid are a classic examples of this recent phenomenon, where armchair experts proclaim real experts are wrong, not because of the strength of their counter-argument, but simply because the real expert opinion works against the viewpoint of the armchair expert.
I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
Gove's quote was;I think it’s quite sad to see. In an age when we’re trying to encourage take up of STEM subjects to try and accelerate skills and productivity, we have this groundswell of anti-expert sentiment from some quarters, ably supported by some well known cheerleaders (Gove and Trump to name two).
“I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”
He wasn't critical of actual expertise, he was criticising people who claim to be experts who'll keep telling people what to do long after they've been shown to be wrong.
- Media use the extreme examples whenever reporting as it gets more clicks and views. So what the public see is Prof. Bobby saying the world will end because of x. The world doesn't end, people think Professors are idiots, instead of the one extremist they rolled out.
- Experts who should know better simplifying a complex issue so much that it becomes just one possibility. Often happens with models - worst cases are shown, not the uncertainty. Public look into it a bit, see it is complex and so then start doubting everything said. A Covid example is stating the vaccines are safe, despite no long term data existing. It should instead be said they are very likely safe, based on all the work done so far.
- Kinda the same as the above - experts mixing their views and sometimes going outside their area, instead of stating the facts for their part. For example now seeing such a focus on saving covid lives, and seeming to forget about the big queues for other treatments as one example. Of course someone focused on viruses will be worried about Covid and want to save lives, but if it turns out their model shows they save 500 lives and going back to normal NHS treatments saves 1000 lives and going back to normal live means people's long term health improves since they're not stuck inside then you should likely pick the lesser of two evils. (Completely made up numbers, but it gets the point across). Same relates to money - the UK is spending around 2.5% of GDP on testing now I think it is, which also should be questioned if it could be spend to save more lives elsewhere for a better return.
- Also experts should be questioned. I know in my area we screw up, and so it is important to hold us to account. For example I know lots of oil workers who fund stuff like Greenpeace, as they view it as important to have that check on a company and make sure things are being done as safely as possible. So questioning vaccines is perfectly ok, to avoid companies taking shortcuts and potentially big consequences appearing later.
Experts should be listened to, but also understand what they should and should not be saying. Avoid giving the worst cases to the media, as it will be what is reported for example. And remember what is actually fact versus opinion.
NRS said:
I would agree in many ways with him, "despite" having an MSc from Imperial. There's a few issues that combine now to make a mess of things:
- Media use the extreme examples whenever reporting as it gets more clicks and views. So what the public see is Prof. Bobby saying the world will end because of x. The world doesn't end, people think Professors are idiots, instead of the one extremist they rolled out.
- Experts who should know better simplifying a complex issue so much that it becomes just one possibility. Often happens with models - worst cases are shown, not the uncertainty. Public look into it a bit, see it is complex and so then start doubting everything said. A Covid example is stating the vaccines are safe, despite no long term data existing. It should instead be said they are very likely safe, based on all the work done so far.
- Kinda the same as the above - experts mixing their views and sometimes going outside their area, instead of stating the facts for their part. For example now seeing such a focus on saving covid lives, and seeming to forget about the big queues for other treatments as one example. Of course someone focused on viruses will be worried about Covid and want to save lives, but if it turns out their model shows they save 500 lives and going back to normal NHS treatments saves 1000 lives and going back to normal live means people's long term health improves since they're not stuck inside then you should likely pick the lesser of two evils. (Completely made up numbers, but it gets the point across). Same relates to money - the UK is spending around 2.5% of GDP on testing now I think it is, which also should be questioned if it could be spend to save more lives elsewhere for a better return.
- Also experts should be questioned. I know in my area we screw up, and so it is important to hold us to account. For example I know lots of oil workers who fund stuff like Greenpeace, as they view it as important to have that check on a company and make sure things are being done as safely as possible. So questioning vaccines is perfectly ok, to avoid companies taking shortcuts and potentially big consequences appearing later.
Experts should be listened to, but also understand what they should and should not be saying. Avoid giving the worst cases to the media, as it will be what is reported for example. And remember what is actually fact versus opinion.
I remember back in March when the "reasonable worst case scenario" was 20,000 deaths. How long ago that was.- Media use the extreme examples whenever reporting as it gets more clicks and views. So what the public see is Prof. Bobby saying the world will end because of x. The world doesn't end, people think Professors are idiots, instead of the one extremist they rolled out.
- Experts who should know better simplifying a complex issue so much that it becomes just one possibility. Often happens with models - worst cases are shown, not the uncertainty. Public look into it a bit, see it is complex and so then start doubting everything said. A Covid example is stating the vaccines are safe, despite no long term data existing. It should instead be said they are very likely safe, based on all the work done so far.
- Kinda the same as the above - experts mixing their views and sometimes going outside their area, instead of stating the facts for their part. For example now seeing such a focus on saving covid lives, and seeming to forget about the big queues for other treatments as one example. Of course someone focused on viruses will be worried about Covid and want to save lives, but if it turns out their model shows they save 500 lives and going back to normal NHS treatments saves 1000 lives and going back to normal live means people's long term health improves since they're not stuck inside then you should likely pick the lesser of two evils. (Completely made up numbers, but it gets the point across). Same relates to money - the UK is spending around 2.5% of GDP on testing now I think it is, which also should be questioned if it could be spend to save more lives elsewhere for a better return.
- Also experts should be questioned. I know in my area we screw up, and so it is important to hold us to account. For example I know lots of oil workers who fund stuff like Greenpeace, as they view it as important to have that check on a company and make sure things are being done as safely as possible. So questioning vaccines is perfectly ok, to avoid companies taking shortcuts and potentially big consequences appearing later.
Experts should be listened to, but also understand what they should and should not be saying. Avoid giving the worst cases to the media, as it will be what is reported for example. And remember what is actually fact versus opinion.
It's a bit of a fine line to tread between giving the public a clear message, and conveying the complexity of the subject. And 50% of the public are simpletons.
NRS said:
Same relates to money - the UK is spending around 2.5% of GDP on testing now I think it is, which also should be questioned if it could be spend to save more lives elsewhere for a better return.
Is it that high? I know the original estimates were £100bn (about 4.5% GDP) - bit did the actual run rate become that high? Not disputing it is a lot of money.More Good News:
Ministers are "working on" plans for quarantine-free travel from amber list countries for people who are fully vaccinated, Matt Hancock has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57570088
Ministers are "working on" plans for quarantine-free travel from amber list countries for people who are fully vaccinated, Matt Hancock has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57570088
Nickgnome said:
More Good News:
Ministers are "working on" plans for quarantine-free travel from amber list countries for people who are fully vaccinated, Matt Hancock has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57570088
So by the time there is maybe 90% plus jabbed at least once they might consider allowing people to not quarantine IF they had been double jabbed already?Ministers are "working on" plans for quarantine-free travel from amber list countries for people who are fully vaccinated, Matt Hancock has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57570088
This is basically a 0 cases strategy in action. The article suggests at a worse case we're basically at a bad winter flu, and that's presumably not accounting for more people being jabbed and the age of non-jabbed people getting younger and younger.
We appear to have gone from a "protect the NHS" to "save lives of the most vulnerable" to "save any live" and now more towards "no one in hospital".
Boringvolvodriver said:
Does “working on” mean the same as planning on opening up fully on 21 June?
And when will they finish “working on” the plans?
It amazes me that people still believe what Hancock et al say anymore.
They are working on them at the same pace as the Social Care plans that are also "Ready to go" and have been for over two years.And when will they finish “working on” the plans?
It amazes me that people still believe what Hancock et al say anymore.
SD.
NRS said:
So by the time there is maybe 90% plus jabbed at least once they might consider allowing people to not quarantine IF they had been double jabbed already?
This is basically a 0 cases strategy in action....
It isn't. Israel has something like 90% adults vaccinated, and is starting to get small outbreaks again, one of which was linked to a person returning to the country. Singapore just had a recent outbreak - they managed to trace patient zero to an 88 year old who was double vaccinated. This is basically a 0 cases strategy in action....
So we need to stop thinking in absolute terms - vaccines reduce transmission, but they don't stop it entirely. Just as they reduce hospitalisation and deaths but without preventing them completely. Adapting the layers of risk we apply makes sense while we are in this transition phase before we reach herd immunity. And even then, they will be a *very* long tail of new cases which will likely continue forever.
High vaccination rates just help mitigate the scale of any outbreak - they don't and will never mean zero cases. A number of the main epidemiologists on Sage are saying this openly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff