Forum menu
Question away. But listen to the answers.
Place your bets…
BTW i really know nothing about any of this. it's all been picked up from TiRed (many thanks again) and various other sources, including (gasp) the BBC. people are not, on the whole, generally malevolent. a big clue as to those who are telling the truth is openess and willingness to share the data. and then be prepared to answer questions about it.
still, if you want to know the generalities of constructing an erbium doped fibre amplifier for your telecomms infrastructure project, or splicing specialty optical fibre - i'm your man. no - i don't do it in a hole in the road 😉
If I can offer a personal view on face coverings. It's become quite totemic. But it always was. The point is not just about reducing transmission, but reminding us all that we need to take care in public spaces. And, as it turns out, a method of asshole filtering. It's not a difficult thing to do.
I wish this forum had a like/agree button because it’s so hard to acknowledge all the helpful answers. Thank you all for those.
And equally hard not to bite back at those who patronise you (listen to the answers) or make snide assumptions despite knowing nothing about you (place your bets).
As for the Googling, of course I have, but have you tried getting unbiased information on vaccination recently?
I don’t have peer-reviewed evidence of this to hand
Yes you do....look I posted it for you up there ^
If you look at that peer-reviewed paper (they have even provided a link to the study protocol, which tells you exactly what they did, and the rationale for it) you can make up your mind based on the actual data, and an understanding of what was done and why. The information that you seek is all there.
edit: please do let me know if you consider this useful
edit: please do let me know if you consider this useful
Thank you. Looks like bog-standard side-effects.
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
If you want the source material, not the peer review superficial data, but the source material from the company, and the agency review of that data (FDA but not EMA generate their own analyses of the raw source datasets) look here:
Select meeting materials. The two most recent are Moderna and Pfizer advisory committees. These are held in public. The vote from independent reviewers external to the agency will make or break any potential new medicine.
Thank you. Looks like bog-standard side-effects.
Is that an economic assessment? Because the incidence of Grade 3 adverse events after second dose (8%) for the mRNA vaccines is surprisingly high. It is manageable, but substantially higher than traditional modalities. Benefit Risk. A small proportion of people are hypersensitive to poly-ethylene glycol. People with know hypersensitivity had not been tested until the NHS roll out. There is now a lot more caution in these subjects. The benefit risk for them has changed.
place your bets
This was meant generally. Not directed at you. All of us. It's a personal choice if you want to take a vaccination or not.
One point I heard raised was as a result of a question to 'how to vaccinate the world' (BBC sounds). I paraphrase but basically 'I'm fit and healthy and at low risk - why should I take a vaccine that potentially increases my risk of ill health?'. It's a good question. The answer presented was that by the time you get a chance to get it it'll be administered to so many before you we'll have seen any significant problems already. And you might not inadvertently kill someone who can't for other reasons have the vaccine. (Poor immune system or something).
I have the opposite problem. I'm 47. I won't get vaccinated AFAIK unless it's made available privately but I'm still at a greater risk than those younger than me. Fwiw I paid for the flu vaccine for the first time this year when it was pointed out to me that if I was vaccinated I was less likely to pass it on.
If you want the source material, not the peer review superficial data, but the source material from the company, abs the agency review of that data (FDA but not EMA generate their own analyses of the raw data) look here...
Sorry if you think my answer is patronising, I mean it though. We're prepared to answer whatever questions you have but when you make an allegation that listening to the good faith answers from very credible people is a bit big brother, it makes it hard to know what sort of answer you want.
When scientists with decades of experience speak, I listen. I manage 50 of them (diff area, but I think I understand how it works). Maybe it is a massive conspiracy and we've all been duped, but I really don't think so. Convince me otherwise.
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
So come on then: on what basis are you prepared to take ANY drugs? What is the level of evidence that is sufficient for you, a layman, to feel comfortable taking a pharmaceutical product?
And, perhaps more importantly, what are you doing to educate yourself to be able to make an informed decision based on that (I assume) raw data?
Edit:
Maybe it is a massive conspiracy and we’ve all been duped, but I really don’t think so.
I sure hope it is a conspiracy - I've been managing trials for 20 years now.... I must be due a MASSIVE payout by the sinister cabal who've been controlling my actions during that time.
place your bets
This was meant generally. Not directed at you.
Actually, my flippant comment meant “the odds of the answers being properly taken on board by this one are poor, what do you think?” That’s going purely on the way the questions were asked. I hope to be proven wrong.
Your reading of it was far better than my sentiments behind it though. I wish I had meant what you thought I meant! I feel bad now… and really hope to be proven wrong, and my comment foolish. Let’s see…
I sure hope it is a conspiracy – I’ve been managing trials for 20 years now…. I must be due a MASSIVE payout by the sinister cabal who’ve been controlling my actions during that time
I'm going to be well pissed off, all those hours checking test results and in vitro and in Vivo studies to proves efficacy and safety when I should have just listened to the internet
(20 odd years in sunscreen r&d and manufacturing), now on a second career but still science)
chrispo
Free MemberI don’t have peer-reviewed evidence of this to hand, but I’m pretty certain drugs are not normally tested for less than a year.
True. But most drugs aren't being released in the face of a world-changing pandemic. Doing something quicker than normal doesn't imply any sort of corner cutting or excess pace, unless it's already done as fast as is safely possible, and there's no reason to assume that here. There's many reasons to take a slower pace.
Like, one big difference (maybe the biggest? Don't know) is doing multiple trials simultaneously- because of course, you don't usually do that if there's no rush, you do them consecutively so that if you encounter a problem, you haven't wasted time/money doing more trials. But that doesn't mean you can't do multiples simultaneously, if you're willing to just suck it up if one goes wrong. Same thing happens all the time with projects/planning.
It's like ordering the materials for your extension before you get your planning permission. No reason you can't do it, but it's not usually a good idea. But if it works out, then you get everything done much faster, and it doesn't make your extension any more likely to fall down. The risk is in wasted effort/money rather than in results.
I don’t have peer-reviewed evidence of this to hand, but I’m pretty certain drugs are not normally tested for less than a year.
The number of patient-years safety data required for registration is determined by medical need and precedence. Common diseases with good therapeutic options typically need a thousand patient-years of exposure. For protection (eg cardiovascular), multiply that by ten. In oncology, a new agent that works for those with no other options might be approved with as few as twenty patients for immediate use prior to larger studies for earlier therapy (drugs are first tested on those who have failed all other therapies).
So for a vaccine that offers significant protection against an infection with few therapeutic options and significant healthcare burden, six months or more (the Phase 1 studies started nine months ago) looks acceptable. With continued monitoring of those in trials and the wider population.
How do economists test their theories on the general public? The evidence base for medical treatment (randomised placebo controlled trials with specified statistical tests for significance) is hugely more rigorous than economic policy testing. But again, benefit risk applies to both.
@batfink covered this pages ago with an answer that should have been satisfactory to anyone with anything resembling critical faculties.
That he is not receiving his dues as an important cog in the Global Reset Program v0.01 is the real tragedy here.
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
Any details, sounds like an interesting read.
That he is not receiving his dues as an important cog in the Global Reset Program v0.01 is the real tragedy here.
I appreciate the sentiment, but no dues required. To be honest, it's more rewarding trying to convince somebody that the grinder is more important than the espresso machine itself. Although I do drink flat whites, so I guess that makes me some sort of bedwetter/handwringer (as well as a paid shill for Big Pharma) - so yeah, maybe don't listen to me? I don't know.
But even all you good’uns, have you never stopped to talk to someone less than two metres apart? Touched someone without thinking? Not washed your hands after shopping? Made a journey that wasn’t genuinely essential?
Or ridden with friends? I have. Forget social distancing when you’re following someone on a bike. Ever seen how much of a cloud you exhale when the weather’s cold?
I think we’re pretty much all guilty in some way of spreading this thing.
Don't judge others by your own standard Crispo I've done none of these things.
@TiRed. Kudos for replying to this troll in a calm and logical manner. I admire your self control
FWIW i've been a good boy too.
I didn't even eat out to help out.
(insert 'my wife will never forgive me' joke here)
My folks (both in their 80's) signed up for, and got on, vaccine trials.
Some of us have approached this like it was really happening.
But even all you good’uns, have you never stopped to talk to someone less than two metres apart? Touched someone without thinking? Not washed your hands after shopping? Made a journey that wasn’t genuinely essential?
Or ridden with friends? I have. Forget social distancing when you’re following someone on a bike. Ever seen how much of a cloud you exhale when the weather’s cold?
I think we’re pretty much all guilty in some way of spreading this thing.
Also - that whole concept is a complete nonsense: That you may have broken the guidance in some limited, one-off way..... therefore you are just as bad as others who are ignoring the rules completely. It's just another one of these:
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
a comment designed solely to divert the conversation down another pointless rabbit hole.
Question for the more informed:
If I understood the earlier post correctly, less of the virus will make you catch it in the new variant; what does this mean in practice for social distancing etc? Presumably we have to keep further apart (e.g 3m not 2m)? And for less time? Previously they were saying it was very unlikely you’d catch off surfaces, is this still the case?
Damn good question that!! Anyone got any ideas?
If proven this is quite significant. Unfortunately it seems increasingly likely that schools will close again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55406939
And add to that , how effective are masks with the new strain?
Yes but this thread is hardly a representative sample of the UK population! Self selecting for those who are taking it seriously….and a few with the opposite view who want to stir things up.
It's perfectly possible to take this seriously and still think the response is wrong if you don't consider the deaths of lots of very old people a problem. Post viral fatigue syndrome posses more of a problem but resources could have been allocated to this instead for more long term benefit.
And add to that , how effective are masks with the new strain?
Where they ever effective other than making some people feel safer going out? Widespread usage doesn't really appear to have much effect on case numbers compared to when they weren't widely worn.
@batfink - yep, I agree that's bullshit. I didn't reply to them as I'd only be accused of bullying for calling them out. It's the equivalent of shouting "Look! Squirrels!!"
🤦
More great answers from a wide range of contributors in the last few hours, for which I am grateful.
I get that there's a fine line having to keep explaining the same things every 5 pages when the same questions keep coming round. As well as lockdown fatigue I think a few on here must have "explanation fatigue". Not everyone asking those same questions is a denier, or a troll, or stupid, and responses need to be polite and respectful. But when presented with the actual scientific evidence by people in the field, the only appropriate reply should be "I'll go away and read it and I'll come back with any questions later." It needs to work both ways, and to be fair, it usually does.
That BBC article on the new variant and kids is worrying. Another lockdown and schools closed for January at least, I fear.
Question for the more informed:
If I understood the earlier post correctly, less of the virus will make you catch it in the new variant; what does this mean in practice for social distancing etc? Presumably we have to keep further apart (e.g 3m not 2m)? And for less time? Previously they were saying it was very unlikely you’d catch off surfaces, is this still the case?Damn good question that!! Anyone got any ideas?
May I also add
Its said it increases the R rate by at least 0.4 how low did R get in the summer?
Also – that whole concept is a complete nonsense: That you may have broken the guidance in some limited, one-off way….. therefore you are just as bad as others who are ignoring the rules completely.
I didn’t say that. I just think there’s room to be less judgemental. I exercised from home the other day and the forest was full of cars. My instinctive reaction was anger/despair. But (a) they could conceivably all be disabled and (b) although they’re breaking the rules, they’re not actually doing any more harm than I was. It’s good to take a step back.
It’s just another one of these:
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
a comment designed solely to divert the conversation down another pointless rabbit hole.
No, it isn’t. It’s an open question and a legitimate concern.
I hope you’re not as quick to leap to conclusions based on bugger-all data in your important scientific work.
Don’t judge others by your own standard Crispo I’ve done none of these things.
That’s amazing. Hats off.
No judgement. My aim was to encourage some of the people on this thread to take a step back and be more tolerant and open-minded.
Someone questions the consensus here. Five people pile in to tell them they haven’t lost someone (haven’t they?) so they should shut up. Another five say they’re not a scientist (aren’t they?) so they should shut up. One gives an answer.
Guess who they’re going to listen to?
@TiRed. Kudos for replying to this troll in a calm and logical manner. I admire your self control
I’m not a troll, but someone seeking truth and reassurance and balance and kindness and finding little.
Thank you to those who have made the effort.
From what I understood, masks provided limited protection against inhaled droplets for both the wearer and other people. One description that I remember is that masks are there to protect you, not me.
From what I understand (and my knowledge of immunology stopped being enriched 20 years ago when I left the sector to do IT), the use case will be equally effective for the new strain as it was for the classic strain. The change from classic to new is just a few tiny parts of a tiny object. It’s not enough to make a difference
No, it isn’t. It’s an open question and a legitimate concern
So come on then, based on this legitimate concern, how do you rationalise taking any pharmaceuticals?
No, it isn’t. It’s an open question and a legitimate concern.
I hope you’re not as quick to leap to conclusions based on bugger-all data in your important scientific work.
I think you 've been asked already, but what are the question and the concern based on?
My aim was to encourage some of the people on this thread to take a step back and be more tolerant and open-minded
Right. You know that works both ways?
I’m not a troll, but someone seeking truth and reassurance and balance and kindness and finding little.
Sounds like the typical "anti-vax concerns" seeking reassurance but spreading FUD. Back under your bridge, better still delete your account as your 'concerns' are not and we don't need this around these parts.
As for the Googling, of course I have, but have you tried getting unbiased information on vaccination recently?
Thing is though, what would you call unbiased? I mean similar information about the speed of development has been published across all major newspapers. But they're likely to be quoting from pharma companies, relevant scientists, regulatory bodies or the NHS. Consider the fuss over MMR and Autism - same sources are debunking that myth.
Another five say they’re not a scientist (aren’t they?) so they should shut up. One gives an answer.
Sorry fella, but you've lost me now.
You asked yesterday about the vaccine being rushed through. I gave you an answer considering two factors, which you must have seen because you quoted parts of it. So did several others.
You've had multiple answers, from multiple people. Not just one. Just maybe not answers you like which is why you don't seem to be listening.
I think you've been treated pretty considerately and patiently given the way you're used those responses.
[edit - and will continue to be. Bring your serious questions and an idea of what is acceptable as sources / evidence and you will find this place a genuine resource]
Priti vacant taking the gaslighting to a whole new level on radio 4 this morning
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1341296751291097088?s=21
Re
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that will have happened at some point. I don't have examples, it's not my specific area but in the field I worked in that was a concern, particularly in the area of CN and IN manufacturers making equivalents to sunscreen actives as soon as they came off-patent, claiming equivalence and 'manipulating' eg: assays. In one case a company even sent us a sample of our own material as a co-shipment sample along with a trial shipment. But that was soon picked up as our manuf route was relatively unique and left a clear fingerprint.
But because it has happened doesn't make it endemic, and that's what peer review and regulators are there to monitor and prevent.
Unless everyone's in on it, of course.
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
CSL/UQ abandoned their promising vaccine due to false positives for HIV tests. I would guess that there will be far more examples of people doing the right thing like the Australian group than cheating. And the chance of the cheats being caught is very high, as will be the consequences.
I’m not a troll, but someone seeking truth and reassurance and balance and kindness and finding little.
Wouldn’t bother me if you are. Plenty of reasonable people have serious concerns. Many of those are based on pre or misconceptions, or just an absence of knowledge. Science is dispassionate and I hope the answers, which I always try and make as accessible as possible, are helpful to all.
Asking probing questions forces one to clarity of explanation. That’s always helpful.
FWIW, I think that there is good evidence that the strain is more easily passed from person to person, that it is probably already in other countries (when they sequence their samples rather than test for presence of TNA), and that the polyclonal response from vaccines will protect against disease.
Sorry A_A, but I don’t think schools will be opening ether. I’m not party to that but there are few options available to us in addition to Lockdown2.
Sorry A_A, but I don’t think schools will be opening ether. I’m not party to that but there are few options available to us in addition to Lockdown2.
I doubt A_A will be that upset, given his scorn for the faith-based 'Covid Secure' schooling mantra.
Some suggestion that kids are far more susceptible to picking up and transmitting the new variant, which would make sense in selection terms.
You’ve had multiple answers, from multiple people. Not just one. Just maybe not answers you like which is why you don’t seem to be listening.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Those aren't numbers referring to my specific case. But the proportions are probably not too far out. Some people are helping a lot. Others aren't. And nobody's picking them up on it.
Trust me, I am listening and digesting. Critically. But I'm also getting really peed off by people like this:
Sounds like the typical “anti-vax concerns” seeking reassurance but spreading FUD. Back under your bridge, better still delete your account as your ‘concerns’ are not and we don’t need this around these parts.
So there's two separate things getting intermingled, which doesn't help.
when presented with the actual scientific evidence by people in the field, the only appropriate reply should be “I’ll go away and read it and I’ll come back with any questions later.” It needs to work both ways, and to be fair, it usually does.
A good point. I'm trying. The sources aren't really aimed at the layperson though.
So come on then, based on this legitimate concern, how do you rationalise taking any pharmaceuticals?
For me, there is a big difference between ingesting a chemical like a painkiller with a fairly predictable effect and messing with your immune system which is an unpredictable beast.
Sources? Most notably 20 years caring for a wife with a serious autoimmune disease who has also had radiotherapy and chemotherapy. There is absolutely no way she'd take this vaccine and trust me she has researched autoimmune disease endlessly and has scientific sources for everything.
Being uncertain and worried about her and my kids and the population in general does not make me an antivaxxer or a troll.
But I really don't want to take over this thread and further dilute the useful information being provided here. I will shut up now.
The published, peer reviewed paper on the Pfizer vaccine I linked to previously is pretty accessible - and if you have questions about it, there are people on here who’d be happy to take you through aspects of interest.
Everyone connected with the healthcare industry is well-versed by now in talking people through parts of the covid conversation, and we are happy to continue to do that.
That is, assuming you are indeed looking for information/explanation/discussion.
If you are genuinely not a troll - please be aware that you present exactly like one, and so might like to change you internet communication style to avoid this kind of response in future.
Similarly, if you are not an anti-vaxxer, please be aware that you sound exactly like one.
A good point. I’m trying. The sources aren’t really aimed at the layperson though.
I get this. Various attempts have been made to explain in easy-to-understand language but the more simplified the tone, the more opportunity exists for error and/or misdirection. Ultimately, if you're not an expert in the field, it must come down to faith and trust. If you've been burnt by those previously then it's easy to see how you become more sceptical.
Most notably 20 years caring for a wife with a serious autoimmune disease who has also had radiotherapy and chemotherapy. There is absolutely no way she’d take this vaccine and trust me she has researched autoimmune disease endlessly and has scientific sources for everything.
Genuine interest, but given a condition like that how is she planning on living her life?
We may get better at treating this disease, but as a venerable person I can only see 3 options in the short/medium term:
1) Shield permanently
2) Take the risks of catching it (a risk/reward ratio which is different for all of us)
3) Have the vaccine (again a risk/reward ratio)
The published, peer reviewed paper on the Pfizer vaccine I linked to previously is pretty accessible
Of course, it's aimed at Physicians 😉
There is absolutely no way she’d take this vaccine and trust me she has researched autoimmune disease endlessly and has scientific sources for everything.
Other passive options will be available in the form of monoclonal antibody cocktails. Studies on prophylaxis are already ongoing. These have shown equally impressive falls in serious COVID19 disease in patients infected with virus. I work on one such antibody. I've also spent 20 years researching treatments for autoimmune diseases.
Have drug companies ever been known to cherry-pick data or even just lie to get a drug approved? I hear they have.
Any details, sounds like an interesting read.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/bad-pharma/ben-goldacre/9780007498086
A really good read as it goes. Industry incentives often don't run in the direction of what's best for the public, there's obv a balance between making it worthwhile to innovate whilst ensuring public benefit. (E.g. why put shareholders $$ into developing new antimicrobials when you'd get much better returns elsewhere? It's govts'/regulators' job to come up with a way of paying pharma for drugs to be kept in reserve to combat AMR.)
Anyway, goldacre's prob a bit more anti (poorly regulated) pharma than me but the opposite of anti vax fwiw. Follower numbers indicate his views are of interest to more people than mine...
https://www.waterstones.com/book/bad-pharma/ben-goldacr
given a condition like that how is she planning on living her life?
Diet, supplements and meditation.
Diet, supplements and meditation.
Might as well pray to Odin, light up a cigarette and stand in front of a firing squad.
Again another thanks to TiRed and the other subject experts contributing here - has greatly helped my long-since lapsed biology graduate understanding of all of this.
Some people are helping a lot. Others aren’t. And nobody’s picking them up on it
This is a mountain bike forum. No-one is under any obligations to help you. Plenty are trying though. Suggest you focus your attention on those?
Some good information about the vaccines can be found in earlier episodes of 'how to vaccinate the world' on BBC sounds.
Might as well pray to Odin, light up a cigarette and stand in front of a firing squad.
Nice touch. Got any frail or infirm you're close to the rest of us can take the pi55 out of? 🙄
Diet, supplements and meditation.
Might as well pray to Odin, light up a cigarette and stand in front of a firing squad.
...if it was an autoimmune condition like Crohn's diet and meditation could help:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63168-4
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/inflammatory-bowel-disease/
Diet, supplements and meditation.
Dear lord. You wanted to add crystals to that list too didn't you?
Whilst diet is something we should all be working on and meditation is a nice thing it does seem to be a stupendously naive way to live one's life.
To me it's all rather indicative of a slightly broken society. Folks that feel entitled/capable/required to attempt to interpret the facts for themselves in incredibly complicated issues and come to a conclusion independent (and often contrary) of input of experts in the field. When it gets a bit complicated (because it is) they switch to youtube/blog summaries by other non-experts. And with a good dollop of confirmation bias you choose non-expert mouth pieces as your source material that suit your preconceptions.
I can't work out if I blame these 'independent thinkers' for their misdirected muddled thinking or have we as a society managed to lose trust in experts and those we should be looking to guide to this extent (because in terms of numbers that think this way we are now beyond just the crazies) is because they have not been as transparent and trustworthy as they should have been. Early 20th century and before's attitude that doctors were beyond questioning with our health clearly needed some addressing but have we now gone too far the other way?
Has anyone noticed the homeopathic bods are very quiet about Covid?
😜
Dear lord. You wanted to add crystals to that list too didn’t you?
May or may not be true but comes across as a counterproductive insult, and also shows you've not looked at the Nature paper I linked.
May or may not be true but comes across as a counterproductive insult, and also shows you’ve not looked at the Nature paper I linked.
So, just to be clear you see relying on meditation and diet as a tip top way of someone with Crohn's managing their future covid avoiding life*? As the husband of said person, would you be happy with that?
* - not as a way of managing Crohn's?
Studies on prophylaxis are already ongoing. These have shown equally impressive falls in serious COVID19 disease in patients infected with virus. I work on one such antibody.
Is this likely to continue, do you think? My understanding is that one of the implications of the new strain is that it may have occurred as a direct result of prophylaxis in patients with long-term Covid-19 infections.
So, just to be clear you see relying on meditation and diet as a tip top way of someone with Crohn’s managing their future covid avoiding life*?
No. I'd be wanting vaccinated asap. It just looks a bit like people dividing into teams and sneering at those on the other side, which isn't going to help.
One thing I learned when doing my MSc (biochemistry) is that current scientific knowledge is incredibly advanced! To get up to the level of challenging leading scientists' knowledge is almost impossible.
So generally, I just go with what they tell me/us! I guess TiRed could be running some long scam on us, but I severely doubt it. Science people might make mistakes occasionally, but 99% of the time they are right, and about as free from bias as you can get. So, on balance, I trust them as sources of information.
My understanding is that one of the implications of the new strain is that it may have occurred as a direct result of prophylaxis in patients with long-term Covid-19 infections.
Where did you get that understanding from? Which prophylactic measures/treatments exactly?
It just looks a bit like people dividing into teams and sneering at those on the other side, which isn’t going to help.
I'm torn on this. You could argue we got to where we are on Brexit because the two side were reduced to name calling. But treating the anti-vaxers' (even the antivaxlites like this current poster) views with even a veneer of respect is to given them some credence. And I'm not sure that is helpful either to them or to those they might influence. It's a bit like nodding understandingly to your racist elderly relative for an easy life when you should be challenging them.
Is this likely to continue, do you think? My understanding is that one of the implications of the new strain is that it may have occurred as a direct result of prophylaxis in patients with long-term Covid-19 infections.
Unlikely - the antibodies have not been approved yet - nor are they being trialled widely outside of RECOVERY in the UK. Perhaps nosocomial hospital selection and subsequent spread. More likely they were selected from a highly plastic binding region on the virus receptor binding domain that conveys additional binding fitness to ACE2. Cocktails of antibodies are more likely with separate non-competing binding sites - HIV 101.
or have we as a society managed to lose trust in experts
When this is all done, and scientists have saved the day for us (pharma, modelling, behavioural, epidimiologists, all of them) I'd like for them to have 10 minutes en masse in a suitable space with all those 'I think we've all had enough of experts' ****ts
Society should lose faith in piss-poor nest-feathering politicians a long time before experts.
FWIW, I think that there is good evidence that the strain is more easily passed from person to person, that it is probably already in other countries (when they sequence their samples rather than test for presence of TNA), and that the polyclonal response from vaccines will protect against disease.
Apologies if you've already answered this, TiRed..
How easy is it to detect new strains with mass testing? It feels like the news was telling us about a potential new strain one day, and only a day or two later actual numbers were being confirmed in the population. Was this using standard testing, or something different?
As for the Googling, of course I have, but have you tried getting unbiased information on vaccination recently
Yes, my brother (phd/academic/qualified doctor) sits on the UK's covid vaccine safety panel. He will have access to all the information to make an informed decision on vacine safety. I'm pretty sure he hasn't just relied on Google to come to a professional opinion.
And he seems to think that vaccination is a good idea. that's good enough for me.
Now, where do you get your unbiased information from?
How easy is it to detect new strains with mass testing?
Labs test for three regions ([N]ucleocapsid, [O]pen [R]eading frame and S[pike]) of the viral genome using primers and amplification - one of those is the "S-gene" or spike protein coding region. This has a non-detection dropout rate of perhaps 1-2% per test. Seeing that dropout proportion rise over time is one indication of a rise in something different. The UK also genetically sequences strains so can see their emergence in real time. Other countries will be looking at spike protein negative readouts.
ONS have published the data here
Thanks TiReD.
comes across as a counterproductive insult
I agreed with the sentiment but agree that the frustration(?) from some people jumping in to answer the doubters leads to some inflammatory sounding comments, intentionally or not. So they focus on the tone and not the message.
Anyone else get the impression that batfink is TiReds less patient antipodean alter ego? 🤣
I agreed with the sentiment but agree that the frustration(?) from some people jumping in to answer the doubters leads to some inflammatory sounding comments, intentionally or not. So they focus on the tone and not the message.
This is obviously a generalisation but it's my perception that true anti vaxxers are relatively intelligent. Deluded, misguided and possibly festooned with mental health and anxiety issues but they are what they are. To a certain extent they have come to a conclusion and won't be swayed. Beyond help and to a certain extent if that's what they think so be it - it's (mostly) their funeral.
It's the next level that we collectively have a moral obligation to help. Those non too bright but easily swayed. The gullible. The cohort of the population that don't read even the simplest of tabloid newspapers because it's all a bit too complicated. Those who rely on memes on social media as their influencers.
It is for those people that the anti vaxxers need a metaphorical kicking. Boris standing on a lectern and saying it is of course a free country and no one is going to be forced to take the vaccine maybe factually correct but I don't think it helps. The anti vaxxer lot won't be playing so nicely. 40% of minimum/living wage care workers currently plan on not taking it and they have not come to that conclusion without a prod. You need a Whitty or someone similar and largely trusted losing his shit with the stupidity of it. The anti vax lot need drowning out and their views portrayed as they are - marginal and based on lies or at the very best poorly interpreted science. Giving them the respect of being argued with is clearly not working.
Giving them the respect of being argued with is clearly not working.
I agree.
Give them an inch, and, even when they've taken a mile, they'll always want more.
It's the COVID deniers that really boil my piss. The "plandemic" crowd that shout so vociferously on social media saying there is no virus or "it's just a cold". These people should be locked in a room and the virus pumped in. Obviously they won't get ill because "there is no virus" so they should be fine with the experiment
Balance in the media is a good and necessary thing, but it must also be moderated - Brexit, climate change, Covid, they all get media coverage but when leavers/climate deniers/anti-vaxers get to share the same platform, there needs to be a voice saying "Turkey is not joining the EU/the rise in global temperatures are not caused by clouds/Bill Gates is not putting microchips into vaccines", and explaining WHY those views are wrong. Patel was doing the rounds this morning saying the government has been ahead of the curve with Coronavirus - the lies HAVE to be challenged and shown to be wrong at the time they're made. That's why this country is in the utterly divided position it's in.
Anti vaxxers are like neo-nazis - their beliefs hurt others. We can't stop them having their beliefs but we can and should deny them a platform. Trouble is they'll then use that as evidence that "the system" is oppressing them. Tricky problem.
40% of minimum/living wage care workers currently plan on not taking it and they have not come to that conclusion without a prod
If you are a care worker looking after the elderly or vunerable, and you aren't prepared to get a vacination, then you should be made to find another job. No ifs or buts...
That would currently breach employment law.
If you are a care worker looking after the elderly or vunerable, and you aren’t prepared to get a vacination, then you should be made to find another job. No ifs or buts…
There is currently no evidence as to whether the vaccine will stop you passing the virus on so for all we know being jabbed might not help protect the elderly unless they have been jabbed too
If you are a care worker looking after the elderly or vunerable, and you aren’t prepared to get a vacination, then you should be made to find another job. No ifs or buts…
its already a proffession in desparate need of more people, especially with our recent national dislike of low paid foreign workers...