Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works." You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias." I'm not sure facts care about people's reactions to the media. The way it's played out is unfortunate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then??" You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then?? You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week" Likewise, if someone is certain the effects are going to swamp the NHS then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works." That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. " Not always. Plus the NHS is never prepared. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias." If it’s negative it can result in thousands of deaths If it’s positive we are just under restrictions we dudnt need Can you see the difference | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then?? You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week Likewise, if someone is certain the effects are going to swamp the NHS then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week." 1,7,21,24,45,46 The NHS may not be swamped with patients but people forget the staff are human, they get sick and are dropping like flies in our hospital. Also the huge numbers of infections with a lower hospitalisation rate still means a a lot of patients and probably more than with delta Buy that lottery ticket now you're enlightened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process!" I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then?? You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week Likewise, if someone is certain the effects are going to swamp the NHS then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week. 1,7,21,24,45,46 The NHS may not be swamped with patients but people forget the staff are human, they get sick and are dropping like flies in our hospital. Also the huge numbers of infections with a lower hospitalisation rate still means a a lot of patients and probably more than with delta Buy that lottery ticket now you're enlightened. " Dropping like flies? Oh please! If they've all been vaccinated they should be able to withstand the virus! Remember if you're vaccinated you are far less likely to be seriously ill. And if they're isolating because they've tested positive, it doesn't matter because remember the hospitals are FULL of patients with Covid, the patients have already got Covid, so staff don't have to worry about giving it to them again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media " Anything excites the media. Best to ignore it all and find your own facts  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then?? You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week Likewise, if someone is certain the effects are going to swamp the NHS then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week. 1,7,21,24,45,46 The NHS may not be swamped with patients but people forget the staff are human, they get sick and are dropping like flies in our hospital. Also the huge numbers of infections with a lower hospitalisation rate still means a a lot of patients and probably more than with delta Buy that lottery ticket now you're enlightened. " They'll be the unvaccinated staff though surely... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. Not always. Plus the NHS is never prepared. " Care to expand on the 'not always' .... interested to hear your reasoning | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then?? You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week Likewise, if someone is certain the effects are going to swamp the NHS then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week. 1,7,21,24,45,46 The NHS may not be swamped with patients but people forget the staff are human, they get sick and are dropping like flies in our hospital. Also the huge numbers of infections with a lower hospitalisation rate still means a a lot of patients and probably more than with delta Buy that lottery ticket now you're enlightened. They'll be the unvaccinated staff though surely... " Nope not necessarily, close contacts ... Buy that ticket | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. Not always. Plus the NHS is never prepared. Care to expand on the 'not always' .... interested to hear your reasoning" It isn't sensible to prepare for 'the worst' if you cannot afford it. If you then decide you can't afford not to prepare for the worst, it isn't sensible to put all your eggs in one basket. If you do put all your eggs in one basket, it isn't sensible for that one thing to be untested and where you accept all the risk and the supplier takes all the profit. It isn't sensible to pour unlimited amounts of money into a service that has never been able to cope with a mild winter without making some fundamental changes beforehand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. Not always. Plus the NHS is never prepared. Care to expand on the 'not always' .... interested to hear your reasoning It isn't sensible to prepare for 'the worst' if you cannot afford it. If you then decide you can't afford not to prepare for the worst, it isn't sensible to put all your eggs in one basket. If you do put all your eggs in one basket, it isn't sensible for that one thing to be untested and where you accept all the risk and the supplier takes all the profit. It isn't sensible to pour unlimited amounts of money into a service that has never been able to cope with a mild winter without making some fundamental changes beforehand." when has it been said we cant afford it? A political choice to ignore pre-pandemic planning and preperation not a financial one. Too busy getting brexit done so it was shelved on the to-do pile. the eggs havent all been put in one basket, multiple vaccines, different levels of guidance and requirememts, all different ways of tackling the pamdemic of course its untested, thats what you get with an unknown or would you prefer we wait a decade or so and millions dead before trying a vaccine. Oh how nice it would be to be pro-active but we dont have that pleasure, we are in re-active mode so yes unlimited funds to do whatever is necessary to maintain the health of all. Im afraid your 'not always' in this instance is nothing more than a deflection from the blindingly obvious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then??" There are a few different case studies coming out but there are going to be asterisk next to a lot of them which will need further study… for example the Scottish study was done with 20 omicron cases, the South African study was done with mainly those of younger ages, even imperials study state these are preliminary findings and more study needs doing! Remember we have only basically known about omicron for 4 weeks… obviously more research that is done more we will know… but you still have lag between cases and hospitalisation… and then icu and then deaths… and all that will take time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. Not always. Plus the NHS is never prepared. Care to expand on the 'not always' .... interested to hear your reasoning It isn't sensible to prepare for 'the worst' if you cannot afford it. If you then decide you can't afford not to prepare for the worst, it isn't sensible to put all your eggs in one basket. If you do put all your eggs in one basket, it isn't sensible for that one thing to be untested and where you accept all the risk and the supplier takes all the profit. It isn't sensible to pour unlimited amounts of money into a service that has never been able to cope with a mild winter without making some fundamental changes beforehand. when has it been said we cant afford it? A political choice to ignore pre-pandemic planning and preperation not a financial one. Too busy getting brexit done so it was shelved on the to-do pile. the eggs havent all been put in one basket, multiple vaccines, different levels of guidance and requirememts, all different ways of tackling the pamdemic of course its untested, thats what you get with an unknown or would you prefer we wait a decade or so and millions dead before trying a vaccine. Oh how nice it would be to be pro-active but we dont have that pleasure, we are in re-active mode so yes unlimited funds to do whatever is necessary to maintain the health of all. Im afraid your 'not always' in this instance is nothing more than a deflection from the blindingly obvious" It's not a deflection. It's being realistic. You need to stop looking at it with rose-tinted glasses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. " Hmmm don’t think an analogy that spans 71 years is comparable to 12-18 months. And in the case of the vaccines they would have had some essential questions to answer right up front such as level and duration of efficacy and number of doses requires over a given period. Rather different to trying to envisage the impact of a technology that was complete sci fi in 1950! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. Hmmm don’t think an analogy that spans 71 years is comparable to 12-18 months. And in the case of the vaccines they would have had some essential questions to answer right up front such as level and duration of efficacy and number of doses requires over a given period. Rather different to trying to envisage the impact of a technology that was complete sci fi in 1950!" It's only an analogy! When the vaccines first came out we thought that coronaviruses evolved slowly. Now we're seeing lots of variants. They protected well against severe disease and death as compared to the ancestral strain, which was the question posed. As iPads weren't a thing in 1950, Omicron wasn't a thing when these trials were designed or completed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s funny that the vaxxers in here are pushing the vaccines and desperate to have more and more without questions being asked….. You may as well send a postcard saying “Wish you were here” from the Titanic "Your post is completely nonsensical  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. Hmmm don’t think an analogy that spans 71 years is comparable to 12-18 months. And in the case of the vaccines they would have had some essential questions to answer right up front such as level and duration of efficacy and number of doses requires over a given period. Rather different to trying to envisage the impact of a technology that was complete sci fi in 1950! It's only an analogy! When the vaccines first came out we thought that coronaviruses evolved slowly. Now we're seeing lots of variants. They protected well against severe disease and death as compared to the ancestral strain, which was the question posed. As iPads weren't a thing in 1950, Omicron wasn't a thing when these trials were designed or completed. " I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. Hmmm don’t think an analogy that spans 71 years is comparable to 12-18 months. And in the case of the vaccines they would have had some essential questions to answer right up front such as level and duration of efficacy and number of doses requires over a given period. Rather different to trying to envisage the impact of a technology that was complete sci fi in 1950! It's only an analogy! When the vaccines first came out we thought that coronaviruses evolved slowly. Now we're seeing lots of variants. They protected well against severe disease and death as compared to the ancestral strain, which was the question posed. As iPads weren't a thing in 1950, Omicron wasn't a thing when these trials were designed or completed. I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. " 
Unfortunately you are wasting your time on here….it appears people don’t care about long term effects from the vaccines and just want the easy way out.
No one cares that there is no data on mixing the different vaccines ??.
They are only interested is the idea of freedom which is slowly being removed by the government…..
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. Hmmm don’t think an analogy that spans 71 years is comparable to 12-18 months. And in the case of the vaccines they would have had some essential questions to answer right up front such as level and duration of efficacy and number of doses requires over a given period. Rather different to trying to envisage the impact of a technology that was complete sci fi in 1950! It's only an analogy! When the vaccines first came out we thought that coronaviruses evolved slowly. Now we're seeing lots of variants. They protected well against severe disease and death as compared to the ancestral strain, which was the question posed. As iPads weren't a thing in 1950, Omicron wasn't a thing when these trials were designed or completed. I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. " I think we mean different things by experiment and it muddies the question. The experiments were done, answering the questions which were asked. We learn more as we go on, as we always do with anything. That's not an experiment as much as... life? Was it a mass medical experiment when they banned smoking in pubs? However, experiment is also used by some to refer to their deranged fantasy about clinical trials ongoing or some such, which clearly has no basis in reality. The trials were done (accelerated), the data was submitted, the vaccines continue to be scrutinised, their safety record is on par or better than more established vaccines. The dosage has changed as conditions change, and trials were done on that too (and trust me, you can't accidentally end up on a trial). (There'll be no hangings for breaches of the Nuremberg Code, no matter how furiously anyone wants over the idea) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How much milder it is depends on your vaccination status. Relating to overnight hospitalisations it's about 75% milder if fully vaccinated with booster if it applies. If double vaccinated but not boosted its 45% milder. Unvaccinated and no previous infection it's only 5 to 10% milder. Obvious these findings are only estimates as obviously there aren't a lot of data points yet. " Where did the vaccinated patients come from? According to the news, and many on here, all the hospital beds are occupied by unvaccinated patients! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. " You never state what data you'd like to see. The sample size is pretty damn large. Timeframe: 1 year, 5 years, 100 years? It'll never be enough to satisfy everyone. Particularly those who don't understand evidence _ased medicine. Nirvana fallacy, again. In my line of work, clinical trials are seen as unequivocally a good thing. People fight tooth and nail to get on trials. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. That how experiments work. We learn as we go along and gather evidence as part of the experiment. Except with Covid vaccines of course which are not experimental because huge funding, huge number of research participants and concurrent phase 1-3 so we know everything about them...except we don’t! So errrr experimental then yes? No because we know everything including efficacy levels and how long they remain...except we got that wrong! But that’s ok because we can issue boosters after six months but not before that, except we now have decided we can issue the boosters far sooner than six months so, errr we got that wrong too or perhaps we are getting it wrong now????? Not aimed at you @_naswingdress but useful jumping off point. Don’t let anyone say this isn’t an experiment or experimental. It is the very definition of an experiment because “we are learning as we go along”. Not saying the vaccines are bad (or good actually) but let’s stop with the discrediting of anyone pointing out the experimental nature of them and the whole process! I think the experiments were done into what they were looking for. Now we ask other questions in a changing environment. Like, a study on educational outcomes done in 1950 won't tell you about iPads, sort of thing. Hmmm don’t think an analogy that spans 71 years is comparable to 12-18 months. And in the case of the vaccines they would have had some essential questions to answer right up front such as level and duration of efficacy and number of doses requires over a given period. Rather different to trying to envisage the impact of a technology that was complete sci fi in 1950! It's only an analogy! When the vaccines first came out we thought that coronaviruses evolved slowly. Now we're seeing lots of variants. They protected well against severe disease and death as compared to the ancestral strain, which was the question posed. As iPads weren't a thing in 1950, Omicron wasn't a thing when these trials were designed or completed. I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. I think we mean different things by experiment and it muddies the question. The experiments were done, answering the questions which were asked. We learn more as we go on, as we always do with anything. That's not an experiment as much as... life? Was it a mass medical experiment when they banned smoking in pubs? However, experiment is also used by some to refer to their deranged fantasy about clinical trials ongoing or some such, which clearly has no basis in reality. The trials were done (accelerated), the data was submitted, the vaccines continue to be scrutinised, their safety record is on par or better than more established vaccines. The dosage has changed as conditions change, and trials were done on that too (and trust me, you can't accidentally end up on a trial). (There'll be no hangings for breaches of the Nuremberg Code, no matter how furiously anyone wants over the idea)" Experiment... a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No one cares that there is no data on mixing the different vaccines ??." I care, its one of main reasons I'm not having a booster. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. You never state what data you'd like to see. The sample size is pretty damn large. Timeframe: 1 year, 5 years, 100 years? It'll never be enough to satisfy everyone. Particularly those who don't understand evidence _ased medicine. Nirvana fallacy, again. In my line of work, clinical trials are seen as unequivocally a good thing. People fight tooth and nail to get on trials. " I'm not sure that some of us here are questioning clinical trials, medicine development , vaccines generally are a good thing. That's all good and accepted. What is unhealthy is the oblivious nature of some arguments when reasonable questions are asked and different thoughts are made upon the available data. Its considered heresy to question or challenge, when there are very many very basic questions that need answers but are responded to with generalities and vagaries, such as "we don't know how long it will last or how much safer it is but we can tell you it's a lot..... So trust us and take it".. false comparisons continue to be made. and in exactly the same way as people are only too happy to say we don't know the long term consequences if you catch a variant of covid, well we are in a similar situation with the vaccines, and that natural immunity no longer exists somehow.. We are now down to a 10 week window. ... Fine we learned as we went along....that's great, rather we learn than not learn. But We are 2 years into these vaccines... More if you believe that much of the technology has been in development for decades (which is used to assuage those who say the vaccines were developed too quickly) , so it is reasonable to question. It's just changing the communication a bit, admitting they aren't perfect, and to stop pitching them in ever increasing frequencies as the only answer to this situation, and that some of the questions are relevant, appropriate and reasonable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No one cares that there is no data on mixing the different vaccines ??.I care, its one of main reasons I'm not having a booster. " Take the jab....give in to your cravings! You need it now more than your next breath....give in! Take the jab....and the next one....and the next one....and the next one....and the next one. Don't kill someone's granny in the outer Hebrides. Jab the bejezuz outta yourself. It's the only way to flatten a curve or something  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. You never state what data you'd like to see. The sample size is pretty damn large. Timeframe: 1 year, 5 years, 100 years? It'll never be enough to satisfy everyone. Particularly those who don't understand evidence _ased medicine. Nirvana fallacy, again. In my line of work, clinical trials are seen as unequivocally a good thing. People fight tooth and nail to get on trials. I'm not sure that some of us here are questioning clinical trials, medicine development , vaccines generally are a good thing. That's all good and accepted. What is unhealthy is the oblivious nature of some arguments when reasonable questions are asked and different thoughts are made upon the available data. Its considered heresy to question or challenge, when there are very many very basic questions that need answers but are responded to with generalities and vagaries, such as "we don't know how long it will last or how much safer it is but we can tell you it's a lot..... So trust us and take it".. false comparisons continue to be made. and in exactly the same way as people are only too happy to say we don't know the long term consequences if you catch a variant of covid, well we are in a similar situation with the vaccines, and that natural immunity no longer exists somehow.. We are now down to a 10 week window. ... Fine we learned as we went along....that's great, rather we learn than not learn. But We are 2 years into these vaccines... More if you believe that much of the technology has been in development for decades (which is used to assuage those who say the vaccines were developed too quickly) , so it is reasonable to question. It's just changing the communication a bit, admitting they aren't perfect, and to stop pitching them in ever increasing frequencies as the only answer to this situation, and that some of the questions are relevant, appropriate and reasonable. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No one cares that there is no data on mixing the different vaccines ??.I care, its one of main reasons I'm not having a booster. Take the jab....give in to your cravings! You need it now more than your next breath....give in! Take the jab....and the next one....and the next one....and the next one....and the next one. Don't kill someone's granny in the outer Hebrides. Jab the bejezuz outta yourself. It's the only way to flatten a curve or something " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think, and have thought for a long time, that I believe the dangers of coronavirus are low for people in general good health with no comorbidities and without extreme old age. We shy be adopting the tolerant position that flows from this: urge the vulnerable to take special precautions. The rest of us should be free to get on with our lives. Is that so unreasonable?" what above those who work with the vulnerable ? I largely agree that's where we can aim to get to... But it does depend on how much you we ask individuals to take actions for the wider good ... Which tends to be the question behind much in politics ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who else agrees with dr angelique that boris over reacting over it?" He is under reacting. He was slagged off when this all started for being too slow. Better to over react until you get the proof either way than under react and then it's too late. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. You never state what data you'd like to see. The sample size is pretty damn large. Timeframe: 1 year, 5 years, 100 years? It'll never be enough to satisfy everyone. Particularly those who don't understand evidence _ased medicine. Nirvana fallacy, again. In my line of work, clinical trials are seen as unequivocally a good thing. People fight tooth and nail to get on trials. " You will notice that at no point do I say trials are bad or experiments are bad. I do wish people would actually read/comprehend rather than project! I am pointing out that whenever anyone questions the experimental nature of what is happening they are shot down and told it is not an experiment. My point (and here I respectfully disagree with @insaswingdress as we have in the past on some matters) is that we are all part of this experiment and it is and remains an experiment because as we accumulate more data the guidance/wisdom is changing quite dramatically (not by tiny increments and adjustments). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think, and have thought for a long time, that I believe the dangers of coronavirus are low for people in general good health with no comorbidities and without extreme old age. We shy be adopting the tolerant position that flows from this: urge the vulnerable to take special precautions. The rest of us should be free to get on with our lives. Is that so unreasonable?" The problem with your ‘belief’ is that there are plenty of young, fit people whom Covid has killed, and ‘people with co-morbidities’ under Covid covers around 50% of the population. It makes as much sense as suggesting seatbelts are left to the risk assessment of the individual. After all, if I crash my car and go through the windscreen, it only affects me, right?! Of course not. And your ‘is that so unreasonable?’ is a point as equally well considered as letting everyone choose to wear seatbelts because the risk is on them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then?? You might check how long it takes from infection to death Omicron is a variant and as such may exhibit different behaviour and unfortunately scientist can't predict with anyndegree of certainty what the medium terms and effects will be but at the moment it looks promising. If someone is certain the effects are minimal then perhaps they could also suggest my lottery numbers for next week" The doom & gloom couple from Belfast… lol Happy New Year ! xoxo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. You never state what data you'd like to see. The sample size is pretty damn large. Timeframe: 1 year, 5 years, 100 years? It'll never be enough to satisfy everyone. Particularly those who don't understand evidence _ased medicine. Nirvana fallacy, again. In my line of work, clinical trials are seen as unequivocally a good thing. People fight tooth and nail to get on trials. You will notice that at no point do I say trials are bad or experiments are bad. I do wish people would actually read/comprehend rather than project! I am pointing out that whenever anyone questions the experimental nature of what is happening they are shot down and told it is not an experiment. My point (and here I respectfully disagree with @insaswingdress as we have in the past on some matters) is that we are all part of this experiment and it is and remains an experiment because as we accumulate more data the guidance/wisdom is changing quite dramatically (not by tiny increments and adjustments)." The reason you are correctly shot down is because it is not an experiment - it’s a public health emergency. At best you can say that some treatments were experimental as we initially reacted to the virus, and further experiments will take place as they would in any field of study. The tactics and strategies for dealing with this emergency are mostly not experimental, as they are _ased on pre-existing health and social sciences. So, no, we are not part of an experiment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know but analogies matter (like the often cited but flawed seatbelt analogy) however, my original point stands. This IS an experiment. People have fought tooth and nail to declare that is not an experiment but then contradict themselves by admitting “we are learning as we go” which is the very definition of an experiment! Running phases 1-3 concurrently rather than sequentially meant there was no time to properly allow the data from the preceding phase to influence the following phase (yes yes clever modelling etc but full analysis of primary data - no). Now with Phase 4 (that includes studying long term side effects) in full flight guess what? We are learning new things (which is right) including dramatically waning efficacy. Ergo an experiment. You never state what data you'd like to see. The sample size is pretty damn large. Timeframe: 1 year, 5 years, 100 years? It'll never be enough to satisfy everyone. Particularly those who don't understand evidence _ased medicine. Nirvana fallacy, again. In my line of work, clinical trials are seen as unequivocally a good thing. People fight tooth and nail to get on trials. You will notice that at no point do I say trials are bad or experiments are bad. I do wish people would actually read/comprehend rather than project! I am pointing out that whenever anyone questions the experimental nature of what is happening they are shot down and told it is not an experiment. My point (and here I respectfully disagree with @insaswingdress as we have in the past on some matters) is that we are all part of this experiment and it is and remains an experiment because as we accumulate more data the guidance/wisdom is changing quite dramatically (not by tiny increments and adjustments). The reason you are correctly shot down is because it is not an experiment - it’s a public health emergency. At best you can say that some treatments were experimental as we initially reacted to the virus, and further experiments will take place as they would in any field of study. The tactics and strategies for dealing with this emergency are mostly not experimental, as they are _ased on pre-existing health and social sciences. So, no, we are not part of an experiment." Of course it is a public health emergency. Again you seem to be projecting and responding to what you perceive (or want) me to be saying, rather than what I actually am. I wasn’t “shot down” as that would indicate diametrically opposed viewpoints as opposed to a discussion. You have just described the very definition of an experiment. To gather, analyse and react to data. The change in guidance has been dramatic, the declared longevity of efficacy dramatically reduced. We ARE in Phase 4 for vaccines. Under normal circumstances this is used to refine understanding about how a vaccine/medicine works but would be with a significantly smaller research sample over a longer period of time. Due to the public health emergency we are doing this very visibly with huge numbers of people. But until our understanding of both Covid and the vaccines stabilises, we remain in an experimental state. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry!" “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data?" I think the problem for me is not the definition, but the implications. A lot of people seem to use the word "experiment" to convey something reckless, nefarious, secret. Hence all the invocations of Nuremberg etc (the code has no legal power, but the declaration of Helsinki doesn't have the evil connotation they desire). (Let's call this experiment A) What we have is not an experiment in that sense, and not a formal trial (trust me I know what that entails under the Declaration of Helsinki). It is lurching into the unknown, but not unlike any other policy in some ways. Did we know what would happen, for sure, when we banned smoking in pubs? Removed corporal punishment from schools? And so on? No - but we did it and have observed results over time. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the vaccinations have much more scrutiny than any of these other social changes. (Let's call this experiment B) I'm quite happy to say that we're engaging in experiment B, but maybe we should use different language to steer away from the connotation of experiment A, which I hope you'd agree is somewhat detached from reality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? I think the problem for me is not the definition, but the implications. A lot of people seem to use the word "experiment" to convey something reckless, nefarious, secret. Hence all the invocations of Nuremberg etc (the code has no legal power, but the declaration of Helsinki doesn't have the evil connotation they desire). (Let's call this experiment A) What we have is not an experiment in that sense, and not a formal trial (trust me I know what that entails under the Declaration of Helsinki). It is lurching into the unknown, but not unlike any other policy in some ways. Did we know what would happen, for sure, when we banned smoking in pubs? Removed corporal punishment from schools? And so on? No - but we did it and have observed results over time. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the vaccinations have much more scrutiny than any of these other social changes. (Let's call this experiment B) I'm quite happy to say that we're engaging in experiment B, but maybe we should use different language to steer away from the connotation of experiment A, which I hope you'd agree is somewhat detached from reality." That’s your interpretation of the whole thing… different people have different interpretations and perceive risk differently… this is known as the right to chose… I respect your right to chose your path now thanks for respecting my right to chose my path or direction on the topic ! this is called a free society… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? I think the problem for me is not the definition, but the implications. A lot of people seem to use the word "experiment" to convey something reckless, nefarious, secret. Hence all the invocations of Nuremberg etc (the code has no legal power, but the declaration of Helsinki doesn't have the evil connotation they desire). (Let's call this experiment A) What we have is not an experiment in that sense, and not a formal trial (trust me I know what that entails under the Declaration of Helsinki). It is lurching into the unknown, but not unlike any other policy in some ways. Did we know what would happen, for sure, when we banned smoking in pubs? Removed corporal punishment from schools? And so on? No - but we did it and have observed results over time. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the vaccinations have much more scrutiny than any of these other social changes. (Let's call this experiment B) I'm quite happy to say that we're engaging in experiment B, but maybe we should use different language to steer away from the connotation of experiment A, which I hope you'd agree is somewhat detached from reality. That’s your interpretation of the whole thing… different people have different interpretations and perceive risk differently… this is known as the right to chose… I respect your right to chose your path now thanks for respecting my right to chose my path or direction on the topic ! this is called a free society… " I wasn't aware that me having a civil debate on the implications of language impeded your freedom in any way. My most sincere apologies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data?" Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think, and have thought for a long time, that I believe the dangers of coronavirus are low for people in general good health with no comorbidities and without extreme old age. We shy be adopting the tolerant position that flows from this: urge the vulnerable to take special precautions. The rest of us should be free to get on with our lives. Is that so unreasonable? The problem with your ‘belief’ is that there are plenty of young, fit people whom Covid has killed, and ‘people with co-morbidities’ under Covid covers around 50% of the population. It makes as much sense as suggesting seatbelts are left to the risk assessment of the individual. After all, if I crash my car and go through the windscreen, it only affects me, right?! Of course not. And your ‘is that so unreasonable?’ is a point as equally well considered as letting everyone choose to wear seatbelts because the risk is on them." I don't believe there are 'plenty of young people' killed by coronavirus. How many do you say there are? Last time I looked there were very few...and invariably they had other health problems. No. People who are vulnerable should be urged to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves. Everyone else should be free to get on with their lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? I think the problem for me is not the definition, but the implications. A lot of people seem to use the word "experiment" to convey something reckless, nefarious, secret. Hence all the invocations of Nuremberg etc (the code has no legal power, but the declaration of Helsinki doesn't have the evil connotation they desire). (Let's call this experiment A) What we have is not an experiment in that sense, and not a formal trial (trust me I know what that entails under the Declaration of Helsinki). It is lurching into the unknown, but not unlike any other policy in some ways. Did we know what would happen, for sure, when we banned smoking in pubs? Removed corporal punishment from schools? And so on? No - but we did it and have observed results over time. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the vaccinations have much more scrutiny than any of these other social changes. (Let's call this experiment B) I'm quite happy to say that we're engaging in experiment B, but maybe we should use different language to steer away from the connotation of experiment A, which I hope you'd agree is somewhat detached from reality." Why are some people so precious about the term experiment or trial? Necessitating the need to not use it, in case someone thinks it's "bad". And equally why are some so reluctant to use when things are clearly experimental in nature and the outcomes not known. In some ways its semantics of language. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! " During which ome experimental treatments have been used... I suspect there's an agreement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? I think the problem for me is not the definition, but the implications. A lot of people seem to use the word "experiment" to convey something reckless, nefarious, secret. Hence all the invocations of Nuremberg etc (the code has no legal power, but the declaration of Helsinki doesn't have the evil connotation they desire). (Let's call this experiment A) What we have is not an experiment in that sense, and not a formal trial (trust me I know what that entails under the Declaration of Helsinki). It is lurching into the unknown, but not unlike any other policy in some ways. Did we know what would happen, for sure, when we banned smoking in pubs? Removed corporal punishment from schools? And so on? No - but we did it and have observed results over time. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the vaccinations have much more scrutiny than any of these other social changes. (Let's call this experiment B) I'm quite happy to say that we're engaging in experiment B, but maybe we should use different language to steer away from the connotation of experiment A, which I hope you'd agree is somewhat detached from reality." As always swing, a well thought out and nicely articulated argument presented in a non-confrontational way (a pity others lack that quality). I agree with how you have set that out. Perhaps there would be benefit to a third word along with “experiment” and “trial”. I do recognise the very negative connotations that arise for some people from the word “experiment” which is annoying when actually experiments can be for positive reasons leading to positive outcomes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! " Ha ha patronising much 
I am pretty certain that a cursory read of any of my posts will adequately demonstrate I am anything but insecure but thanks for your concern. As for being take seriously, I couldn’t give a fig! This is a forum on a swinger website! I spout my views, you spout yours. None of it actually matters and I’d prefer to retain my credibility for the real world.
Also BTW starting any post with “Listen” comes across as incredibly self important and self entitled so you may want to watch that.
Once again though you project (bit of a running theme) and seem to get meaning from what I post that clearly is not there
Show me where I said “Covid is an experiment”? Clue = you won’t be able to because I didn’t. I was very clearly (though perhaps not clearly enough for you) talking about the vaccines and the status of Phase 4 - ie we continue to observe, collect and analyse data, adjust our understanding and actions on the findings. I define that as an experiment. @_naswingdress raises an interesting point on how some view the word “experiment” that is a fair discussion point.
Hope THAT helps?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? I think the problem for me is not the definition, but the implications. A lot of people seem to use the word "experiment" to convey something reckless, nefarious, secret. Hence all the invocations of Nuremberg etc (the code has no legal power, but the declaration of Helsinki doesn't have the evil connotation they desire). (Let's call this experiment A) What we have is not an experiment in that sense, and not a formal trial (trust me I know what that entails under the Declaration of Helsinki). It is lurching into the unknown, but not unlike any other policy in some ways. Did we know what would happen, for sure, when we banned smoking in pubs? Removed corporal punishment from schools? And so on? No - but we did it and have observed results over time. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the vaccinations have much more scrutiny than any of these other social changes. (Let's call this experiment B) I'm quite happy to say that we're engaging in experiment B, but maybe we should use different language to steer away from the connotation of experiment A, which I hope you'd agree is somewhat detached from reality. Why are some people so precious about the term experiment or trial? Necessitating the need to not use it, in case someone thinks it's "bad". And equally why are some so reluctant to use when things are clearly experimental in nature and the outcomes not known. In some ways its semantics of language. " I'm just trying to make the connotations spoken, rather than unspoken. I'm happy to say experiment or trial (or potato or eggplant, I really don't care) if I know we're all on the same page about the connotations. As we're clearly not (not you specifically, the group as a whole), I'm distinguishing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! Ha ha patronising much
I am pretty certain that a cursory read of any of my posts will adequately demonstrate I am anything but insecure but thanks for your concern. As for being take seriously, I couldn’t give a fig! This is a forum on a swinger website! I spout my views, you spout yours. None of it actually matters and I’d prefer to retain my credibility for the real world.
Also BTW starting any post with “Listen” comes across as incredibly self important and self entitled so you may want to watch that.
Once again though you project (bit of a running theme) and seem to get meaning from what I post that clearly is not there
Show me where I said “Covid is an experiment”? Clue = you won’t be able to because I didn’t. I was very clearly (though perhaps not clearly enough for you) talking about the vaccines and the status of Phase 4 - ie we continue to observe, collect and analyse data, adjust our understanding and actions on the findings. I define that as an experiment. @_naswingdress raises an interesting point on how some view the word “experiment” that is a fair discussion point.
Hope THAT helps? "Phase 4 is where we get data long term effects, long term immunity. It is done after licensing and marketing. My understanding is it's like monitoring defects on a new range of cars. You wouldn't call the new Ford "experimental" and I doubt many people would not buy it because it hasn't been on the road for five years. If collecting data is called being in an experiment, then we need to get used to being in a continual experiment across our lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science and data says Omicron isn't that severe as has been said from many sources. However now we are being told it's far too early to tell. So the latest moving of the goalposts involves not following the science and data after all then??" so in reality to get all the information science suggests that you need to allow things to run their course otherwise everything is just a possible outcome or number made up by some one somewhere | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. " You're very welcome to stay inside and wear you mask of course and confine yourself to where and when you are allowed out and cover up head to toe. Make whatever restrictions you want on yourself for as long as you want. No complaints from me if you want to hide away/shield/isolate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. You're very welcome to stay inside and wear you mask of course and confine yourself to where and when you are allowed out and cover up head to toe. Make whatever restrictions you want on yourself for as long as you want. No complaints from me if you want to hide away/shield/isolate " It would be better for all of society if these panic mad dictators and public who want to mask up when by themselves and cover themselves in hazmat suits, stay locked away. Afterall data shows they are becoming more infected when vaxxed than non vaxxed. Leave the rest of us sane people to enjoy our lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. You're very welcome to stay inside and wear you mask of course and confine yourself to where and when you are allowed out and cover up head to toe. Make whatever restrictions you want on yourself for as long as you want. No complaints from me if you want to hide away/shield/isolate It would be better for all of society if these panic mad dictators and public who want to mask up when by themselves and cover themselves in hazmat suits, stay locked away. Afterall data shows they are becoming more infected when vaxxed than non vaxxed. Leave the rest of us sane people to enjoy our lives. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. You're very welcome to stay inside and wear you mask of course and confine yourself to where and when you are allowed out and cover up head to toe. Make whatever restrictions you want on yourself for as long as you want. No complaints from me if you want to hide away/shield/isolate It would be better for all of society if these panic mad dictators and public who want to mask up when by themselves and cover themselves in hazmat suits, stay locked away. Afterall data shows they are becoming more infected when vaxxed than non vaxxed. Leave the rest of us sane people to enjoy our lives. " that data has a load of footnotes about why the data may not be telling the story you say it is. Same data also shows that the vaccines reduce your risk of hospitisation by up to 6 fold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. You're very welcome to stay inside and wear you mask of course and confine yourself to where and when you are allowed out and cover up head to toe. Make whatever restrictions you want on yourself for as long as you want. No complaints from me if you want to hide away/shield/isolate It would be better for all of society if these panic mad dictators and public who want to mask up when by themselves and cover themselves in hazmat suits, stay locked away. Afterall data shows they are becoming more infected when vaxxed than non vaxxed. Leave the rest of us sane people to enjoy our lives. " Base rate fallacy: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination Covid-19: Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant, CDC data show (BMJ) https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! Ha ha patronising much
I am pretty certain that a cursory read of any of my posts will adequately demonstrate I am anything but insecure but thanks for your concern. As for being take seriously, I couldn’t give a fig! This is a forum on a swinger website! I spout my views, you spout yours. None of it actually matters and I’d prefer to retain my credibility for the real world.
Also BTW starting any post with “Listen” comes across as incredibly self important and self entitled so you may want to watch that.
Once again though you project (bit of a running theme) and seem to get meaning from what I post that clearly is not there
Show me where I said “Covid is an experiment”? Clue = you won’t be able to because I didn’t. I was very clearly (though perhaps not clearly enough for you) talking about the vaccines and the status of Phase 4 - ie we continue to observe, collect and analyse data, adjust our understanding and actions on the findings. I define that as an experiment. @_naswingdress raises an interesting point on how some view the word “experiment” that is a fair discussion point.
Hope THAT helps? "Well, it helps prove the point you seem insecure in your opinions, which probably wasn’t what you intended. Listen, when someone attempts to be insulting and their language borders on the hysterical it’s hard to hide their lack of confidence, even on the most cursory read, as you say. There’s really no need to be aggressive here - if you can make a sensible point without resorting to insults it will stand up, and thoughtful people may then take you seriously. Give it a try! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here's an interesting story. Not sure how it fits with the one that says az provides waning protection and therefore the need for a booster at 3 months.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-oxford-europe-fears-b1982611.html In this story... Az protection "could" last for ever... I wont use the word experiment. But let's do stuff and see what happens when we've done that stuff. " So here's an interesting article on how the duration of vaccination efficacy is understood. '...YF is considered a re-emerging disease due to the increased numbers of cases in the last 30 years. Until 2014, the vaccine was recommended to be administered with boosters every 10 years, but in 2014 the World Health Organization recommended removal of booster doses for all except special populations. This recommendation has been questioned and there have been reports of waning antibody titers in adults over time and more recently in pediatric populations. Clearly, the potential of waning antibody titers is a very important issue that needs to be carefully evaluated. In this Perspective, we review what is known about the correlate of protection for full-dose YF vaccine, current information on waning antibody titers, and gaps in knowledge. Overall, fundamental questions exist on the durability of protective immunity induced by YF vaccine, but interpretation of studies is complicated by the use of different assays and different cut-offs to measure seroprotective immunity, and differing results among certain endemic versus non-endemic populations.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0205-6 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here's an interesting story. Not sure how it fits with the one that says az provides waning protection and therefore the need for a booster at 3 months.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-oxford-europe-fears-b1982611.html In this story... Az protection "could" last for ever... I wont use the word experiment. But let's do stuff and see what happens when we've done that stuff. So here's an interesting article on how the duration of vaccination efficacy is understood. '...YF is considered a re-emerging disease due to the increased numbers of cases in the last 30 years. Until 2014, the vaccine was recommended to be administered with boosters every 10 years, but in 2014 the World Health Organization recommended removal of booster doses for all except special populations. This recommendation has been questioned and there have been reports of waning antibody titers in adults over time and more recently in pediatric populations. Clearly, the potential of waning antibody titers is a very important issue that needs to be carefully evaluated. In this Perspective, we review what is known about the correlate of protection for full-dose YF vaccine, current information on waning antibody titers, and gaps in knowledge. Overall, fundamental questions exist on the durability of protective immunity induced by YF vaccine, but interpretation of studies is complicated by the use of different assays and different cut-offs to measure seroprotective immunity, and differing results among certain endemic versus non-endemic populations.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0205-6" Interesting. So is your assumption that concept applies to all vaccines or just yf (never heard of it) vaccine? And would that similarly apply to the other famous vaccines that we all know and love... Rubella, polio, smallpox et al? And now some covid vaccines? Makes one wonder if the concept is well known in the vaccine expert world why it was only in the last few months discovered for covid vaccines. Unless we are back to the notion that we didn't know until we rolled it out and waited to see what happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! Ha ha patronising much
I am pretty certain that a cursory read of any of my posts will adequately demonstrate I am anything but insecure but thanks for your concern. As for being take seriously, I couldn’t give a fig! This is a forum on a swinger website! I spout my views, you spout yours. None of it actually matters and I’d prefer to retain my credibility for the real world.
Also BTW starting any post with “Listen” comes across as incredibly self important and self entitled so you may want to watch that.
Once again though you project (bit of a running theme) and seem to get meaning from what I post that clearly is not there
Show me where I said “Covid is an experiment”? Clue = you won’t be able to because I didn’t. I was very clearly (though perhaps not clearly enough for you) talking about the vaccines and the status of Phase 4 - ie we continue to observe, collect and analyse data, adjust our understanding and actions on the findings. I define that as an experiment. @_naswingdress raises an interesting point on how some view the word “experiment” that is a fair discussion point.
Hope THAT helps?
Well, it helps prove the point you seem insecure in your opinions, which probably wasn’t what you intended.
Listen, when someone attempts to be insulting and their language borders on the hysterical it’s hard to hide their lack of confidence, even on the most cursory read, as you say.
There’s really no need to be aggressive here - if you can make a sensible point without resorting to insults it will stand up, and thoughtful people may then take you seriously. Give it a try! "Hmmm you think my posts were aggressive and I resorted to insults! Really! Love to know where you are getting this “insecure” thing from too? Please enlighten me...! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here's an interesting story. Not sure how it fits with the one that says az provides waning protection and therefore the need for a booster at 3 months.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-oxford-europe-fears-b1982611.html In this story... Az protection "could" last for ever... I wont use the word experiment. But let's do stuff and see what happens when we've done that stuff. So here's an interesting article on how the duration of vaccination efficacy is understood. '...YF is considered a re-emerging disease due to the increased numbers of cases in the last 30 years. Until 2014, the vaccine was recommended to be administered with boosters every 10 years, but in 2014 the World Health Organization recommended removal of booster doses for all except special populations. This recommendation has been questioned and there have been reports of waning antibody titers in adults over time and more recently in pediatric populations. Clearly, the potential of waning antibody titers is a very important issue that needs to be carefully evaluated. In this Perspective, we review what is known about the correlate of protection for full-dose YF vaccine, current information on waning antibody titers, and gaps in knowledge. Overall, fundamental questions exist on the durability of protective immunity induced by YF vaccine, but interpretation of studies is complicated by the use of different assays and different cut-offs to measure seroprotective immunity, and differing results among certain endemic versus non-endemic populations.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0205-6 Interesting. So is your assumption that concept applies to all vaccines or just yf (never heard of it) vaccine? And would that similarly apply to the other famous vaccines that we all know and love... Rubella, polio, smallpox et al? And now some covid vaccines? Makes one wonder if the concept is well known in the vaccine expert world why it was only in the last few months discovered for covid vaccines. Unless we are back to the notion that we didn't know until we rolled it out and waited to see what happened. " Yellow Fever is a vaccine for which you need proof of vaccination to visit a number of countries. It was not "discovered" for Covid vaccines anymore than for any other. The examination of efficacy data is on-going for all medical treatments. It is a normal part of the process for every treatment in use. It was known with high statistical probability how the vaccines would act. What was not and could not be known was the mutation rate of the vaccine or the levels of vaccine hesitancy. An "experiment" tests a hypothesis. That is not what has or is happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here's an interesting story. Not sure how it fits with the one that says az provides waning protection and therefore the need for a booster at 3 months.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-oxford-europe-fears-b1982611.html In this story... Az protection "could" last for ever... I wont use the word experiment. But let's do stuff and see what happens when we've done that stuff. So here's an interesting article on how the duration of vaccination efficacy is understood. '...YF is considered a re-emerging disease due to the increased numbers of cases in the last 30 years. Until 2014, the vaccine was recommended to be administered with boosters every 10 years, but in 2014 the World Health Organization recommended removal of booster doses for all except special populations. This recommendation has been questioned and there have been reports of waning antibody titers in adults over time and more recently in pediatric populations. Clearly, the potential of waning antibody titers is a very important issue that needs to be carefully evaluated. In this Perspective, we review what is known about the correlate of protection for full-dose YF vaccine, current information on waning antibody titers, and gaps in knowledge. Overall, fundamental questions exist on the durability of protective immunity induced by YF vaccine, but interpretation of studies is complicated by the use of different assays and different cut-offs to measure seroprotective immunity, and differing results among certain endemic versus non-endemic populations.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0205-6 Interesting. So is your assumption that concept applies to all vaccines or just yf (never heard of it) vaccine? And would that similarly apply to the other famous vaccines that we all know and love... Rubella, polio, smallpox et al? And now some covid vaccines? Makes one wonder if the concept is well known in the vaccine expert world why it was only in the last few months discovered for covid vaccines. Unless we are back to the notion that we didn't know until we rolled it out and waited to see what happened. Yellow Fever is a vaccine for which you need proof of vaccination to visit a number of countries. It was not "discovered" for Covid vaccines anymore than for any other. The examination of efficacy data is on-going for all medical treatments. It is a normal part of the process for every treatment in use. It was known with high statistical probability how the vaccines would act. What was not and could not be known was the mutation rate of the vaccine or the levels of vaccine hesitancy. An "experiment" tests a hypothesis. That is not what has or is happening." I think inaswing mentioned this in an earlier post. If the royal "we" are going to use a term as fundamental to our debates / discussions / arguments.... Its probably helpful if we all share an understanding of what that term actually means.... The use of the term "experiment" and "trial" has created many arguments on here.. And I don't doubt other chat sites. As for testing a hypotheses... It seems we are in the process of testing the efficacy and duration and health impacts and how best to use many vaccines on many population groups. But then again... What is "testing"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Interesting. So is your assumption that concept applies to all vaccines or just yf (never heard of it) vaccine? And would that similarly apply to the other famous vaccines that we all know and love... Rubella, polio, smallpox et al? And now some covid vaccines? Makes one wonder if the concept is well known in the vaccine expert world why it was only in the last few months discovered for covid vaccines. Unless we are back to the notion that we didn't know until we rolled it out and waited to see what happened. " My MMR titers were tested before I moved to the UK, one had waned. I got another jab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! " Covid is a seasonal respiratory disease that caused a public health crisis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! Covid is a seasonal respiratory disease that caused a public health crisis." Can you please tell the virus to feck off during the "off season" as it apparently hasn't been informed lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don't rely on broadcast 'news' to find out what's happening. Ofcom is ordering them...and has been doing since May 2020) to only present information from the official perspective. The 'guidelines' this corrupted journalism is prescribed in can be found on Ofcom's own website. Any broadcasting company that disobeys Ofcom can lose its broadcasting licence...in other words, be driven out of business" That's the best one yet I spat my tea all over the floor ffs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here's an interesting story. Not sure how it fits with the one that says az provides waning protection and therefore the need for a booster at 3 months.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-oxford-europe-fears-b1982611.html In this story... Az protection "could" last for ever... I wont use the word experiment. But let's do stuff and see what happens when we've done that stuff. So here's an interesting article on how the duration of vaccination efficacy is understood. '...YF is considered a re-emerging disease due to the increased numbers of cases in the last 30 years. Until 2014, the vaccine was recommended to be administered with boosters every 10 years, but in 2014 the World Health Organization recommended removal of booster doses for all except special populations. This recommendation has been questioned and there have been reports of waning antibody titers in adults over time and more recently in pediatric populations. Clearly, the potential of waning antibody titers is a very important issue that needs to be carefully evaluated. In this Perspective, we review what is known about the correlate of protection for full-dose YF vaccine, current information on waning antibody titers, and gaps in knowledge. Overall, fundamental questions exist on the durability of protective immunity induced by YF vaccine, but interpretation of studies is complicated by the use of different assays and different cut-offs to measure seroprotective immunity, and differing results among certain endemic versus non-endemic populations.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0205-6 Interesting. So is your assumption that concept applies to all vaccines or just yf (never heard of it) vaccine? And would that similarly apply to the other famous vaccines that we all know and love... Rubella, polio, smallpox et al? And now some covid vaccines? Makes one wonder if the concept is well known in the vaccine expert world why it was only in the last few months discovered for covid vaccines. Unless we are back to the notion that we didn't know until we rolled it out and waited to see what happened. Yellow Fever is a vaccine for which you need proof of vaccination to visit a number of countries. It was not "discovered" for Covid vaccines anymore than for any other. The examination of efficacy data is on-going for all medical treatments. It is a normal part of the process for every treatment in use. It was known with high statistical probability how the vaccines would act. What was not and could not be known was the mutation rate of the vaccine or the levels of vaccine hesitancy. An "experiment" tests a hypothesis. That is not what has or is happening. I think inaswing mentioned this in an earlier post. If the royal "we" are going to use a term as fundamental to our debates / discussions / arguments.... Its probably helpful if we all share an understanding of what that term actually means.... The use of the term "experiment" and "trial" has created many arguments on here.. And I don't doubt other chat sites. As for testing a hypotheses... It seems we are in the process of testing the efficacy and duration and health impacts and how best to use many vaccines on many population groups. But then again... What is "testing"? " There is no special status for understanding how Covid vaccines work compared to any other treatment. All medicines and medical procedures are "experimental" and should be treated with suspicion forever or not. The choice is free. Just be consistent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias." I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really do need to look up ‘the very definition of an experiment’, and then stop using the term. You can spend the rest of your life wanging on about it, but it won’t make what you’ve written correct. Sorry! “Wanging on” lol - Oh dear you seem to really want to pick a fight? Another keyboard warrior who only accepts tribalist binary points of view and cannot accept that life is a broad spectrum full of grey that doesn’t neatly fit with your black and white view of the world. Are you saying an “experiment” is not about observation, collecting and analysing data and then adjusting activity _ased on the findings of that data? Listen, for a start you are the only one coming across as a ‘keyboard warrior’ here - it’s obvious from the language you use and from how often you use that particular phrase you are pretty insecure about this for some reason, so if you want to be taken seriously, try writing less emotionally. For this public health emergency to be classed as an experiment, someone would have had to design the experiment, and also it’s control. This is observably not the case (at least, to anyone rational). Again, Covid is not an experiment, it’s a public health emergency, during which you may say some experimental treatments have been developed and then used. Hope that helps! Covid is a seasonal respiratory disease that caused a public health crisis. Can you please tell the virus to feck off during the "off season" as it apparently hasn't been informed lol" Cases will drop in the spring. Guaranteed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don't rely on broadcast 'news' to find out what's happening. Ofcom is ordering them...and has been doing since May 2020) to only present information from the official perspective. The 'guidelines' this corrupted journalism is prescribed in can be found on Ofcom's own website. Any broadcasting company that disobeys Ofcom can lose its broadcasting licence...in other words, be driven out of business That's the best one yet I spat my tea all over the floor ffs "Are you saying it isn't true? Have you read the Ofcom guidelines? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. " The broadcast media are bound by Ofcom to support the official government narrative. They can be put out of business if they don't. So don't rely on them for a balanced perspective | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. The broadcast media are bound by Ofcom to support the official government narrative. They can be put out of business if they don't. So don't rely on them for a balanced perspective" Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. No. It is 'balanced' elsewhere in the guidelines by Ofcom's ban on broadcast journalists 'undermining public confidence' in the official narrative. You've had this pointed out before but you persist in misrepresenting the guidelines and therefore defending censorship. Why? That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. The broadcast media are bound by Ofcom to support the official government narrative. They can be put out of business if they don't. So don't rely on them for a balanced perspective Consistent with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have the editorial freedom to analyse, discuss and challenge issues relating to the coronavirus." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here's an interesting story. Not sure how it fits with the one that says az provides waning protection and therefore the need for a booster at 3 months.... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-oxford-europe-fears-b1982611.html In this story... Az protection "could" last for ever... I wont use the word experiment. But let's do stuff and see what happens when we've done that stuff. " Here's another take on the same story... This time from the torygraph... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/26/decisive-use-astrazeneca-vaccine-may-have-spared-uk-omicron/ It also compares our UK death rates with this across the EU... And suggesting az offers better long term protection. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. The broadcast media are bound by Ofcom to support the official government narrative. They can be put out of business if they don't. So don't rely on them for a balanced perspective" Many will argue dispute and rationalise against this simple truth. All one needs to do is look at the examples in the medias narrative surrounding racism. You know Nicholas Sandman, Jussie Slutlet and Kyle Rittenhouse. All reporting bullshit as truth! This happens a lot more than you’d expect, but once th3 big headline has hit its implanted in the minds of many small redactions are missed by most.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing. "When the police tried to do policing during the first lockdown there were too many examples of them acting like pricks. That didn't help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing.
When the police tried to do policing during the first lockdown there were too many examples of them acting like pricks. That didn't help."It certainly didn't help with too many examples of police officers acting like pricks in the first lockdown! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing.
When the police tried to do policing during the first lockdown there were too many examples of them acting like pricks. That didn't help.
It certainly didn't help with too many examples of police officers acting like pricks in the first lockdown!"Shame the Police didn’t clamp down more on the likes of Cummings and then party goers in Downing St and the Cabinet Office! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing.
When the police tried to do policing during the first lockdown there were too many examples of them acting like pricks. That didn't help.
It certainly didn't help with too many examples of police officers acting like pricks in the first lockdown!"Yes I didn’t help much that so many tossers were hiding in pubs and clubs (lock-ins) either or football fans deciding that they were entitled to go to the match or the horse racing
So some mps had a bit of a drink after the days business it pales into comparison when you add up all of the others throughout the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing.
When the police tried to do policing during the first lockdown there were too many examples of them acting like pricks. That didn't help.
It certainly didn't help with too many examples of police officers acting like pricks in the first lockdown!
Yes I didn’t help much that so many tossers were hiding in pubs and clubs (lock-ins) either or football fans deciding that they were entitled to go to the match or the horse racing
So some mps had a bit of a drink after the days business it pales into comparison when you add up all of the others throughout the country "but at the time mp's were on the lash at downing street, football stadiums were shut, what games there were, were to empty stadiums, pubs were closed, you couldnt visit a relative in hospital or care home,funerals were strictly limited to numbers, you couldnt visit relatives or friends, in many cases ot work etc etc. The leading by example failed and it exposed what most of us thought about our leaders to be true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Government (and I don't care what Government ) cannot do right for doing wrong.
If they decide to lock down that is wrong.
If they decide not to lock down that is also wrong.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't make much difference what the Government decide because there is no decent policing.
Decent people will abide by the rules and tossers will ignore them whatever and get away with it because of no policing.
When the police tried to do policing during the first lockdown there were too many examples of them acting like pricks. That didn't help.
It certainly didn't help with too many examples of police officers acting like pricks in the first lockdown!
Yes I didn’t help much that so many tossers were hiding in pubs and clubs (lock-ins) either or football fans deciding that they were entitled to go to the match or the horse racing
So some mps had a bit of a drink after the days business it pales into comparison when you add up all of the others throughout the country "didn't the horse racing and the football happen before the UK had made any moves to go into lock down ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So some mps had a bit of a drink after the days business it pales into comparison when you add up all of the others throughout the country "And this is why we'll forever be governed by cunts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick your scientist who you want to believe... One says... Omicron is “not the same disease we were seeing a year ago” and high Covid death rates in the UK are “now history”, a leading immunologist has said. Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University and the government’s life sciences adviser, said that although hospital admissions had increased in recent weeks as Omicron spreads through the population, the disease “appears to be less severe and many people spend a relatively short time in hospital”. Fewer patients were needing high-flow oxygen and the average length of stay was down to three days, he said." Others say... " A number of scientists have criticised the government’s decision not to introduce further Covid restrictions in England before New Year’s Eve, with some describing it as “the greatest divergence between scientific advice and legislation” since the start of the pandemic. They have expressed concern that while the Omicron variant appears to be milder, it is highly transmissible, meaning hospital numbers and deaths could rise rapidly without intervention."" Probably a case of the media reporting whatever they want irrespective of what an interviewee actually said. Never let the truth spoil your story | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick your scientist who you want to believe... One says... Omicron is “not the same disease we were seeing a year ago” and high Covid death rates in the UK are “now history”, a leading immunologist has said. Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University and the government’s life sciences adviser, said that although hospital admissions had increased in recent weeks as Omicron spreads through the population, the disease “appears to be less severe and many people spend a relatively short time in hospital”. Fewer patients were needing high-flow oxygen and the average length of stay was down to three days, he said." Others say... " A number of scientists have criticised the government’s decision not to introduce further Covid restrictions in England before New Year’s Eve, with some describing it as “the greatest divergence between scientific advice and legislation” since the start of the pandemic. They have expressed concern that while the Omicron variant appears to be milder, it is highly transmissible, meaning hospital numbers and deaths could rise rapidly without intervention." Probably a case of the media reporting whatever they want irrespective of what an interviewee actually said. Never let the truth spoil your story" Sure... ... All scientists of course agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick your scientist who you want to believe... One says... Omicron is “not the same disease we were seeing a year ago” and high Covid death rates in the UK are “now history”, a leading immunologist has said. Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University and the government’s life sciences adviser, said that although hospital admissions had increased in recent weeks as Omicron spreads through the population, the disease “appears to be less severe and many people spend a relatively short time in hospital”. Fewer patients were needing high-flow oxygen and the average length of stay was down to three days, he said." Others say... " A number of scientists have criticised the government’s decision not to introduce further Covid restrictions in England before New Year’s Eve, with some describing it as “the greatest divergence between scientific advice and legislation” since the start of the pandemic. They have expressed concern that while the Omicron variant appears to be milder, it is highly transmissible, meaning hospital numbers and deaths could rise rapidly without intervention."" both those positions can exist together. It's whether the lower risk of severe cases is or isn't offset by more cases. Would you rather have 10pc of £100 or 1pc of £1,000 ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Would you rather have 10pc of £100 or 1pc of £1,000 ?" 1% of £1k please. Better prospects for negotiation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called science, should I say forecasting always assumes worse case scenario. They have been found to be wrong, time and time again..sage and all are not fit for purpose and have either a political or monetary agenda. They should be told to do one !!" The worst case scenario is from doing nothing. The worst case is avoided when action is taken. Action was taken. The worst case was avoided because of that. Nobody was "proven wrong". You do understand that, don't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick your scientist who you want to believe... One says... Omicron is “not the same disease we were seeing a year ago” and high Covid death rates in the UK are “now history”, a leading immunologist has said. Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University and the government’s life sciences adviser, said that although hospital admissions had increased in recent weeks as Omicron spreads through the population, the disease “appears to be less severe and many people spend a relatively short time in hospital”. Fewer patients were needing high-flow oxygen and the average length of stay was down to three days, he said." Others say... " A number of scientists have criticised the government’s decision not to introduce further Covid restrictions in England before New Year’s Eve, with some describing it as “the greatest divergence between scientific advice and legislation” since the start of the pandemic. They have expressed concern that while the Omicron variant appears to be milder, it is highly transmissible, meaning hospital numbers and deaths could rise rapidly without intervention."" These two views are not mutually exclusive. It can be less severe and cause fewer deaths proportionally whilst overall admissions and serious illness and deaths rise in total. Sir John Bell did not say that further restrictions should not be brought in if necessary. True or untrue? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. " True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The so called science, should I say forecasting always assumes worse case scenario. They have been found to be wrong, time and time again..sage and all are not fit for purpose and have either a political or monetary agenda. They should be told to do one !! The worst case scenario is from doing nothing. The worst case is avoided when action is taken. Action was taken. The worst case was avoided because of that. Nobody was "proven wrong". You do understand that, don't you?" I really do not understand how people don't understand this. You need to go on a long car journey. Google estimates that due to traffic, the worst time to leave is at 11am and the journey will take 5hrs. To avoid this you leave at 2pm. On arrival at 6pm you comment on how crap Google is because it was an hour out. Of course, Google can give accurate estimates _ased on lots of data and complex algorithms...but then, so can those modelling a pandemic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. " if it's just a trick of data, what's causing more (per 100k) unvaccinated people.to get taken to hospital and die ? Is there a correlation between not believing in covid and clumsiness ? Maybe they are worse drivers ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. The broadcast media are bound by Ofcom to support the official government narrative. They can be put out of business if they don't. So don't rely on them for a balanced perspective Many will argue dispute and rationalise against this simple truth. All one needs to do is look at the examples in the medias narrative surrounding racism. You know Nicholas Sandman, Jussie Slutlet and Kyle Rittenhouse. All reporting bullshit as truth! This happens a lot more than you’d expect, but once th3 big headline has hit its implanted in the minds of many small redactions are missed by most. "Racism is not a significant problem because of three events? Sandman unproven either way with confidential settlements made. Jussie Smollet convicted of staging an attack on himself for publicity. Good that he was. Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area of unrest and shot dead two unarmed people (unless a skateboard is a weapon). He was not convicted of murder. Would that have happened if he were black? How about all of the black people killed and their murdered convicted? How about all those unreported incidents because nobody had a mobile phone to record it? Of course the media sensationalises these things. It's what the public wants. It's what you get when matters are reported without full research. Immediate reactions. However, three incidents such as this do not balance out the lived reality of many people. It does not make the problem imaginary, does it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. " You do understand that a "milder" version of a serious illness is not the same as being "mild" don't you? That still means that people can become seriously ill or die, just less likely. How much to be quantified. Also far, far less likely if vaccinated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. You do understand that a "milder" version of a serious illness is not the same as being "mild" don't you? That still means that people can become seriously ill or die, just less likely. How much to be quantified. Also far, far less likely if vaccinated." Public health England shows 80% of coved hospitalisation a are vaccinated, and around 80% population is vaccinated. Similar rates. Statistically seems a poor vaccine. People die from common cold. Especially elderly and vulnerable people and there's been many cases of care home outbreaks and deaths due to malpractice. Sounds familiar. Let me just change mild common cold to milder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. You do understand that a "milder" version of a serious illness is not the same as being "mild" don't you? That still means that people can become seriously ill or die, just less likely. How much to be quantified. Also far, far less likely if vaccinated. Public health England shows 80% of coved hospitalisation a are vaccinated, and around 80% population is vaccinated. Similar rates. Statistically seems a poor vaccine. People die from common cold. Especially elderly and vulnerable people and there's been many cases of care home outbreaks and deaths due to malpractice. Sounds familiar. Let me just change mild common cold to milder." The vaccine surveillance 50 was at c 48pc unvaxed and 52pc vaxxed. Hospitalisations were c 4x higher per 100k. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf Page 39. Interested to see your source to work out why we are poles apart ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. You do understand that a "milder" version of a serious illness is not the same as being "mild" don't you? That still means that people can become seriously ill or die, just less likely. How much to be quantified. Also far, far less likely if vaccinated. Public health England shows 80% of coved hospitalisation a are vaccinated, and around 80% population is vaccinated. Similar rates. Statistically seems a poor vaccine. People die from common cold. Especially elderly and vulnerable people and there's been many cases of care home outbreaks and deaths due to malpractice. Sounds familiar. Let me just change mild common cold to milder." You have failed to mention a VERY important variable....AGE Those that are most likely to end up in hospital are those in the older age groups who are virtually 100% vaccinated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it is probably milder than previous forms but if 5 times as many catch a milder version it can still cause a lot of issues regarding sickness and absences. Its not all about the dying. True, reminds me of something people get that's infectious and mild and cause work absence most years. Oh yeah, common cold. Imagine if we tested for common cold and reported every death as within 28 days of a positive common cold test and got the government and media to fear monger it. You do understand that a "milder" version of a serious illness is not the same as being "mild" don't you? That still means that people can become seriously ill or die, just less likely. How much to be quantified. Also far, far less likely if vaccinated. Public health England shows 80% of coved hospitalisation a are vaccinated, and around 80% population is vaccinated. Similar rates. Statistically seems a poor vaccine. People die from common cold. Especially elderly and vulnerable people and there's been many cases of care home outbreaks and deaths due to malpractice. Sounds familiar. Let me just change mild common cold to milder." Your starting assertion does not appear to be correct. You are, regardless, applying a _ase rate fallacy. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area of unrest and shot dead two unarmed people (unless a skateboard is a weapon). He was not convicted of murder. " He was chased, beaten round the head, yes a skateboard is indeed a weapon (speaking from experience and a shattered forearm) and then had a gun pointed at him. It's a clear cut case of self defense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area of unrest and shot dead two unarmed people (unless a skateboard is a weapon). He was not convicted of murder. He was chased, beaten round the head, yes a skateboard is indeed a weapon (speaking from experience and a shattered forearm) and then had a gun pointed at him. It's a clear cut case of self defense. " Rittenhouse was definitely self defense, if you think otherwise you're just wilfully fucking stupid at this point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area of unrest and shot dead two unarmed people (unless a skateboard is a weapon). He was not convicted of murder. He was chased, beaten round the head, yes a skateboard is indeed a weapon (speaking from experience and a shattered forearm) and then had a gun pointed at him. It's a clear cut case of self defense. " He went somewhere with an automatic weapon. He shot an unarmed person. Then he was chased and shot another unarmed person. Self-defence after deliberately placing himself in a dangerous situation but armed. It may well have been on his head and yours. It was for the jury. I did not say otherwise, did I? If you saw an armed man shooting unarmed people, is trying to disarm them brave or illegal? Should Usman Khan's "attackers" have been tried for assault? Rather like the Zimmerman who followed an unarmed black man in his area and shot him when he felt scared, would a blackan have been allowed to walk free on the same evidence? This one case does not imply that racism is in some way overblown, or perhaps it does to you and the original poster? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ?" You're a immunologist? I have a tendency to trust the on the topic. Whom do you trust? They have been properly tested: 'The COVID-19 experience might also prompt a regulatory rethink. Although there has been no relaxing of the stringent criteria for vaccine approval, the first candidates are mostly being approved under emergency-use regulations. These are faster but require companies to conduct follow-up surveys to look for side effects and continuing efficacy. National regulators also swapped information on COVID-19 vaccine trials under the auspices of a global body called the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, set up in 2012. It has aimed to reach consensus on issues such as the best end-points for vaccine trials, and how to harmonize the monitoring of side effects as vaccines are rolled out' https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 The delay in publishing data is because there is so much and they do not have the staff to publish it. There are 329,000 pages that need to be checked and redacted of personal and financial data with a staff of 10. The majority of important data sets will be available by the end of January 2022 though. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ They may be trying to hide things, but you haven't found a smoking gun yet. You know that there are firms other than Pfizer with vaccines in use, don't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ? You're a immunologist? I have a tendency to trust the on the topic. Whom do you trust? They have been properly tested: 'The COVID-19 experience might also prompt a regulatory rethink. Although there has been no relaxing of the stringent criteria for vaccine approval, the first candidates are mostly being approved under emergency-use regulations. These are faster but require companies to conduct follow-up surveys to look for side effects and continuing efficacy. National regulators also swapped information on COVID-19 vaccine trials under the auspices of a global body called the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, set up in 2012. It has aimed to reach consensus on issues such as the best end-points for vaccine trials, and how to harmonize the monitoring of side effects as vaccines are rolled out' https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 The delay in publishing data is because there is so much and they do not have the staff to publish it. There are 329,000 pages that need to be checked and redacted of personal and financial data with a staff of 10. The majority of important data sets will be available by the end of January 2022 though. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ They may be trying to hide things, but you haven't found a smoking gun yet. You know that there are firms other than Pfizer with vaccines in use, don't you?" hmm and while they continue to be experimental it is also more clear that they are not as effective as once believed. How long before your getting a jab every month??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ? You're a immunologist? I have a tendency to trust the on the topic. Whom do you trust? They have been properly tested: 'The COVID-19 experience might also prompt a regulatory rethink. Although there has been no relaxing of the stringent criteria for vaccine approval, the first candidates are mostly being approved under emergency-use regulations. These are faster but require companies to conduct follow-up surveys to look for side effects and continuing efficacy. National regulators also swapped information on COVID-19 vaccine trials under the auspices of a global body called the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, set up in 2012. It has aimed to reach consensus on issues such as the best end-points for vaccine trials, and how to harmonize the monitoring of side effects as vaccines are rolled out' https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 The delay in publishing data is because there is so much and they do not have the staff to publish it. There are 329,000 pages that need to be checked and redacted of personal and financial data with a staff of 10. The majority of important data sets will be available by the end of January 2022 though. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ They may be trying to hide things, but you haven't found a smoking gun yet. You know that there are firms other than Pfizer with vaccines in use, don't you?hmm and while they continue to be experimental it is also more clear that they are not as effective as once believed. How long before your getting a jab every month???" New virus. Global pandemic. Safe, effective vaccines rolled out quickly but not globally. Then variants. You expected that to be predicted? Regular vaccinations or new ones, or catching Covid? What's your preference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How much milder it is depends on your vaccination status. Relating to overnight hospitalisations it's about 75% milder if fully vaccinated with booster if it applies. If double vaccinated but not boosted its 45% milder. Unvaccinated and no previous infection it's only 5 to 10% milder. Obvious these findings are only estimates as obviously there aren't a lot of data points yet. " What’s the stats for natural recovered immunity in terms of percentage % milder ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ? You're a immunologist? I have a tendency to trust the on the topic. Whom do you trust? They have been properly tested: 'The COVID-19 experience might also prompt a regulatory rethink. Although there has been no relaxing of the stringent criteria for vaccine approval, the first candidates are mostly being approved under emergency-use regulations. These are faster but require companies to conduct follow-up surveys to look for side effects and continuing efficacy. National regulators also swapped information on COVID-19 vaccine trials under the auspices of a global body called the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, set up in 2012. It has aimed to reach consensus on issues such as the best end-points for vaccine trials, and how to harmonize the monitoring of side effects as vaccines are rolled out' https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 The delay in publishing data is because there is so much and they do not have the staff to publish it. There are 329,000 pages that need to be checked and redacted of personal and financial data with a staff of 10. The majority of important data sets will be available by the end of January 2022 though. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ They may be trying to hide things, but you haven't found a smoking gun yet. You know that there are firms other than Pfizer with vaccines in use, don't you?hmm and while they continue to be experimental it is also more clear that they are not as effective as once believed. How long before your getting a jab every month???" You really don’t have a clue do you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ?" No you’ve been reading too much Facebook | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How much milder it is depends on your vaccination status. Relating to overnight hospitalisations it's about 75% milder if fully vaccinated with booster if it applies. If double vaccinated but not boosted its 45% milder. Unvaccinated and no previous infection it's only 5 to 10% milder. Obvious these findings are only estimates as obviously there aren't a lot of data points yet. What’s the stats for natural recovered immunity in terms of percentage % milder ? " It didn't say. The thing with natural immunity it varies wildly. Can be really good or virtually none existent so I doubt they would be able to put a % on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ? You're a immunologist? I have a tendency to trust the on the topic. Whom do you trust? They have been properly tested: 'The COVID-19 experience might also prompt a regulatory rethink. Although there has been no relaxing of the stringent criteria for vaccine approval, the first candidates are mostly being approved under emergency-use regulations. These are faster but require companies to conduct follow-up surveys to look for side effects and continuing efficacy. National regulators also swapped information on COVID-19 vaccine trials under the auspices of a global body called the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, set up in 2012. It has aimed to reach consensus on issues such as the best end-points for vaccine trials, and how to harmonize the monitoring of side effects as vaccines are rolled out' https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 The delay in publishing data is because there is so much and they do not have the staff to publish it. There are 329,000 pages that need to be checked and redacted of personal and financial data with a staff of 10. The majority of important data sets will be available by the end of January 2022 though. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ They may be trying to hide things, but you haven't found a smoking gun yet. You know that there are firms other than Pfizer with vaccines in use, don't you?hmm and while they continue to be experimental it is also more clear that they are not as effective as once believed. How long before your getting a jab every month???" Not for me thanks, had the first two only. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"let them say what they like because they are experimental drugs not vaccines,have not been passed by the FDA,the drug trials were done but not properly they also changed the results of them and recently big pharma got a block of 50-75yrs for information of all these things getting out.are they trying to hide things ? You're a immunologist? I have a tendency to trust the on the topic. Whom do you trust? They have been properly tested: 'The COVID-19 experience might also prompt a regulatory rethink. Although there has been no relaxing of the stringent criteria for vaccine approval, the first candidates are mostly being approved under emergency-use regulations. These are faster but require companies to conduct follow-up surveys to look for side effects and continuing efficacy. National regulators also swapped information on COVID-19 vaccine trials under the auspices of a global body called the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, set up in 2012. It has aimed to reach consensus on issues such as the best end-points for vaccine trials, and how to harmonize the monitoring of side effects as vaccines are rolled out' https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 The delay in publishing data is because there is so much and they do not have the staff to publish it. There are 329,000 pages that need to be checked and redacted of personal and financial data with a staff of 10. The majority of important data sets will be available by the end of January 2022 though. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ They may be trying to hide things, but you haven't found a smoking gun yet. You know that there are firms other than Pfizer with vaccines in use, don't you?hmm and while they continue to be experimental it is also more clear that they are not as effective as once believed. How long before your getting a jab every month??? Not for me thanks, had the first two only. " With the booster program going on nationwide the 2 jab will not qualify you has a fully vaccinated individual. there was a guardian piece last month hinting on the fully vaccination status changing to include the booster. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"when there are still unknowns isnt it sensible to prepare for the worst (and hope for the best) rather than carry on as normal and be unprepared and f*cked if the worst happens. We didnt prepare for the pandemic and look what happened during wave 1 with the care homes, lack of PPE etc So id rather have more restrictions/preventions now and relax them later than carry on as normal and potentialy hit daily deaths of 2k again. You're very welcome to stay inside and wear you mask of course and confine yourself to where and when you are allowed out and cover up head to toe. Make whatever restrictions you want on yourself for as long as you want. No complaints from me if you want to hide away/shield/isolate " well said; at last someone with common sense and logic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more evidence we have, the more we know. Some people have concluded on some information that it's mild, some others are saying we need more information. It's being figured out and more will come out as there's more evidence. That's how anything works. You are correct however a small amount of negative news causes a meltdown with the media and folk begging to be locked down whereas a small amount (or even from multiple sources) of positive news is met with caution, caution, caution by the same people and places. You can see why people are pissed off with the media bias. I agree, they seem to far too focused on worst case scenarios, nothing positive is given much airtime at all. The broadcast media are bound by Ofcom to support the official government narrative. They can be put out of business if they don't. So don't rely on them for a balanced perspective Many will argue dispute and rationalise against this simple truth. All one needs to do is look at the examples in the medias narrative surrounding racism. You know Nicholas Sandman, Jussie Slutlet and Kyle Rittenhouse. All reporting bullshit as truth! This happens a lot more than you’d expect, but once th3 big headline has hit its implanted in the minds of many small redactions are missed by most.
Racism is not a significant problem because of three events?
Sandman unproven either way with confidential settlements made.
Jussie Smollet convicted of staging an attack on himself for publicity. Good that he was.
Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area of unrest and shot dead two unarmed people (unless a skateboard is a weapon). He was not convicted of murder. Would that have happened if he were black?
How about all of the black people killed and their murdered convicted? How about all those unreported incidents because nobody had a mobile phone to record it?
Of course the media sensationalises these things. It's what the public wants. It's what you get when matters are reported without full research. Immediate reactions.
However, three incidents such as this do not balance out the lived reality of many people. It does not make the problem imaginary, does it? "Are you aware of any reason he may have been running from this apparently unarmed well intentioned gang ? Were they offering him a free skateboard lesson perhaps? During those riots mainly black people looted from mainly black run and owned businesses . Going unchecked by law enforcement due to political reasons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
