Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Thanks. I've never used the shared post facility and never seen anyone else use it, so I had no idea it had the defects Guerney observes are there until he started using it in respondimg to my posts, producing these problems.
I can't see the point of it when there's perfectly good, fault free reply facility. Presumably nobody else sees any point in using "share post" either, since none of them ever have.
.
Last edited:
I hate complicated forum facilities. The simple form of Reply works adequately for my purposes and, most of the time, I have no intention of doing anything more complex.
How is it useful if it doesn't work properly, misleading and misrepresenting? It gives no idea to others what is being responded to, while distorting the content of quotes by attributing words never posted by the quoted person.
I'm asking you once again not to respond to any of my posts again with that distorting shared post facility. That doesn't gag you in any way since you can use "Reply" and then post below anything you like within reason.
.
The Mirror (rightly) points at the confusion being caused.
But I'd also point out that people who are thoughtful wear short-sleeved shirts (or equivalently access-enabling alternatives) when going for injections into their upper-arms.
But I'd also point out that people who are thoughtful wear short-sleeved shirts (or equivalently access-enabling alternatives) when going for injections into their upper-arms.
Experiences at the supermarket this week indicate the compliance with the Covid protection measures won't be as good this time round.
The large sign saying masks have to be worn has reappeared outside the store, but no staff member stationed to ensure compliance was present either time. So an unmasked man just ahead of me just walked in unchallenged. Later in the crowded self checkout area there were two unmasked people present.
In addition the perspex separator screens we used to have around the self checkouts during the previous lockdowns haven't been put back.
.
The large sign saying masks have to be worn has reappeared outside the store, but no staff member stationed to ensure compliance was present either time. So an unmasked man just ahead of me just walked in unchallenged. Later in the crowded self checkout area there were two unmasked people present.
In addition the perspex separator screens we used to have around the self checkouts during the previous lockdowns haven't been put back.
.
Very much the reverse here in my village. In fact I am now noticing people again wearing masks on pretty much deserted promenades. My daily walk schedule brings me along a path through an estate, through a church car park and along the shops and promenade, with a wind howling in from Blackpool, about 70 miles across the sea. Mask wearing is really unnecessary for all of this with the low density of people, but 2/3 of these few walkers are masked.
Look at how long it takes to make a prototype of mRNA vaccines.
They made a bunch of samples in just 2 days (AZ, Pfizer, Moderna) and picked the best for production candidate.
The only reason we got them so quickly is because a) MRHA waved them through acceptance quickly on emergency basis and b) goverments paid for new or enlarged production facilities. If they had to go through normal process or rely on risk capital, it would take 10 years to perfect a vaccine, even more for something like HIV.
The simple fact that previous mRNA vaccines against a range of diseases have not worked should say something about overselling, not only from the producers but also from our own governments.
Hi Woosh... Just a few points . The current vaccines are still highly effective, and have not had their recipes tweaked as of yet. The serious illness ratio to infections is proof of that. The hospitals are still filled with the unvaccinated , rather than the waning vaccinated.
Now that those Welsh folk have identified the clotting process,the AZ will probably get a new lease of life.
We are still in the misinformation war stage with the Omnichrone variant, with confusion being the only truth.
And finally a correction . Viruses don't mutate to evade vaccines, that is crediting them with more intelligence than half the human race.
Stop feeding the conspiracy theorists Woosh. Yep, I suspect your hyperbole is to exaggerate point but many just use this type of opinion to justify a total anti vax stance.
And, let's be straight here. Our only hope is vaccines. Yes, obviously they need to improve but if a high proportion of society chooses to not accept vaccines we will never get back to normality... Its highly likely, at some stage perhaps inevitable, that current vaccines are totally ineffective against future mutations. Hopefully, when that day arrives we will have more efficient capable vaccines available, but with this continual bombardment of vaccines will society be put off taking them.Well,to my mind, that is already happening. We all know people against the vaccines, refusing them, knocking their effectiveness etc... That minority will never change their minds with all this negativity about vaccines.
They have worked, they have saved lives, they have kept people out of hospital. Yes, they could be better. But there will be no point them improving if more people then refuse them..
And, as I, m sure you realise, the less efficient jabs are the more important it is we all have them.
I don't understand this negativity around vaccines from well educated, informed people who chose to have vaccine.
Yep, we could do with one that is 100% effective, stopping Covid in its tracks preventing infection... But we haven't got that yet. We have a group of them that will reduce hospitalizations by around 90%..and deaths similar. Let's work with what we have and not throw it away in our attempts to point out current vaccine faults rather than current vaccine benefits.
Last edited:
Very different here in this London Borough of Croydon.
My booster appointment on Thursday was in an entirely enclosed shopping mall, so technically everybody within should have been masked to comply with the regulations. Other than at the vaccines centre shopping unit very few were masked.
Perhaps not surprising though, since 33% of those due for vacination in the borough have refused all Covid vaccines and just short of 40% haven't had both doses. That's double the national number of 19.3% who haven't had both doses.
However the death rate here has consistently stayed stubbornly far below the national rate of 1.1 per 100k, only a quarter of that at present at 0.3 per 100k.
.
Last edited:
I've appended a "Like" to your post, but this part simply isn't true on present knowledge and is unlikely to be true for a very long time.
By then our only true hope of herd immunity will have inevitably arrived anyway, making the vaccines largely unnecessary in this country. They'll just be yet another travel abroad jab.
Just look at this post for what is happening where there's a far, far greater degree of herd immunity from prior infections.
.
Natural selection does not need to be very intelligent. The immune system of the recipient does all the work.
Each individual who got the double dose and subsequently infected with covid will produce dozens of viable variants, not all will succeed better than the original variant but those that do, will have evaded vaccines more effectively than the variant that person has been infected with.
Overtime, one successful variant more infectious than the current dominant one will emerge. That will ring the till once more for vaccine producers.
The current GSAID database contains tens of thousands viable variants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/
I do see that point flecc and also agree it could be case but on our progress towards herd Immunity, if solely by that mechanism we would have to see hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.
If case vaccines would have been a scaffold during our natural progression to herd Immunity. I suspect well before that natural progress to herd Immunity there will be a much more appropriate, efficient vaccine.
As it is, agreed, but still see that our herd Immunity will be a combination of pre infection and vaccine. Arriving there uniquely by either would see far more deaths.
Would we have arrived at natural herd Immunity for small pox or polio? Well perhaps eventually..
Last edited:
In the Daily Mail
"
I've got a problem with my arsenal, doc: Bomb Squad are called to A&E where patient turned up with two-inch-wide WWII shell lodged in his rectum which got there when he 'slipped and fell on it during a clear-out'
Well I believe him, can I have my Unicorn now please?
"
I've got a problem with my arsenal, doc: Bomb Squad are called to A&E where patient turned up with two-inch-wide WWII shell lodged in his rectum which got there when he 'slipped and fell on it during a clear-out'
Well I believe him, can I have my Unicorn now please?
It's a good job he noticed before making any sudden movements
Thanks for that. Yes, that's the phrase I was looking for. Relative vs Absolute risk reduction. So I've now looked that up. Ta.
However it appears that you're not necessarily correct when you say "For vaccines, you use relative risk reduction"
You are spot on in that's what they seem to actually BE using ... whether that is what they SHOULD be using is another matter.
I just did a search. Let me give you an example of a paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/pdf/medicina-57-00199.pdf
In it, let me quote some sections:
"Abstract:
Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy"
It seems the FDA themselves give the following advice!
" Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced
when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used"
And here is one of the charts:
Hmmm. So looking at that, if you got the Pfizer Jab and thought you were getting 95% protection .... turns out, you've only reduced your absolute risk of getting symptoms by 0.7%
(yet of course you still run the same risks of adverse reactions, whether you call it 95% efficacy, or 0.7% efficacy!)
I wonder if that has caused some of us to have made what the FDA called "suboptimal decisions"
???
Covid booster shots significantly strengthen immunity, trial finds
Jabs offer far higher protection than that needed to prevent hospitalisation and death, Cov-Boost trial lead says
www.theguardian.com
How many of us examine our jabs to this extent before foreign travel. Its all got rather obsessive. Just have the jab... And get out on your bike.Thanks for that. Yes, that's the phrase I was looking for. Relative vs Absolute risk reduction. So I've now looked that up. Ta.
However it appears that you're not necessarily correct when you say "For vaccines, you use relative risk reduction"
You are spot on in that's what they seem to actually BE using ... whether that is what they SHOULD be using is another matter.
I just did a search. Let me give you an example of a paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/pdf/medicina-57-00199.pdf
In it, let me quote some sections:
"Abstract:
Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy"
It seems the FDA themselves give the following advice!
" Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced
when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used"
And here is one of the charts:
View attachment 44917
Hmmm. So looking at that, if you got the Pfizer Jab and thought you were getting 95% protection .... turns out, you've only reduced your absolute risk of getting symptoms by 0.7%
(yet of course you still run the same risks of adverse reactions, whether you call it 95% efficacy, or 0.7% efficacy!)
I wonder if that has caused some of us to have made what the FDA called "suboptimal decisions"
???
Can you imagine nipping to nurse a few months before a trip to India... Then demanding exact source, name, history, certification of every jab... Going home and studying them for months.. Nobody did, but perhaps now we are all micro bioligists a trend has started. Won't be a case of getting jabbed for yellow fever, it will be another investigative thesis... What the hell are we doing?
Why can't it just be... "Doctor, what jabs do you recommend?"
And have them. Amazing, with absolutely no training we all know more than professionals these days. Damned Internet and little knowledge syndrome.
Then we all wonder why such as SW draw up their own conclusions and turn jab down. World really has gone mad.
Last edited:
I understand the difference, but that's been the common basis for trials for yonks.
As I said before, they sold several billions of doses on flimsy evidence.
I am happy with the relative risk reduction though. You need to convince zlatan, not me.