Coronavirus Thread

[Soup]

Another confirmation bias study I found interesting. This one from the Lancet showing transmission could be the same among the vaxxed and unvaxxed.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext

[SpacedX]

23 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I am sure the BBC will conveniently not be there to report on it.

Of course you are - just as you're "sure" about everything you post on here - and as usual you allow your personal bias and preconceptions to subjectively contort and condition your perception of reality...and as usual, you were wrong. Thought I'd point that out to you because you always seem completely oblivious and incapable of acknowledging it yourself. 

 

Why would they not be there? They've reported every large scale protest associated with the pandemic - even the anti vax/5G lunatics. 

 

22 hours ago, Soup said:

But they'll probably be at the scene of the Arnold Schwarzenegger car crash

No, that would be a line to the LA correspondent over some local news station footage. It briefly featured in yesterday's sequence of coverage after the above, but I absolutely agree, it isn't even newsworthy. 

[SpacedX]

24 minutes ago, Soup said:

Another confirmation bias study I found interesting. This one from the Lancet showing transmission could be the same among the vaxxed and unvaxxed.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext

I think you still need to understand the personal nature of confirmation bias. This is a brief, one-year old article as opposed to a paper, published in the Lancet to encourage dialogue surrounding the transmissibility of Covid and the implications of this for vaccination policies. Think of it as a journal opinion piece to elicit debate. It suggests that: "the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered", but actually, the ' growing evidence' presented here is far from the full picture, not extensive and by no means conclusive. 

 

Nonetheless, this is the mission of science, unlike opinion, to continuingly question itself. But unless we spend as much energy researching the opposite instead of filtering and posting what we want to hear based upon appeal to authority, then the 'confirmation bias' is entirely of our own making. 

 

Amusingly it also states that "vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated". So in your eagerness to selectively reinforce your beliefs, you've rather amusingly overlooked content that you don't 'believe in'. 

 

Fortunately, as I've repeatedly stressed, known science is not about belief. 

 

Please don't construe this as a personal attack, it isn't. I take a similar stance to you on mandated vaccination. Thank you for posting the link, which as you say is very worthy of interest. But solely presenting this article alone needs then balancing with more current data and studies - of which I might add, there are many in support of it. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Reckon they'll U-turn on NHS staff vaccine mandates. 

 

100k NHS staff are far too many to lose and they're rightly not backing down.

[Soup]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

I think you still need to understand the personal nature of confirmation bias. This is a brief, one-year old article as opposed to a paper, published in the Lancet to encourage dialogue surrounding the transmissibility of Covid and the implications of this for vaccination policies. Think of it as a journal opinion piece to elicit debate. It suggests that: "the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered", but actually, the ' growing evidence' presented here is far from the full picture, not extensive and by no means conclusive. 

 

Nonetheless, this is the mission of science, unlike opinion, to continuingly question itself. But unless we spend as much energy researching the opposite instead of filtering and posting what we want to hear based upon appeal to authority, then the 'confirmation bias' is entirely of our own making. 

 

Amusingly it also states that "vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated". So in your eagerness to selectively reinforce your beliefs, you've rather amusingly overlooked content that you don't 'believe in'. 

 

Fortunately, as I've repeatedly stressed, known science is not about belief. 

 

Please don't construe this as a personal attack, it isn't. I take a similar stance to you on mandated vaccination. Thank you for posting the link, which as you say is very worthy of interest. But solely presenting this article alone needs then balancing with more current data and studies - of which I might add, there are many in support of it. 

I don't take it as a personal attack mate, you're doing what you do and I expect it tbh. I'd rather you quote me than others as you seem to have an awful lot of knowledge on this. Unlike the majority of others on here who have the appearance of knowledge imo. 

 

Is the article a year old? I thought it was  recent, if it is old I apologise

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, Soup said:

 

 

Is the article a year old? I thought it was  recent, if it is old I apologise

 

Apologies, I misread that. 

 

January 2022. 

 

Thanks for posting. 

[Legend_in_blue]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

Of course you are - just as you're "sure" about everything you post on here - and as usual you allow your personal bias and preconceptions to subjectively contort and condition your perception of reality...and as usual, you were wrong. Thought I'd point that out to you because you always seem completely oblivious and incapable of acknowledging it yourself. 

 

Why would they not be there? They've reported every large scale protest associated with the pandemic - even the anti vax/5G lunatics. 

 

No, that would be a line to the LA correspondent over some local news station footage. It briefly featured in yesterday's sequence of coverage after the above, but I absolutely agree, it isn't even newsworthy. 

Give it a rest and calm down.

 

The BBC had little choice after the rally ended outside their building!  How convenient.

[Foxdiamond]

The anti vaxxers or those that have not chosen to take it or deny the pandemic have still not explained how we would have progressed without said vaccines. I do suspect that among some of the younger antis there is the feeling that's its only the old or unfit have to worry. A degree of ageism perhaps. If covid had been similar to Spanish flu of 1918 it killed younger adults more. I wonder how it would be thought if the older people turned down vaccine on grounds it would not affect them. Of course that would be appalling. We must care about all 

[SpacedX]

19 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Give it a rest

19 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

The BBC had little choice after the rally ended outside their building!  How convenient.

No it didn't. The demonstrations outside the offices of the BBC was because this was a central London protest, they are in central London, and the route passed within close proximity of the premises. Having gathered in Regents Park, the March culminated in Trafalgar Square. So you're wrong again.  

 

Are you actually seriously attempting to suggest that the BBC only covered this because of protests outside their London HQ and that it would have been otherwise ignored by their editorial policy? 

Edited 23 January 2022 by Line-X

[fuchsntf]

16 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I've got FT covid thread fatigue, probably to the relief of some of you 

 

I honestly can't remember anyone here changing their mind about the vaccine, all I've seen in recent months are people like you say who probably won't change their mind despite all the evidence presented to them. 

 

But the reason why I continue to refute all the nonsense and let's be honest, absolute fvcking bullshit posted on here at times, which has certainly increased recently, is for the benefit of the lurkers. I'm not expecting to change the minds of the die hard science deniers who post here, their minds were made up long ago. But for every one of us actively posting here there are potentially hundreds of readers, who unless it's challenged, might just believe some of the absurdity posted. 

[Legend_in_blue]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No it didn't. Several hundred protested outside the offices of the BBC, but that was because this was a central London protest, they are in central London, and the route passed within close proximity of the premises. Having gathered in Regents Park, the March culminated in Trafalgar Square. So you're wrong again.  

 

Are you actually seriously attempting to suggest that the BBC only covered this because of protests outside their London HQ? 

You never know when to stop do you?  There's no point discussing the matter.

 

 

[SpacedX]

13 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

You never know when to stop do you?  There's no point discussing the matter.

Just as there was "no point" discussing your previous false claims? To use your own words - how "inconvenient". 

 

So long as you insist on posting them, I will continue to challenge and expose them...and don't you and your ilk despise that?

 

By all means question the BBCs editorial policies, but support your argument with facts and evidence not personal opinion and falsehoods. I find it hilarious that you and some others rail against the lack of impartiality in the BBC, but then have no problem resorting to Talk ****ing Radio because it tells you what you want to hear. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 23 January 2022 by Line-X

[st albans fox]

Even if it were true, Is it relevant if there is no difference between vaccinated and non vaccinated on virus infection ?

 

being vaccinated massively reduces the likelihood that you will need to use NHS resources - this impacts hugely on healthcare available to all of us …..

 

The debate will hopefully soon be behind us anyway - other parts of the world will not be as relaxed though so ….

[Md9]

So my daughter tested positive again today after only having it in late November. Hopefully isn’t to bad like she wasn’t last time 

[Lcfcbl]

I'm quite new to the forum but have been reading back over quite a few pages. With regards to vaccinations, I'm a male in my early 30s. Last summer I contracted Covid and lost my smell and taste, also experienced diarrhoea. I contracted covid again two weeks ago and experienced not a single symptom. 6 years ago I contracted Myopericarditis and was in hospital for 5 days. The pain in my chest, albeit for a short period of time, was unreal like nothing I've ever felt. Before being allowed home, a Cardiologist informed me that I'm of an increased risk of contracting this illness again. I have read about studies showing an increased risk of contracting myocarditis/pericarditis/Myopericarditis due to having the covid vaccine. Thus, I have chosen not to have have the vaccine, not because I'm a mouth-foaming anti-vaxxer but I've just weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision in what could possibly cause more harm to myself, a risk assessment, I suppose. I've already been told by my employers that I cannot be promoted within the company due to me not being vaccinated. I would like to ask the question, regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, if you feel that is a fair and just position?

[fox_up_north]

Depends what your job is. Is it a public facing role in an essential service, such as healthcare, police, education?

Are you ruling out all covid vaccines or just specific strands? Have you told your employer your health risks? 

[Lcfcbl]

11 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Depends what your job is. Is it a public facing role in an essential service, such as healthcare, police, education?

Are you ruling out all covid vaccines or just specific strands? Have you told your employer your health risks? 

Why would it depend what my job is, out of interest? As I described, I've had Covid twice, very mildly. I'm not denying it doesn't effect everyone as mildly as me. However, why would I put my own health at far greater risk, in my opinion, out of of force/coercion?

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, Lcfcbl said:

However, why would I put my own health at far greater risk, in my opinion

You just answered your own question. 

[Milo]

44 minutes ago, Lcfcbl said:

Why would it depend what my job is, out of interest? As I described, I've had Covid twice, very mildly. I'm not denying it doesn't effect everyone as mildly as me. However, why would I put my own health at far greater risk, in my opinion, out of of force/coercion?

Probably something you need to ask your employer, rather than a football forum. 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Lcfcbl said:

I'm quite new to the forum but have been reading back over quite a few pages. With regards to vaccinations, I'm a male in my early 30s. Last summer I contracted Covid and lost my smell and taste, also experienced diarrhoea. I contracted covid again two weeks ago and experienced not a single symptom. 6 years ago I contracted Myopericarditis and was in hospital for 5 days. The pain in my chest, albeit for a short period of time, was unreal like nothing I've ever felt. Before being allowed home, a Cardiologist informed me that I'm of an increased risk of contracting this illness again. I have read about studies showing an increased risk of contracting myocarditis/pericarditis/Myopericarditis due to having the covid vaccine. Thus, I have chosen not to have have the vaccine, not because I'm a mouth-foaming anti-vaxxer but I've just weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision in what could possibly cause more harm to myself, a risk assessment, I suppose. I've already been told by my employers that I cannot be promoted within the company due to me not being vaccinated. I would like to ask the question, regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, if you feel that is a fair and just position?

Thought provoking post.

 

IMO anyone who works in direct patient facing care in all environments from ICU to home care, should have the vaccine.

 

I think the decision by your employers is unfair and I don't know if it's enforceable in law particularly if you have irrefutable medical evidence of an underlying condition that could put you at risk

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Lcfcbl said:

I'm quite new to the forum but have been reading back over quite a few pages. With regards to vaccinations, I'm a male in my early 30s. Last summer I contracted Covid and lost my smell and taste, also experienced diarrhoea. I contracted covid again two weeks ago and experienced not a single symptom. 6 years ago I contracted Myopericarditis and was in hospital for 5 days. The pain in my chest, albeit for a short period of time, was unreal like nothing I've ever felt. Before being allowed home, a Cardiologist informed me that I'm of an increased risk of contracting this illness again. I have read about studies showing an increased risk of contracting myocarditis/pericarditis/Myopericarditis due to having the covid vaccine. Thus, I have chosen not to have have the vaccine, not because I'm a mouth-foaming anti-vaxxer but I've just weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision in what could possibly cause more harm to myself, a risk assessment, I suppose. I've already been told by my employers that I cannot be promoted within the company due to me not being vaccinated. I would like to ask the question, regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, if you feel that is a fair and just position?

If you have genuine medical concerns then that will likely be considered as mitigating circumstances by your employer if you take it further 

Edited 23 January 2022 by st albans fox

[Lcfcbl]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Probably something you need to ask your employer, rather than a football forum. 

Accepted. It was a question on the general chat section of a football forum just to see what opinions were? 

[Milo]

23 minutes ago, Lcfcbl said:

Accepted. It was a question on the general chat section of a football forum just to see what opinions were? 

Hmmm.

 

There’s a thousand odd pages of opinions on here. 
 

Did you join just to view the Coronavirus thread? 

[Unabomber]

3 hours ago, Lcfcbl said:

I'm quite new to the forum but have been reading back over quite a few pages. With regards to vaccinations, I'm a male in my early 30s. Last summer I contracted Covid and lost my smell and taste, also experienced diarrhoea. I contracted covid again two weeks ago and experienced not a single symptom. 6 years ago I contracted Myopericarditis and was in hospital for 5 days. The pain in my chest, albeit for a short period of time, was unreal like nothing I've ever felt. Before being allowed home, a Cardiologist informed me that I'm of an increased risk of contracting this illness again. I have read about studies showing an increased risk of contracting myocarditis/pericarditis/Myopericarditis due to having the covid vaccine. Thus, I have chosen not to have have the vaccine, not because I'm a mouth-foaming anti-vaxxer but I've just weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision in what could possibly cause more harm to myself, a risk assessment, I suppose. I've already been told by my employers that I cannot be promoted within the company due to me not being vaccinated. I would like to ask the question, regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, if you feel that is a fair and just position?

Depends on what your job is? 

[Ric Flair]

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Even if it were true, Is it relevant if there is no difference between vaccinated and non vaccinated on virus infection ?

 

being vaccinated massively reduces the likelihood that you will need to use NHS resources - this impacts hugely on healthcare available to all of us …..

 

The debate will hopefully soon be behind us anyway - other parts of the world will not be as relaxed though so ….

I think the only thing that matters about this is the messaging. I hear and read a lot of disgruntled folk who have lost faith in what they've been told that the vaccine was to be taken to help protect " others " meaning not spreading it to those who might end up in hospital or worse. 

 

If it was readily accepted that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission but builds a very good protection barrier of keeping symptoms more mild and less hospital admissions and deaths then I think it might have caused a bit less resistance in these last few months. OK there'd be a proportion of people say that if it doesn't stop transmission the helping protect others is no longer valid and as they were not bothered about the risk to themselves in the first place then they're happy to ignore said risk.