Coronavirus Thread

[adam]

41 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No - the science itself has a voice of its own...and known science is not a matter of belief or opinion. 

 

I suggest that you understand 'appeal to authority' before you reply again.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

 

This is precisely why you'll also encounter climate scientists hunted down to appear on sensationalist populist junk such as 'Talk Radio' that tell you anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. It's also the reason that Dr. Mike Yeadon ("introduced as a laboratory scientist...and stuff"), featured on the station last December and told viewers that herd immunity had been reached in London and the South East. 

 

Incidentally, Andrew Wakefield was a physician who studied medicine at St Mary's medical school. What's your point?

The problem is which I doubt you realise or care is you can fish on Google all day looking for facts to back up or opinion. There are lots of varied opinions from scientists on masks. Just depends what you want to believe.

[Phil Bowman]

2 hours ago, Raj said:

What's parents thought on over 12s being vaccinated?

My daughter  is 13 and healthy- does she get jabbed or not?

I do hope this decision isn’t going to be made on the basis of what people say on FoxesTalk…

Edited 15 September 2021 by Phil Bowman
I missed a word out because I’m either an idiot or careless. Not that they’re mutually exclusive; it’s entirely possible (indeed highly likely) that I’m both.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, adam said:

The problem is which I doubt you realise or care is you can fish on Google all day looking for facts to back up or opinion. There are lots of varied opinions from scientists on masks. Just depends what you want to believe.

I'm pretty sure this guy knows about the cherry picking fallacy and how it has zero effect on scientific consensus but sadly a lot of effect on public opinion and therefore state policy concerning science.

[Phil Bowman]

28 minutes ago, adam said:

The problem is which I doubt you realise or care is you can fish on Google all day looking for facts to back up or opinion. There are lots of varied opinions from scientists on masks. Just depends what you want to believe.

Well if someone doesn’t want to believe the general scientific consensus, it is certainly possible for them to find nonsense on the internet to support any unsubstantiated opinion you care to name, whether that be that the earth is flat or that covid is a hoax.

 

’Just depends what you want to believe?’

Personally I want to believe what actual scientific research has found to be the best version of the truth they’ve managed to work out so far. As and when that changes, what I believe will change with it. Isn’t that how science works? If I picked only the evidence to confirm what I ‘want to believe,’ I’d be an idiot.

[SpacedX]

59 minutes ago, adam said:

The problem is which I doubt you realise or care is you can fish on Google all day looking for facts to back up or opinion. 

Yes - as @leicsmac explained, it's called confirmation bias. A search engine will return or confirm anything that you wish or instruct it to. As I mentioned earlier, known science is not about 'opinion'.

 

59 minutes ago, adam said:

There are lots of varied opinions from scientists on masks. Just depends what you want to believe.

And the strength of consilience and evidence based study demonstrates that the use of facemasks are a significant preventative measure in limiting the spread of airborne infection. Again, not a question of what "you choose to believe" or "varied opinions". You still appear to be struggling with the concept of 'appeal to authority' as a logical fallacy. If you have evidence based data showing that the use of approved and properly fitted facemasks are ineffectual as a prevention measure of the spread of infectious aerosols - then by all means present it. 

Edited 15 September 2021 by Line-X

[Crinklyfox]

5 hours ago, Raj said:

Any over 50s on here who will take up the option of the booster jab?

I'll be going for it - don't see a downside really.  I've also saved myself from flu for decades by getting the flu jab every year.

[Leicester_Loyal]

56 minutes ago, adam said:

The problem is which I doubt you realise or care is you can fish on Google all day looking for facts to back up or opinion. There are lots of varied opinions from scientists on masks. Just depends what you want to believe.

I don’t trust anyone anymore, even the scientists that get wheeled out sadly. Our politicians and media outlets are just liars as well. 
 

Sad state of affairs really. 

[Raj]

40 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

I do hope this decision isn’t going to be made on the basis of what people say on FoxesTalk…

ALL my decisions are made by posters on foxestalk!!@

[adam]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I don’t trust anyone anymore, even the scientists that get wheeled out sadly. Our politicians and media outlets are just liars as well. 
 

Sad state of affairs really. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/bring-in-measures-soon-or-risk-7000-daily-covid-cases-sage-warns

 

Here's the latest nonsense. 

[jgtuk]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Yes - as @leicsmac explained, it's called confirmation bias. A search engine will return or confirm anything that you wish or instruct it to. As I mentioned earlier, known science is not about 'opinion'.

 

And the strength of consilience and evidence based study demonstrates that the use of facemasks are a significant preventative measure in limiting the spread of airborne infection. Again, not a question of what "you choose to believe" or "varied opinions". You still appear to be struggling with the concept of 'appeal to authority' as a logical fallacy. If you have evidenced based data showing that the use of approved and properly fitted facemasks are ineffectual as a prevention measure of the spread of infectious aerosols - then by all means present it. 

I can't understand why this debate still exists. I've seen and read so many arguments here and elsewhere but have not found, or been presented with, any evidence that masks don't work (to some degree or another). I'm in the extremely vulnerable category so have discussed the issue with all of my consultants, Drs. and my own GP and all have warned that my safety would be compromised by others not wearing a mask. The sheer volume of peer reviewed papers and research in this thread alone should put it to bed.

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I don’t trust anyone anymore, even the scientists that get wheeled out sadly. Our politicians and media outlets are just liars as well. 
 

Sad state of affairs really. 

Not a case of 'trusting' scientists, media or politicians - (oddly though, you do appear to "trust" twitter and internet memes.)

 

Known science does not "lie" because it needs to be demonstrated, evidence based and reproducible - and that is the purpose of the scientific method.  

 

 

[The People's Hero]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Not a case of 'trusting' scientists, media or politicians - (oddly though, you do appear to "trust" twitter and internet memes.)

 

Known science does not "lie" because it needs to be demonstrated, evidence based and reproducible - and that is the purpose of the scientific method.  

 

 

True; but everybody serves somebody. Almost every scientist out there has a paymaster/puppetmaster who has their own agenda to push, whether thats a direct employer, an investor, a sponsor... whatever.

 

No one truly comes at any issue without discourse and to pretend otherwise is more blinkered than those who do blindly trust youtube/facebook/MSM etc etc.

 

This isn't aimed at you by the way; I just wanted to point out that scientists are not universally robotic and without agenda; living only to make scientific advancement for the greater common good. Equally, if they somehow did manage to have no agenda/discourse or skin in the game; it does not necessarily mean they are always right; otherwise all scientists would always agree with one another and this issue has shown more than any other (perhaps with the exception of climate change) that scientists do not all agree on the best way forward.

 

Anyway; I'm going to go out and get someone to wash my car.

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Raj said:

What's parents thought on over 12s being vaccinated?

My daughter  is 13 and healthy- does she get jabbed or not?

I have a thirteen year old who has never shown any symptoms, despite covid being in our house three times (and all of the rest of us showing some symptoms on the first pass) .  He has also been testing regularly for school and obviously never shown a positive LFT.  My wife maintains that he doesn’t need a jab on that basis. Tough to argue with her. 
 

14 minutes ago, adam said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/bring-in-measures-soon-or-risk-7000-daily-covid-cases-sage-warns

 

Here's the latest nonsense. 

Looking at that graph, you’d expect the peak to be between 1750 and 4250/ day depending on how high R is over the next 6 weeks. 
 

7k is ridiculous, just as a prediction of 500 would be. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

20 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Not a case of 'trusting' scientists, media or politicians - (oddly though, you do appear to "trust" twitter and internet memes.)

 

Known science does not "lie" because it needs to be demonstrated, evidence based and reproducible - and that is the purpose of the scientific method.  

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

14 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

True; but everybody serves somebody. Almost every scientist out there has a paymaster/puppetmaster who has their own agenda to push, whether thats a direct employer, an investor, a sponsor... whatever.

 

No one truly comes at any issue without discourse and to pretend otherwise is more blinkered than those who do blindly trust youtube/facebook/MSM etc etc.

 

This isn't aimed at you by the way; I just wanted to point out that scientists are not universally robotic and without agenda; living only to make scientific advancement for the greater common good. Equally, if they somehow did manage to have no agenda/discourse or skin in the game; it does not necessarily mean they are always right; otherwise all scientists would always agree with one another and this issue has shown more than any other (perhaps with the exception of climate change) that scientists do not all agree on the best way forward.

 

Anyway; I'm going to go out and get someone to wash my car.

Which is why I am talking about science, not "scientists". 

 

But as I have stressed many times before on this forum - and apologies for the repetition, scrutiny through peer review is rigorous and although far from flawless, as an independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. The greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it and that's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate interest.

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Reminds me of Frank Sidebottom. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Which is why I am talking about science, not "scientists". 

 

But as I have stressed many times before on this forum - and apologies for the repetition, scrutiny through peer review is rigorous and although far from flawless, as an independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. The greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it and that's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate interest.

Don't worry about the repetition: evidently it needed to be said again anyway.

[dsr-burnley]

40 minutes ago, adam said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/bring-in-measures-soon-or-risk-7000-daily-covid-cases-sage-warns

 

Here's the latest nonsense. 

I think they need a new statistician.  

 

Quote: "The scientists warn that hospital occupancy in England only has to rise two and half times to reach last winter’s peak. "

 

Last year the peak was 34,015 people in hospital.  Currently it is 6,344.  Someone needs a new calculator.

 

Currently about 1m people per month are getting the virus and 1,000 per day going to hospital.  So for the hospitalisation rate to go up by a factor of 7, I would presume the cases must as well - so 7m cases per month, 21m per quarter.  One third of the population.  Plausible?  Not really.  

[The People's Hero]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Don't worry about the repetition: evidently it needed to be said again anyway.

Didn't need to be said again at all; I completely accept the point.

 

Line-X actually made the differentiation between science and scientists; so we are not disagreeing.

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Didn't need to be said again at all; I completely accept the point.

 

Line-X actually made the differentiation between science and scientists; so we are not disagreeing.

 

 

Fair enough, and thank you.

 

It's difficult to overstate just how important a distinction it is though, especially when cherry picking is so rife and the results of ignoring the general scientific consensus as achieved by peer review is so potentially dire.

[Carl the Llama]

 

Covid is just another example of people choosing to believe what's less scary over what's inconvenient.  See also: Brexit; climate change.  The opportunity to make the UK a site of negligible infections like other countries have achieved has long since passed, Covid's with us forever now. 

[rachhere]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

Covid is just another example of people choosing to believe what's less scary over what's inconvenient.  See also: Brexit; climate change.  The opportunity to make the UK a site of negligible infections like other countries have achieved has long since passed, Covid's with us forever now. 

Agree with the first sentence, but surely every country will get to that point where we are though once they properly open their borders?

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, rachhere said:

Agree with the first sentence, but surely every country will get to that point where we are though once they properly open their borders?

I think it depends on how research and vaccine uptake develops.  For instance if the vaccines do indeed cause lower transmission then a country with high vax rates which only admits vaccinated individuals you'd think they should be able to keep on top of any surgent infection.

[enmac]

8 hours ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

 

You can phone up and pretend to be anything. I know someone who actually went into the studio on an American radio station pretending to be a member of a band he liked and was interviewed for 10 minutes, just cause he was bored and it was nearby

No. This GP was genuine. He wasn't a caller as he was invited for the interview. I think he's it said he was chairman of a panel for GPs at the BMA. 

[enmac]

11 minutes ago, enmac said:

No. This GP was genuine. He wasn't a caller as he was invited for the interview. I think he's it said he was chairman of a panel for GPs at the BMA. 

This is the GP:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Vautrey