Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, danny. said:

There isn’t conclusive evidence being obese is really unhealthy and means there is far more chance of a multitude of serious conditions including dying from Covid?

 

What do you mean precautionary principle? If they do nothing but give a false sense of security and lead to people touching their face more - then that’s just a negative 

 

WRT to the first paragraph, is it probable? Yes. Is it scientific fact backed by empiricism in the same way that global average temperature increase is? No.

 

In any case, as I replied above, "No, her being a possible hypocrite in a single rather unimportant aspect of this doesn't invalidate what she is saying, in the same way that what a climate scientist is saying about the climate changing even though they are not personally doing absolutely everything they can to address it."

 

I don't understand why some people would think that someone stating a matter of scientific fact is somehow invalidated because of their personal position on the matter. What she said is and remains true at the present time no matter what.

 

WRT the second paragraph, by "precautionary principle" I mean "is better to have them maybe doing some good than not have them and be certain of no good at all".

 

Looking at the bigger picture again, people trust empiricism in numerous areas of their lives every day, yet there are some (usually politically charged) where they do not. I can understand the disconnect because often ideology surpasses facts in the brain, but it will lead to no good end .

[st albans fox]

44 minutes ago, shade said:

With regards point 3 and point 2 about scientific consensus and not cherry picking, remember when the governments experts on immunisation the JCVI said they didn't recommend injecting 12-15 years olds but they got overruled, follow the science, except when we don't. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-teenagers-rejected-jcvi-b1913850.html

JCVI were on the fence re teenagers. It was a fine line decision according to the member of the panel whose interview I listened to 

 

they did NOT take into account the mental stress of schools closing due to covid infections or having to isolate because that wasn’t their mandate

[shade]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

WRT to the first paragraph, is it probable? Yes. Is it scientific fact backed by empiricism in the same way that global average temperature increase is? No.

 

In any case, as I replied above, "No, her being a possible hypocrite in a single rather unimportant aspect of this doesn't invalidate what she is saying, in the same way that what a climate scientist is saying about the climate changing even though they are not personally doing absolutely everything they can to address it."

 

I don't understand why some people would think that someone stating a matter of scientific fact is somehow invalidated because of their personal position on the matter. What she said is and remains true at the present time no matter what.

 

WRT the second paragraph, by "precautionary principle" I mean "is better to have them maybe doing some good than not have them and be certain of no good at all".

 

Looking at the bigger picture again, people trust empiricism in numerous areas of their lives every day, yet there are some (usually politically charged) where they do not. I can understand the disconnect because often ideology surpasses facts in the brain, but it will lead to no good end .

this is pretty damning mate...

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n623

 

The real threat to most of the world is obesity as I see it, all this pandemic has done has brought it in to the stark light of day.

[st albans fox]

24 minutes ago, danny. said:

 

 

Not according to the studies posted. And there are negatives to mask wearing as I mentioned above, so it the mask itself has no positives then there is a net negative. We have a mask mandate, why not a masks that work mandate?

Did you post the studies that showed they were of some use ? 
 

the cotton face coverings with no inserts are a waste of space on a medical level but they do serve a behavioural purpose as I mentioned. Surgical masks are pretty effective in quite a few circumstances. FFPIII would be very effective but I cannot see the general public accepting wearing them and the cost would be v high. 

[HighPeakFox]

Perhaps a reminder that for all that obesity is commonplace, it's not contagious. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, shade said:

this is pretty damning mate...

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n623

 

The real threat to most of the world is obesity as I see it, all this pandemic has done has brought it in to the stark light of day.

Fair to say and point taken.

 

I think considering obesity to be the "real" threat facing most of the world is a bit of an overexaggeration, however - I'm not sure how it ranks against both likely (climate change) and unlikely (deadlier disease outbrea, supervolcanic eruption etc) that have the potential to be far more wide-ranging and lethal.

 

And ignorance of the science behind those and someone like this lady drawing attention to it (as part of drawing attention to general ignorance of scientific consensus), as such, is perhaps a more pertinent concern at the present time.

 

Actually, how on Earth did we get gish-galloped into a discussion regarding obesity when the initial topic was scientific ignorance of matters concerning Covid-19 (though obesity may be tangential to that) but more importantly that same ignorance bleeding into other areas, too? Is there an actual opinion on the actual main point of the post forthcoming from any contributors, here?

[shade]

10 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Perhaps a reminder that for all that obesity is commonplace, it's not contagious. 

Not contagious in the traditional sense but there's mounting evidence that it's "socially contagious", i.e the more overweight you are,  the more likely the people around you will be. Anyway we're straying off topic.

[HighPeakFox]

40 minutes ago, shade said:

Not contagious in the traditional sense but there's mounting evidence that it's "socially contagious", i.e the more overweight you are,  the more likely the people around you will be. Anyway we're straying off topic.

That's not contagion  That's birds of a feather. 

 

Listen, I've just dropped 3 stone, it can be done. If I get Covid, I get it. 

[shade]

12 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

That's not contagion  That's birds of a feather. 

 

Listen, I've just dropped 3 stone, it can be done. If I get Covid, I get it. 

Respect!

[Houdini Logic]

Below are my personal thoughts on the matter.

 

For me, I think it's too simple to say this is a debate about whether a person trusts science or not. If we were all scientists and had endless resources and money then we could all come up with our own conclusions, debate them and I'm sure the collective recommendation would be sound. The problem however is that very few of us are scientists or professionals in this area, so we have to trust information we are given or can find ourselves, mixed in with a few personal experiences and anecdotes. And therein lies the problem. Because, with regards to accurate, available and exhaustive information, we have a few different forces in play here, each with arguably a different agenda.

 

Let's take the government. Do you think it's in their interest to report the negative affects of the vaccine? Do you believe the government is spending as much money funding research into the adverse affects of the vaccine as it is in making the vaccines? If one area of 'science' is well funded and then other isn't, can we label the collective output as fair and equal 'science'? The government's role here is to protect the public at whole, or if I'm being slightly more cynical, to not let lot's of bad s**t happen on their watch and to also keep the economy ticking over. So naturally they will do what they can to try and push for the population to get vaccinated, so that business can carry on as usual. In addition, if a statistically smaller percentage of people will die from the vaccination than would otherwise die from COVID, should everyone be left unvaccinated, then I can see why the government would push hard for everyone to get vaccinated. It's basic maths. So personally I take the scientific data and advice the government uses with a pinch of salt because naturally they have their own agenda. 

 

Then there's the media. The problem here is that some of the big media outlets have a naturally close relationship with the government and so pedal the same information. Then there are those who just want to sensationalise in an attempt to drive consumption and keep themselves relevant. They will find 'experts' who are relevant to their narrative. There are probably some media outlets who are sensible and try to be impartial but ultimately they're all controlled by a person or a group of people, all of which will have their own particular motive and leaning. As such, some areas of research will be reported here but others won't.

 

So what does that leave? Social media, rogue individuals, etc. I personally think this includes a mixture of respected and informed people, who lack any other platform, and lunatics. I just sometimes find it hard to distinguish between the two. 

 

So you may just think I'm massively cynical, and I'm sure I am, but it's not in anger or with resentment. I just think this is the way the world works and my personal opinion is that people who don't see that are quite naive. It really isn't a debate about trusting science. I read people argue about the real specifics of scientific research and medicine, or one graph or another, and I genuinely wish they'd take a step back sometimes and look at it from a different angle, from all angles. I feel it's a shame that people have to so vehemently argue for one particular persuasion or another, especially when very few of us are experts in this field and we are often basing this on what we consume, or what we choose to consume. No-one seems to question the sources which are convenient to them. There is a lot of point scoring and finding articles to back up something that was said, rather than reasoned debate. I would love to listen to different opinions and learn but it's all so extreme. Maybe it's because it's an emotive subject or maybe that's just the way things are these days. I feel we've lost the art of thinking for ourselves (did we ever have it?) and being rational and reasoned. 

[BertFill]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Listen, I've just dropped 3 stone

Looks like I have your three stone. Want them back? I don’t want them.

[BertFill]

35 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

I read people argue about the real specifics of scientific research and medicine, or one graph or another, and I genuinely wish they'd take a step back sometimes and look at it from a different angle

I completely understand where this wish comes from, but really, when it comes to actual scientific fact - or the best we can get with the information we have - the proper, transparent, referenced, peer-reviewed research findings are the only angle. To step back and look at science from a different angle is to step away from science altogether. Science isn’t about weighing up different people’s opinions and finding some sort of balance.

And yes, of course the scientific consensus might be totally wrong. But a) it’s a lot less likely to be totally wrong than any given individual, and b) it if is found to be wrong, it’ll change.

 

Edited 8 January 2022 by BertFill

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

That's not contagion  That's birds of a feather. 

 

Listen, I've just dropped 3 stone, it can be done. If I get Covid, I get it. 

Congratulations but I wish you'd told us when you were still fat, I shudder to think how many times I've read one of your posts and thought it contained fair points when really it was the worthless comments of a fat Keyser Soze.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

Below are my personal thoughts on the matter.

 

For me, I think it's too simple to say this is a debate about whether a person trusts science or not. If we were all scientists and had endless resources and money then we could all come up with our own conclusions, debate them and I'm sure the collective recommendation would be sound. The problem however is that very few of us are scientists or professionals in this area, so we have to trust information we are given or can find ourselves, mixed in with a few personal experiences and anecdotes. And therein lies the problem. Because, with regards to accurate, available and exhaustive information, we have a few different forces in play here, each with arguably a different agenda.

 

Let's take the government. Do you think it's in their interest to report the negative affects of the vaccine? Do you believe the government is spending as much money funding research into the adverse affects of the vaccine as it is in making the vaccines? If one area of 'science' is well funded and then other isn't, can we label the collective output as fair and equal 'science'? The government's role here is to protect the public at whole, or if I'm being slightly more cynical, to not let lot's of bad s**t happen on their watch and to also keep the economy ticking over. So naturally they will do what they can to try and push for the population to get vaccinated, so that business can carry on as usual. In addition, if a statistically smaller percentage of people will die from the vaccination than would otherwise die from COVID, should everyone be left unvaccinated, then I can see why the government would push hard for everyone to get vaccinated. It's basic maths. So personally I take the scientific data and advice the government uses with a pinch of salt because naturally they have their own agenda. 

 

Then there's the media. The problem here is that some of the big media outlets have a naturally close relationship with the government and so pedal the same information. Then there are those who just want to sensationalise in an attempt to drive consumption and keep themselves relevant. They will find 'experts' who are relevant to their narrative. There are probably some media outlets who are sensible and try to be impartial but ultimately they're all controlled by a person or a group of people, all of which will have their own particular motive and leaning. As such, some areas of research will be reported here but others won't.

 

So what does that leave? Social media, rogue individuals, etc. I personally think this includes a mixture of respected and informed people, who lack any other platform, and lunatics. I just sometimes find it hard to distinguish between the two. 

 

So you may just think I'm massively cynical, and I'm sure I am, but it's not in anger or with resentment. I just think this is the way the world works and my personal opinion is that people who don't see that are quite naive. It really isn't a debate about trusting science. I read people argue about the real specifics of scientific research and medicine, or one graph or another, and I genuinely wish they'd take a step back sometimes and look at it from a different angle, from all angles. I feel it's a shame that people have to so vehemently argue for one particular persuasion or another, especially when very few of us are experts in this field and we are often basing this on what we consume, or what we choose to consume. No-one seems to question the sources which are convenient to them. There is a lot of point scoring and finding articles to back up something that was said, rather than reasoned debate. I would love to listen to different opinions and learn but it's all so extreme. Maybe it's because it's an emotive subject or maybe that's just the way things are these days. I feel we've lost the art of thinking for ourselves (did we ever have it?) and being rational and reasoned. 

Yes, this viewpoint is incredibly cynical, but there's nothing to the contrary to say that it isn't also accurate. It's true that there is a lot of different players in policymaking wrt science, all with differing ideas and agendas. It's also true that this age - possibly fuelled by social media - has resulted in less "debate" as it is easy for both "sides" of such to find information that vindicates themselves and not budge.

 

However, I don't think that the scientific consensus is as dependent on money as you make it out to be here. Of course, researchers require funding to do their research, but most often funding for such research can be found from one source or another and more importantly the findings themselves are not dependent upon that funding - if they are, they will be exposed as such by subsequent study and peer review.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that despite the cynical outlook and the way humans are towards each other, the scientific method and the discoveries it makes are one of the least corrupt things mankind has, and that makes it trustworthy. It's just unfortunate that the findings it comes up with are sometimes messed with, not used at all or otherwise perverted for various purposes. But, the findings themselves are the closest thing we have to the truth about the Universe and our place in it, at least at any one time.

 

I see far too many people conflating what parties do with the findings with the findings themselves and extending cynicism to both, and that is something that scares me. People need to be able to parse between the two - somehow, some way.

[Soup]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On matters of science, yes. Or, more accurately, the scientific consensus that experts produce (which isn't exactly conclusive on health and weight btw).

 

No, her being a possible hypocrite in a single rather unimportant aspect of this doesn't invalidate what she is saying, in the same way that what a climate scientist is saying about the climate changing even though they are not personally doing absolutely everything they can to address it.

 

It's:

 

 

Yeah I hear you. I just get a little annoyed of late when obese people get all righteous about health. It shouldn't bother me as I've never had a problem with the way people lead there lives.

[Wymsey]

150,000 have been officially killed by the virus.

[FoxyPV]

And people still think the Tories have done a good job. .........

[danny.]

36 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

150,000 have been officially killed by the virus.

By, or within 28 days of a positive PCR test? Not being argumentative, just asking as I haven't looked at the data for a while.

Edited 8 January 2022 by danny.

[Zear0]

7 minutes ago, danny. said:

By, or within 28 days of a positive PCR test? Not being argumentative, just asking as I haven't looked at the data for a while.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United Kingdom

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United Kingdom

173,248 then

[Buce]

19 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Of course one could weigh in with a further trouncing of the effectiveness of masks at this point as our good friend Carl Heneghan has eluded to this week.  No point bothering though.  No doubt there will be people on here attributing the current drop in cases to the brilliance of the mask.  

 

No lockdowns either.  And they worked so well at this point last year...

 

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/07/infections-falling-in-england-data-shows-the-same-time-as-last-year-despite-no-lockdown/

 

Have a word, @Line-X!

Edited 8 January 2022 by Buce

[Otis]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

150,000 have been officially killed by the virus.

*Died with.

[Wymsey]

Just now, Otis said:

*Died with.

You've got a point, but is this the number of people where their death certificate states that this caused their death?

[Otis]

Just now, Wymsey said:

You've got a point, but is this the number of people where their death certificate states that this caused their death?

Not 100% sure. Isn't it where Covid is mentioned on the DC.

[kenny]

4 minutes ago, Otis said:

Not 100% sure. Isn't it where Covid is mentioned on the DC.

Excess deaths is the only relevant measure really.

 

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

 

This gives a list country by country of how they have fared during the pandemic.