Forum menu
dash
It’s probably true though that it is a very middle class and somewhat blinkered bubble, and the snobbery displayed towards those that don’t fit is entirely in line with that
I am most definitely not middle class. I have no idea where the snobbery is that you infer I have experienced in this thread or on stw in general?
This thread is my go to for reasoned, challenged information regarding Covid. Questionable assertions get challenged, that's a positive, not a negative.
Genuinely no offence intended dazh, just my take on things.
The whole class thing is a deception.
Working class? anyone whos doing a job for money is working class... it's a victorian age logical fallacy.
A bit like people from India who are borne into a 'caste' .
Yes. My point is: Where are all these people? Statistically they must dominate on STW too. Why are they so quiet here?
They get shouted down and told how awful it is that some peoples relatives/friends have died. Threads seem to get a critical mass that jumps on dissenting opinions, on here that's not following guidance as if it was law, and wanting further restrictions. On Pistonheads it's masks are pointless and lockdowns do far more harm than good.
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?
Ok, so the experts are saying that this new virus strain is probably already all round the country, and they've just watched a few trains potentially full of it roll out of the London mainline stations.
So why are we not ramping the whole country up to Tier 4 now, rather than leaving it to see if it gets as bad as we think it will first?
Question asked (actually shouted at the BBC news in a style not dissimilar to his father) by my 17 year old.
Not bad at all. A few benders. A few perfect 10s.
I too have been very very good apart from riding a couple of times with my main cycling buddy during lockdown after he was diagnosed with a terminal illness.
I wonder though if all these other people we see around us also think they are being sensible and complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law, or feel they have special reasons not to.
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.
(Well, not literally in the case of people who haven’t had it, obvs)
So tales about so-and-so doing such-and-such aren’t too helpful.
I’d be most interested in hearing how we know a vaccine that has been tested for less than a year will actually work and will not cause harm five or ten years down the line. And why we should trust this government or big pharma when they say it’s safe and effective.
A couple of drugs my family have been given or offered have since been withdrawn for being useless and/or unsafe, and they were tested for years.
maybe this place doesn’t have a monopoly on being right
Of course it doesn’t. And there’s plenty of disagreement on this thread, and others. But create a new account just to troll on this thread, like “arsebiscuit”, and you get called out for it.
On Pistonheads it’s masks are pointless and lockdowns do far more harm than good
We have had plenty of discussion here on mask use by the general public (there was probably a consensus early on that they were worse than pointless, that was my view for one, but, lots of evidence and discussion swayed it the other way for many of us months ago, for some it’s still not a clear thing) and plenty on the negative effects of lockdowns and other measures brought in… and plenty of disagreement and challenging of the line taken both by the government and their scientific advisors. This is a very “sceptical” forum, but we discuss things… and most of the time that is done quite politely in this thread. There is a greater need to keep it level headed than normal.
big pharma
We have “big pharma” contributors… I’m sure they’ll engage… but there have already been decent in-depth posts about how the shorter than normal evaluation period doesn’t mean less has been done, more that normal delays and costs have been crushed due to the need.
So why are we not ramping the whole country up to Tier 4 now, rather than leaving it to see if it gets as bad as we think it will first?
You must be new to UK society, no?
A super strain that's just as bad but 70% more contagiuos.
I’m not sure if I just did again now. My daughter works a couple of evenings at a supermarket in a nearby town, which is in T2. We’re in T4. She’s allowed to go as it’s for work; but she doesn’t drive and doesn’t seem sensible to send her by train. Am I legally allowed to go from T4 to T2 to take and collect her; I don’t get out of the car and know I can’t go in the the supermarket as I might do in normal times.
There's not even anything in the legislation to stop you traveling from a tier 4 area to a tier 2 area to do your shopping or just go for a walk. Despite what various ministers have said there aren't restriction on travel inside England. It's worrying that they've either not read the legislation or are lying.
I’d be most interested in hearing how we know a vaccine that has been tested for less than a year will actually work and will not cause harm five or ten years down the line. And why we should trust this government or big pharma when they say it’s safe and effective.
It's been covered at length earlier in the thread. The majority of time taken for 'testing' is in gathering sufficient people to test it on (not an issue here, the subject population is vast) and in in getting the data analysed and reviewed and understood and approved, much of which is queuing time in normal times. Here, it's not been fast tracked per se, just has got to the point of being reviewed faster and 'all hands on deck' to do those reviews.
Of course, if you are sceptical of whether science can be trusted then this won't satisfy you at all, but doesn't mean it isn't true. Do I trust the scientists - yes. Do I give anyone with an opinion and an internet connection the same mindshare - I'm afraid not. Convince me of why your evidence is better than the peer reviewed though, I'm open to listen.
So why are we not ramping the whole country up to Tier 4 now, rather than leaving it to see if it gets as bad as we think it will first?
It would be politically damaging shutting down the North yet again for a problem in London after basically leaving us with little help when the problem was up here. They don't really give a shit if it spreads up here either.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-4-stay-at-home
"If you live in a Tier 4 area, you must follow the rules below. This means that you cannot leave or be outside of the place you are living unless you have a reasonable excuse.
(various are given, but:)
Essential Activities
You can leave home to buy things at shops or obtain services from a business which is permitted to open in your Tier 4 area, but you should stay local. For instance you can leave home to buy food or medicine, or to collect any items - including food or drink - ordered through click-and-collect or as a takeaway, to obtain or deposit money (e.g. from a bank or post office), or to access critical public services (see section below).
I’d be most interested in hearing how we know a vaccine that has been tested for less than a year will actually work and will not cause harm five or ten years down the line. And why we should trust this government or big pharma when they say it’s safe and effective.
No trust required, here's the paper.... you can read it for yourself:
shutting down the North yet again
We’ve been opened up?!? I missed that.
I too have been very very good apart from riding a couple of times with my main cycling buddy during lockdown after he was diagnosed with a terminal illness.
I wonder though if all these other people we see around us also think they are being sensible and complying with the spirit if not the letter of the law, or feel they have special reasons not to.
I've broken the rules a few times too. But I'd be amazed if there isn't the full spectrum of activity out there, from people who've been 100% dedicated to those who've gone out of their way to flout the advice at any given opportunity. I do remember that the Google data from LD1 showed a massive amount of compliance. Would be interesting to see how that's changed.
I’d be most interested in hearing how we know a vaccine that has been tested for less than a year will actually work and will not cause harm five or ten years down the line. And why we should trust this government or big pharma when they say it’s safe and effective.
A couple of drugs my family have been given or offered have since been withdrawn for being useless and/or unsafe, and they were tested for years.
I think there have been explanations as to how it's been developed so quickly without additional risk. But those will come linked to processes from government agencies or pharma, so not sure if that will help you. Where else would they come from that you would trust? I don't think any drug can be guaranteed safe. But I'd expect any vaccines to have been worked on by the finest minds in the field. So a better chance than most?
I’d be most interested in hearing how we know a vaccine that has been tested for less than a year will actually work
this has been demonstrated through tests. the data generated has been published and peer reviewed. finally it's been approved by the MHRA in this country for use under the guidance.
and will not cause harm five or ten years down the line.
this we don't know for certain but cooler heads than mine say that ill effects show up early doors. it is of course still possible that longer term effects may become apparent later on. but you know - you have a choice. you don't have to take it.
And why we should trust this government or big pharma when they say it’s safe and effective.
this government? i not only don't trust them i believe they are acting against the best interests of the country in a lot of situations. they're mendacious, venal, lying, distrustful shits the lot of them. a colossal shower of bastards. but that's just my view.
big pharma? they've a lot to gain by being first to market, arguably, but also a lot to loose, and they're being held to scrutiny by the whole world but in the first instance by other scientists and then medical regulators. the truth will certainly out in the end. your alternative to pfizer is sputnik v. who would you trust more?
again - you don't have to take it. there are plenty who won't for their own reasons. fine. you have a choice. there are still people in the UK who have an issue with the MMR jab. the scientist who wrote the report that linked that to autism has (if memory serves) repeatedly rejected the idea that children should not have the MMR jab. it's a parent's right not to have their kids jabbed but its the kids who have to go through the disease that's mostly been eradicated. shrug. sucks to be them i guess.
So why are we not ramping the whole country up to Tier 4 now, rather than leaving it to see if it gets as bad as we think it will first?
That's what Scotland is doing from Boxing Day
But I’d be amazed if there isn’t the full spectrum of activity out there, from people who’ve been 100% dedicated to those who’ve gone out of their way to flout the advice at any given opportunity
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.
paul0, that was more a point to chrispo wondering if everyone thought they were complying with the spirit of the rules. Obviously they aren't, what with people actively protesting lockdowns et al.
it’s not been fast tracked per se
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. I’m also pretty sure that if they only needed testing for a few weeks to pick up long-term side-effects, that’s what would happen as standard. Because that’s basic economics, which I do know a thing or two about.
So somebody has weighed it all up and decided yes they’re safe and effective enough given the situation. That is not science. It’s not absolute. It’s a judgement.
Convince me of why your evidence is better than the peer reviewed though, I’m open to listen.
So people just have to blindly trust what they’re told without questioning anything unless they can come up with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary? It’s a bit Big Brother.
I don’t think you need to be an expert to have valid questions or opinions.
So much is riding on these jabs. It’s not unheard of for governments to lean on regulators and scientists.
I’d be most interested in hearing how we know a vaccine that has been tested for less than a year will actually work and will not cause harm five or ten years down the line. And why we should trust this government or big pharma when they say it’s safe and effective.
Medicines, including vaccines can never be proven safe. They are approved for use based on benefits outweighing the risks. When either of these change, then approval may be withdrawn. Effectiveness is proven based on trials with a precise but limited objective set by the FDA and EMA, and this feeds into “the label” regarding what can be claimed. You won’t see any of the vaccines claiming they reduce transmission. Why not? Because it was not tested in the trials.
What they can claim is that symptomatic infections within a relatively short period after vaccination are reduced by 90-95%. Duration of protection is not known, hence there have been no claims on that either. If you want to know the most up to date information on any approved medicine, google “FDA prescribing information”. THIS is the thing that matters. Not peer review, not media articles, not social media. The prescribing information is a summary of the Label. In the EU look for the “SMPC”. The agency review materials are public documents. I use them for competitor drugs all the time.
Equally with regards to risk of not vaccinating, about 10% of people with Covid seem to have persistent symptoms. Cells expressing ACR2 in the kidneys and cardiovascular system are also infected, lungs are not the only organ of interest. What are the long-term consequences for allowing an infection? We don’t know.
So the benefit risk must be weighed carefully based on available and evolving data. Everyone being dosed will be followed for adverse events and this could change approval over time. Trials will continue to asses duration of protection of individuals. Infection rates in areas of vaccine roll out will be monitored. We will see. What pharma will say is that based on the 20,000 administrations, with a follow up of put to six months, the incidence of adverse events is x%. For the mRNA vaccines, severe Grade 3 events is about 8%. There were no Grade 4 (hospitalised) adverse events. Or Grade 5 (deaths due to drug). But equally nobody dosed with vaccine was hospitalised with COVID19 (unlike placebo).
If you want more details about the approval process, just ask. I’ve been developing medicines for over 20 years. I’ve taken over 15 drugs into the clinic, sat opposite the Feds arguing science, and just one I invented was launched this year.
So people just have to blindly trust what they’re told without questioning anything unless they can come up with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary? It’s a bit Big Brother.
I don’t think you need to be an expert to have valid questions or opinions.
Question away. But listen to the answers.
So somebody has weighed it all up and decided yes they’re safe and effective enough given the situation. That is not science. It’s not absolute. It’s a judgement.
That's pretty much the definition of science; look at the evidence, weigh the pros and cons, get peers of a similar standing to you to review it.
But there's no point because they're all in the employ of the government or something.
So again; you are right that you can question but what do you want as quality of answers that would convince you?
I’m pretty certain drugs are not normally tested for less than a year
you are correct. the 3 phases of trials have been conducted pretty much simultaneously from what i understand. there are no shortages of test subjects. there is no shortage of funding. there is no shortage of very well qualified people trying to figure this one out. it's not niche.
I’m also pretty sure that if they only needed testing for a few weeks to pick up long-term side-effects, that’s what would happen as standard
again - correct. but typically whole economies are not shut down when people suffer from MS (to choose a very real and nasty affliction at random) which is why the same level of resource is not directed at treatment. there are known effects to shutting down economies that you yourself have brought up. so now we've established what the known effects are of doing that vs. possible long term effects of a vaccine. place your bet.
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. I’m also pretty sure that if they only needed testing for a few weeks to pick up long-term side-effects, that’s what would happen as standard. Because that’s basic economics, which I do know a thing or two about.
Have you googled to learn any of the reasons behind why it's been possible to develop the vaccine this fast? Because one of the key reasons is definitively basic economics.
@ Del,
A good summary.
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