The bottom line is that what you are claiming as research is fantasy. Seeking other options or opinions is very reasonable ..and that is what you are doing, but calling it research is a bridge too far
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I’m using the dictionary definition of the word “research” to call it research. What I, you and others do is defined as research in the dictionary. That’s what my dictionary research tells me.
The problem isn't forming your own opinions from what any of us call research its the likely event that that "research" is influencing others.
Seems anti vaxxers come in groups, influencing each other. Daughter knows a whole fire crew (8) who are all refusing vaccines.. I, ll bet one of that group is the "researcher" . Rest followers.
And, again I don't know who is right. Danidl or JHC....
Both correct.
And, I suspect many of us make our decisions then conduct research where we think applicable to justify our own stance..???
Seems anti vaxxers come in groups, influencing each other. Daughter knows a whole fire crew (8) who are all refusing vaccines.. I, ll bet one of that group is the "researcher" . Rest followers.
And, again I don't know who is right. Danidl or JHC....
Both correct.
And, I suspect many of us make our decisions then conduct research where we think applicable to justify our own stance..???
Did anyone imagine this Johnson "plan" would be otherwise?
No more lateral flow home test kits available, says NHS England
Website tells people to ‘try again later’, as vaccine booking service reports ‘extremely high demand’
www.theguardian.com
We have some in the cupboard. Thinking about flogging them on eBay.
No more lateral flow home test kits available, says NHS England
Website tells people to ‘try again later’, as vaccine booking service reports ‘extremely high demand’
Lateral flow test kits unavailable on official website in England
People told to try again later as gov.uk vaccine booking service also reports extremely high demand
www.theguardian.com
We have some in the cupboard. Thinking about flogging them on eBay.
Once again indicating your innate bigotry and arrogance.
Given that we must have survived numerous pandemics over more than four million years of recognisably human existance, and that there was prior existence of SARS, I considered there was a likelyhood that Covid-19 was not only naturally survivable but probably on balance not as serious as peak epidemics like the Black Death or Spanish 'flu. Gamblers odds based on reading form, a basis for the theory.
But very soon my research on what was happening in London versus the rest of the country began to support my supposition, and the longer it went on, the more obvious that became and with no contra indications. The advent of the vaccines increasingly proved that the original supposition was correct and London's outcome after two years of Covid-19 leaves absolutely no doubt.
The research of the government's chief statistician has now fully concurred, belatedly probably because looking at confused data from the whole country could be misleading.
So what you've very rudely and arrogantly termed floundering around in the kiddies paddling pool was in fact very a very valid scientific approach:
First a theory based on the initial limited facts.
Then looking for evidence to support or disprove the theory.
Then as the evidence arrived that did support it with no contra indications, publishing that stage by stage in posts, culminating in the theory being officially statistically supported with no denial from any official source.
My research will continue and will show exactly what the effect of Omicron is on London, as before, probably well before the authorities know what the effect is on the whole country.
.
It’s not a case of who’s research is wrong or right. The conclusion isn’t being questioned. It’s the definition of the process. The dictionary defines it as research.
I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics :
Plagiarize!
Plagiarize!
Let no one else's work evade your eyes.
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize ---
Only be sure always to call it please "research".
from initial reports two years ago, the kill rate from covid19 was put at 2.3%. 97% will brush it off.
However, I dispute that humans went back as far ago as that.
If I may and leaving out any personal insults... The observations you made about prevalence in certain parts of London was a statistical analysis of observations at a macro level . We all have sufficient grasp of maths to be able to follow the argument. We..you and I may disagree with your conclusions as to whether this is evidence of a" herd immunity"by osmosis of multiple sub clinical exposures , or just a statistical blip.. on that point a scientific consensus doesn't yet exist..but it is a working hypothesis. But you were not ,I assume basing it on the detailed biochemistry of T cells ...whatever they are.
The "research" to which jHC was claiming he needed to study would have required that detailed immunological analysis, as to whether 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 doses of a vaccine would produce an adverse immune response.. it is that BS I was calling out.
And yes the world has experienced multiple even more debilitating pandemics over its history ..and pre history than the current one. Consider we have as yet only killed 5.5 Million out of 7000 million and 250 million ostensibly recovered. But the unusual changes this time around is that universal instant travel is available ..so anyone anywhere can bring this infection anywhere else, within the incubation period between infection and presentation. The other feature is that our ecosystems are now much more fragile. We are only ever 2 harvests away from a global famine.
"Macro level, statistical blip, osmosis of multiple sub clinical exposures", anything to oppose by any means possible, however invalid and despite the official support quoted.
London is one fifth of the rest of the country and far bigger than many other countries in Europe, hardly justifying such ill thought out dismissals.
.
On here, undoubtedly. But in real world many people are making wrong decisions based on their dangerous interpretation of "research".
My mate is absolutely convinced his research is perfect, based on it he refuses jab.
Then we ask
A) is the research wrong?
B) is his process faulty
C) is he making wrong conclusions from said "research".
To some research is reading Daily Mail. To others it's punching into Google.
To be fair to both sides of this, performing real research is actually very difficult. Are you researching or uncovering somebody else's indoctrination efforts.
Think I have a foot in both camps, I, ll read anything but with a hefty dose of scepticism... Then I, ll listen to experts I see as trustworthy... Again a subjective call tho.
If I were wanting to know about racing motor bikes I, d ask Guy Martin. I wouldn't value his opinion about Covid tho.
I agree with Danidl tho, I suspect we haven't the knowledge, access capabilities or time to truly research vaccines. Flecc's point is rather different, that's vaccine affects,which is a pure numbers game.
The actual biological, physiological, metabolic, chemical and immune response is way beyond my (our?) functional knowledge base.
You know about flying and all that accompanies it. I doubt you have the thermodynamic knowledge base to research the actual operation of high end jet engines,except to a most rudimentary degree.. (it is rocket science after all, immune responses are even more complicated than that)
Last edited:
That, apropos of nothing, made me think about gamblers folly - when a person erroneously believe a random event is less or more likely to happen based on the outcome of a previous event or series of events. It's a kind of ex post facto reasoning that I'm afraid I believe you engage in flecc when you conclude herd immunity reduced mortality from covid in your area. That's glossing over a number of other hypotheses and punting for a completely unverified one.
You were so quick to take offense you missed the important phrase ..." A working hypothesis.
Now you are being silly. "My area" is bigger than many Europen countries, far too big a sample to dismiss so lightly. There is no other hypothesis for the outcome. The only one possible is that the huge scale of the initial infections, estimated at the time by many experts as certainly 25% of the population and possibly 50%, greatly reduced the population's ongoing vulnerability to severe outcomes from re-infection.
In effect up to half the population's immune systems "self vaccinated" them long before the artificial vaccines arrived, and that process continued as those infected increased in number. It's why our death rate continuously slowed from its initial high last year as the rest of the country's overtook
What other hypothesis can you offer for lower death rates in the most densely packed area with by far the lowest vaccination rates in the country? The vaccines are killing lots of people?
Yes, that's a valid one, I don't know of any other.
.
Lets start with culling. .. If the vulnerable people are already dead, there are less vulnerable people. ,
I think Formula E could be greatly improved. Give them a few basic parameters, length, width , height tyres & weight. No limit on power, but a battery change or recharge, if needed, must be just that, no swapping cars. 200 miles of racing. Could be fun.