Coronavirus Thread

[shade]

2 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

hence the word "IF" inserted at the beginning of the sentence.

Yes but to even ask the question is outrageous stereotyping. Taking one small group of absolute imbeciles actions and extrapolating it out to 5 million people is dangerous.

[danny.]

3 hours ago, shade said:

If you don't call the preponderance of evidence that vitamin D is very effective against respiratory Infections, and reasonably strong evidence that it's effective against covid, then I don't know what else to say.

You’ve missed my point

 

Evidence that cloth face masks have a positive effect, maybe they do = mandate it anyway

 

Evidence that vitamin D helps, maybe it does = never mention it 

[danny.]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/covid-loses-90-of-ability-to-infect-within-five-minutes-in-air-study

[reporterpenguin]

10 minutes ago, danny. said:

Evidence that vitamin D helps, maybe it does = never mention it 

It has been mentioned. As discussed upthread, the government encouraged it to the point of sending out 6 months worth of doses to the vulnerable.

[z-layrex]

[shade]

2 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

It has been mentioned. As discussed upthread, the government encouraged it to the point of sending out 6 months worth of doses to the vulnerable.

The dose they sent was laughably low and wouldn't increase serum vitamin D up to a level that would be effective, but I understand the issues that have been raised here about them being unable to offer it in high enough doses under a one-size-fits all regime across the population. I think it could have been worth looking in to though, even if they offered everyone a blood test to check their vitamin D levels at the very outset, particularly the old and vulnerable. After all we've managed to spend billions on tests, lockdowns and PPE, they could have found some for nationwide vitamin D testing and HIGH DOSE supplementaton? 

 

An interesting article if anyone is interested that shows a spike in the non covid mortality amongst the unvaccinated, correlating with the roll out of the vaccines amongst the 40-49 year old demographic. 

 

https://metatron.substack.com/p/going-deeper-on-the-ons-data-deaths

 

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, shade said:

Yes but to even ask the question is outrageous stereotyping. Taking one small group of absolute imbeciles actions and extrapolating it out to 5 million people is dangerous.

True.

 

Now perhaps this stance should be extended by some who post here towards the scientific community and the method they use.

 

Oh, and in that case, perhaps take less of the words of the minority of "imbeciles" (using that word for comparison only, they're not actually so) as gospel, too.

[shade]

10 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

What I love most about that image, is underneath it on the Sanford Health twitter page someone has commented...

 

"Source?"  

[danny.]

12 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

It has been mentioned. As discussed upthread, the government encouraged it to the point of sending out 6 months worth of doses to the vulnerable.

Obviously hyperbole. It hasn’t been given anything remotely close to the relentless messaging accords every media platform and via near global signage to wear cloth face coverings. I’ve personally never seen a mention of it barring the anecdotal reference in this thread.
 

Neither has any kind of encouragement for people to get fitter or lose weight if overweight or obese. 

[shade]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

True.

 

Now perhaps this stance should be extended by some who post here towards the scientific community and the method they use.

 

Oh, and in that case, perhaps take less of the words of the minority of "imbeciles" (using that word for comparison only, they're not actually so) as gospel, too.

Dunno, there's a difference between people questioning scientists that may or may not skew their data to fit the narrative of whoever is funding them and a family that knowingly risks spreading an infection to someone thats vulnerable?

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, shade said:

Dunno, there's a difference between people questioning scientists that may or may not skew their data to fit the narrative of whoever is funding them and a family that knowingly risks spreading an infection to someone thats vulnerable?

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. Allow me to rephrase:

 

It's rather hypocritical to take offence at anti-vaxxers being stereotyped and then in the same thread pour mistrust on the community of scientists and their method that has produced that vaccine because some of them might have been dodgy (but caught by that same scientific method) in the past.

 

Especially when the people involved trust that same scientific method in practically every other area of their lives, sometimes in ways they don't even think about.

[Farrington fox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I guess it depends on your constituency and how tight it is 

I spoiled my paper by noting next to each candidate how untrustworthy their party was ……..

 

hopefully I never have to do that again ……

My Constituency, Melton and Rutland has been Conservative since the 17th century, Joking. But if memory serves correct it was formed in 1983 and has been safe Tory ever since.

[shade]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. Allow me to rephrase:

 

It's rather hypocritical to take offence at anti-vaxxers being stereotyped and then in the same thread pour mistrust on the community of scientists and their method that has produced that vaccine because some of them might have been dodgy (but caught by that same scientific method) in the past.

 

Especially when the people involved trust that same scientific method in practically every other area of their lives, sometimes in ways they don't even think about.

good point 👍🏼

[Zear0]

On 05/01/2022 at 21:00, shade said:

I don't disagree that elderly, fat or unwell people that don't get vaccinated are taking a risk unecessarily. I still maintain, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, that your chances as an under 50 year old, with a BMI under 25 and no underlying health conditions, that doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink excessively, of ending up in ICU is so negligible that they shouldn't be vilified.

 

If they are to be vilified, I think you have to vilify everyone that carries a BMI over 25, drinks more units per week than recommended, smokes, uses sunbeds,  engages in unprotected sex (particularly homosexual), or partakes in any other number of risky behaviours.

 

1 hour ago, shade said:

Yes but to even ask the question is outrageous stereotyping. Taking one small group of absolute imbeciles actions and extrapolating it out to 5 million people is dangerous.

Agree with the second quote

[st albans fox]

48 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

Now we know where dr Hillary got his info from ! 

[Greg2607]

3 hours ago, shade said:

Dunno, there's a difference between people questioning scientists that may or may not skew their data to fit the narrative of whoever is funding them and a family that knowingly risks spreading an infection to someone thats vulnerable?

Oh I dunno, I spoke of a family knowingly spreading the infection to someone that's vulnerable earlier and you called my thinking dangerous. 

[shade]

 

Bit of a mess, ignoring the bottom left because it's likely that may be poor recording, there doesn't seem to be a very strong correlation between total vacinations and total covid deaths, there's obviously a slight grouping in the top left.

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, shade said:

 

Bit of a mess, ignoring the bottom left because it's likely that may be poor recording, there doesn't seem to be a very strong correlation between total vacinations and total covid deaths, there's obviously a slight grouping in the top left.

Out of interest, what conclusions do you draw from this graph?

Do you draw any conclusions?

Do you have further questions?

What do you make of China’s position in the graph?

[shade]

4 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Out of interest, what conclusions do you draw from this graph?

Do you draw any conclusions?

Do you have further questions?

What do you make of China’s position in the graph?

It's difficult to draw any definitive conclusions when the data supplied by most countries has been so poor (with/because of, etc), especially for a laymen like myself. I just read opinions and data from both sides. For instance I read this report on vaccine safety and the rebuttal which was interesting...

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Neil-2/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination/links/61aa3d6750e22929cd4348cb/Latest-statistics-on-England-mortality-data-suggest-systematic-mis-categorisation-of-vaccine-status-and-uncertain-effectiveness-of-Covid-19-vaccination.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/assessing-updated-uk-ons-data-on-covid-19-non-covid-19-deaths-split-by-vaccination-status-and-age

 

[Dunge]

12 minutes ago, shade said:

It's difficult to draw any definitive conclusions when the data supplied by most countries has been so poor (with/because of, etc), especially for a laymen like myself. I just read opinions and data from both sides. For instance I read this report on vaccine safety and the rebuttal which was interesting...

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Neil-2/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination/links/61aa3d6750e22929cd4348cb/Latest-statistics-on-England-mortality-data-suggest-systematic-mis-categorisation-of-vaccine-status-and-uncertain-effectiveness-of-Covid-19-vaccination.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/assessing-updated-uk-ons-data-on-covid-19-non-covid-19-deaths-split-by-vaccination-status-and-age

 

But you must have posted that graph for a reason, right? Otherwise why go to the bother of posting it?

[orangecity23]

Correlation does not equal causation - any analysis on deaths and vaccine uptake of population should be factoring in other variables -

• when did the bulk of the deaths occur, was it early in the pandemic, before the vaccines were available. That would account for why Italy looks quite bad, as they had big death tolls early doors
• How densely populated the country is - small sparse island nations are obviously going to do well if they can just pull a New Zealand and ban outsiders so the virus never had a chance to get a foothold, so comparing a country like that to a large, populous mainland country with large city dwelling populations is probably worthless
• What is the general quality of health care in the country - countries with poor health care would again be expected to post higher death rates.

This is a crappy simplistic scatter plot that you can't draw any real conclusions from.

 

Quickly scanned through your next 2 links Shade - first paper seems a bit arse. Central point is deaths < 14 days after a first jab are categorised as "unvaccinated" but should be classed as first dose vaccinated. However, it's very heavily likely that if you are ill enough to die within 14 days of a vaccination, you almost certainly came into contact with the virus prior to having the vaccine in the first place - taking into account things like incubation periods, how long it took to get ill and then proceed to pass away. We know generally speaking there is a 1-2 week lag between hospitilsation and death figures, and a further 1-2 week between cases and hospitilisations, and this has followed since the beginning of the pandemic. So to say someone dead of Covid within 14 days of a first jab was "vaccinated" seems disengenious.

 

Second paper looked more sensible after a skim read.

 

Not a layman, "professional" mathematician here, although professional is arguable given that I should be working instead of reading FT right now.

 

[Farrington fox]

This won't go away..

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

This won't go away..

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

Why would one think it would "go away"? It's a possibility and always has been, just not one that will likely ever be proven and the zoonotic transmission hypothesis is more likely.

 

The issue here is politics interfering with science yet again due to far too many people looking for a stick to bash the Chinese with, rightly or wrongly. Which incidentally, doesn't make much sense as there are numerous proven matters that can be used to prove that their government can be arseholes - unless the point is perhaps to deflect from the lack of competence of other nations to deal with the thing once it got going.

 

NB. Scientists know, more than anyone, how important global collaboration on scientific matters, rather than nationalistic pissing contests, are to the future of civilisation, so I think I can understand their reticence at not wanting to be the ones to trigger another such pissing contest.

[shade]

20 minutes ago, Dunge said:

But you must have posted that graph for a reason, right? Otherwise why go to the bother of posting it?

I made an observation underneath the graph that the correlation doesn't seem strong (although the data is poor and there are so many confounding variables) but you would hope it would look more like this...

 

 

15 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

Correlation does not equal causation - any analysis on deaths and vaccine uptake of population should be factoring in other variables -

• when did the bulk of the deaths occur, was it early in the pandemic, before the vaccines were available. That would account for why Italy looks quite bad, as they had big death tolls early doors
• How densely populated the country is - small sparse island nations are obviously going to do well if they can just pull a New Zealand and ban outsiders so the virus never had a chance to get a foothold, so comparing a country like that to a large, populous mainland country with large city dwelling populations is probably worthless
• What is the general quality of health care in the country - countries with poor health care would again be expected to post higher death rates.

This is a crappy simplistic scatter plot that you can't draw any real conclusions from.

 

Quickly scanned through your next 2 links Shade - first paper seems a bit arse. Central point is deaths < 14 days after a first jab are categorised as "unvaccinated" but should be classed as first dose vaccinated. However, it's very heavily likely that if you are ill enough to die within 14 days of a vaccination, you almost certainly came into contact with the virus prior to having the vaccine in the first place - taking into account things like incubation periods, how long it took to get ill and then proceed to pass away. We know generally speaking there is a 1-2 week lag between hospitilsation and death figures, and a further 1-2 week between cases and hospitilisations, and this has followed since the beginning of the pandemic. So to say someone dead of Covid within 14 days of a first jab was "vaccinated" seems disengenious.

 

Second paper looked more sensible after a skim read.

 

Not a layman, "professional" mathematician here, although professional is arguable given that I should be working instead of reading FT right now.

 

 

Thanks for the professional input, it would be interesting if you have time for your expert opinion in to whether the second paper does debunk the first one? Worryingly the first paper is claiming that the deaths <14 days of the vaccine (obviously classed as unvaccinated) suggests that the vaccine caused it, they posit that the fact that the spike in non-covid all cause mortality amongst 40-49 year olds happens as the vaccine rollout began in that agegroup, that it's evidence that the vaccine was causing it?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Will we ever get the "died of Covid" rather than "died with Covid" distinction?