Vaccination

[artie]

This post.

Ok, what I said was that neither AZ or HM government claims that the jab will stop you getting ill or dying from Covid.

So where did you get the idea?

What don't you understand about that.

 

[D_W]

I'm just a pragmatist who knows this isn't the black death

It's just "put some to death", but 'tis true that the death rate is lower than many other things. It's just harder to stop. Most of us will get used to it and our bodies will learn how to kill it and its variants. Whether that starts by infection or vaccine is one thing, but I fail to believe that we won't have long term t-cell reactivity to it (the SARS cov1 individuals have reactivity two decades later). The antibody scare stories are just that. severe reinfections are rare enough not to consider as being something worth even thinking about.

 

[pils]

It's not an opinion.

I know her to be wrong based on my first hand experience of using biochemical assay techniques like PCR and statistical methods to design valid testing protocols.


As for children your point is literally incoherent, I have no idea what on earth are you attempting to say with that comment.

Perhaps you could share that 'knowledge' because the chap who created the PCR test said it wasn't a test and I'm confused.
what's 'incoherent' about children being experimented on? clearly you missed point one of two points in my original post.

 

[John Brown]

Ok, what I said was that neither AZ or HM government claims that the jab will stop you getting ill or dying from Covid.

So where did you get the idea?

What don't you understand about that.

All of it.

 

[Jelly]

If you saw how processed meat products are made then you would run a mile, some of them probably make Mc junkfood look edible. I once had the misfortune to visit a processing plant to look at some control equipment, never again did I venture near. Cow in one end, bleached white bones into one skip and a few parts into another with the rest into fridges. They were the days when even the spinal cord went into processed products but to use high pressure water to recover all the bits left on a carcass for sausage & burger production was vile,

I've done work in environments that might have the average person running for the hills, including a lot of work on sewage treatment and clinical waste disposal; but I draw the line at abbatoirs and especially rendering plants!

I recall a process equipment supplier of mine proudly talking about installing a screw-auger system for a pet-food plant and saying "tell me how great a project it is when the first service call comes in..." Spoke to him about six months later, and their service engineer had been out and felt decidedly green around the gills, whilst his apprentice had vomited all over himself during the job, and they had decided to write a cleaning requirement into future service contracts.

nothing went to waste and the skin, tendons, ligaments, and bones used to produce gelatine for kids sweets and womens makeup amongst other things!

In a lot of ways that's a real success story of waste prevention and "green" thinking which traces its roots all the way back to Victorian times... The "Oleochemicals Industry" (as some of the renderers prefer to be known, rather than knackermen) is rightly proud of it too.

Whilst I will happily admit that it's fascinating and ingenious in some respects, it's just so grim in others... I definitely don't have the stomach for it, despite my respect for the people who do.

 

[Chris152]

I'm just a pragmatist who knows this isn't the black death

Nah, you're just another of the punters doing the bidding of laissez-faire, free-market ideologues (such as the CRG), I've seen your posts. Neither you nor I know jack about Covid really. But free-market ideology? You should be able to see that from across the county with one eye shut on a misty day. Unless, of course, you've been taken in by it, then you'll struggle. Hook, line and sinker.

 

[DBT85]

So odd to still see people bankhandedly saying it's not that bad when we've had 1000 people dying a day despite being in these lockdowns.

How bad were we supposed to let it get exactly?

 

[Rorschach]

So odd to still see people bankhandedly saying it's not that bad when we've had 1000 people dying a day despite being in these lockdowns.

How bad were we supposed to let it get exactly?

1000 dying a day is only a problem if it's 1000 more than would normally die per day. Remember the figures are "with" not "from".
Back in April 2020 the excess death figures were very high, at the moment they are not.

 

[Selwyn]

So odd to still see people bankhandedly saying it's not that bad when we've had 1000 people dying a day despite being in these lockdowns.

How bad were we supposed to let it get exactly?

Fundamentally because there isn't a distinction between those 1000 deaths per day.

Some (probably a good many) of those deaths will have had no end of potential comorbidities that you could also attribute to their deaths if you were to test for it. Covid isn't necessarily the one thing that finishes off a 91 year old . I've said before the average length of stay in a care home is well under 12 months.

This lack of distinction is really not helping us manage it well.

Read John Lee. Eminent and sensible.

 

[Selwyn]

Nah, you're just another of the punters doing the bidding of laissez-faire, free-market ideologues (such as the CRG), I've seen your posts. Neither you nor I know jack about Covid really. But free-market ideology? You should be able to see that from across the county with one eye shut on a misty day. Unless, of course, you've been taken in by it, then you'll struggle. Hook, line and sinker.

Well we are one of the few countries rich enough to be able to do this lockdown stuff. Most countries cannot afford to do it and so they don't. Lots of other countries cannot afford to test themselves into a standstill. We are able to do this exactly because we are free market, because that has made us wealthier.

But it doesn't mean its not a daft strategy and it will have to be paid for by the very free market you don't seem to like. Nothing else will pay for it but people who work. Retired folk won't

 

[Jelly]

Perhaps you could share that 'knowledge' because the chap who created the PCR test said it wasn't a test and I'm confused.

As a very broad overview (and this is probably about as simple an explanation as I can manage):

• PCR as a technique is not a "Test", but a sample preparation technique used as the preliminary step prior to conducting RNA or DNA bioassays to determine the presence of a given genetic sequence.
  • The Bioassay techniques are highly specific to individual genetic sequences, with most techniques giving "Yes/No" answer.
  • But they need a minimum concentration of genetic material to work at all, which is why a the sample preparation technique is needed.
• The parameters of individual PCR "runs" can be tuned to alter the level of amplification it gives (and thus the amount of genetic material present in the original sample before the bioassay will give a positive indication).
• By doing many PCR runs with different parameters on the same sets of samples from people with confirmed COVID cases and samples which definitely don't contain any disease material, a team of scientists can build up a statistical distribution of how the different parameters effect the test response, and use that to calculate what parameters translate to the bioassay giving a positive result at a given level of "confidence" (statistical certainty).
  • 95% would normally be the lowest level of certainty that was acceptable for scientific research, whilst 99.5 or higher would be seen as desirable.
  • They will be tuning the parameters to ensure the best balance of two different factors "Sensitivity", which is how well it identifies people who do have the disease; and "Specificity", which is how well it identifies people don't have the disease.
  • It is entirely possible for a protocol to have different confidence levels for "Sensitivity" and "Specificity", or to have achieved an acceptable level of both.
• The parameters which give a specific level of "confidence" (statistical certainty), are then published as a test protocol.
• A bioassay run following a PCR according to the parameters in that protocol can then be said to be a qualitative "Test" which is accurate to the level specified.

It's against my better judgement that I've spent the time writing that, as the fact that you're already so far as spreading disinformation on the net makes me think you won't engage with it positively... But for some reason I feel it's worthwhile giving you the benefit of the doubt.

what's 'incoherent' about children being experimented on? clearly you missed point one of two points in my original post.

That's sensationalising something which is totally normal within the approval process of any drug or medical treatment for children.

We already have data from animal and Phase 1 human trials on adult volunteers to show that it's not actively dangerous, and children taking part would not be placed at risk; "First do no harm" and all that.

But because children's immune systems are different to those of adults, we can't immediately assume that the vaccine will be efficacious in children based on the data from Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials in adults which have already been run; so we have to follow a large cohort of children after receiving the vaccine in order to then determine:

• If it's actually worthwhile offering it to all children;
• If there's a minimum age where it's worthwhile immunising them, or
• If they would need something entirely different developed (so as not to have children act as a disease reservoir because we can't control the virus in them by vaccination).

 

[Chris152]

Well we are one of the few countries rich enough to be able to do this lockdown stuff. Most countries cannot afford to do it and so they don't. Lots of other countries cannot afford to test themselves into a standstill. We are able to do this exactly because we are free market, because that has made us wealthier.

But it doesn't mean its not a daft strategy and it will have to be paid for by the very free market you don't seem to like. Nothing else will pay for it but people who work. Retired folk won't

Yes, I should have been clearer. The type of free-market ideology whose bidding you're doing is extreme, people little more than a resource to be used, expendable. Lift lock down asap, get the markets (profits to be hoarded by the financial elite) flowing again. Free market in the traditional Smithsonian sense is probably a good thing compared to other systems functioning at the moment.

 

[Chris152]

Note for you, Rorschach - your laughter emojis are presumably an attempt to mock other people's understanding. But I also see that's how you understand the nature of argument. And it's the reason I responded to Selwyn's attempt to ridicule someone else's thoughts earlier. Pretty weak, really.

 

[Rorschach]

Note for you, Rorschach - your laughter emojis are presumably an attempt to mock other people's understanding. But I also see that's how you understand the nature of argument. And it's the reason I responded to Selwyn's attempt to ridicule someone else's thoughts earlier. Pretty weak, really.

I just find it hilarious that you think the only reason that some of us want lockdown lifted is so we can make money for rich people again. Only someone who hasn't suffered or watched suffering due to lockdown would say this. I am glad you have enjoyed the last 11 months but you are clearly blind to the real world out there.

 

[Chris152]

I just find it hilarious that you think the only reason that some of us want lockdown lifted is so we can make money for rich people again. Only someone who hasn't suffered or watched suffering due to lockdown would say this. I am glad you have enjoyed the last 11 months but you are clearly blind to the real world out there.

You've misunderstood completely, Rorschach. You don't have the framework to understand why you want what you want. I'll leave it there, coz I certainly can't be doing with trying to explain any more to you.

ps You have no idea what I've had to deal with over the last 11 months. Please keep your uninformed nonsense to yourself.

 

[Inspector]

Re the 1,000 deaths per day argument.

While the overall death rate may not be appreciably changed one has to take into account with the lockdowns in effect you have far fewer automotive related deaths due to accidents because people aren't driving as much and the drunks are juicing up at home rather than doing so in a drinking establishment and then driving off to kill people. You also have flue related deaths very low because of the reduced contact and the mask wearing. There are probably a few other reductions to the death rate by people being in lockdown that don't come to mind. If there were no lockdowns all the regular killers plus Covid would be taking out many many more of us with the resulting death rate being in the tens of thousands per day.

Pete

 

[artie]

Re the 1,000 deaths per day argument.

While the overall death rate may not be appreciably changed one has to take into account with the lockdowns in effect you have far fewer automotive related deaths due to accidents because people aren't driving as much and the drunks are juicing up at home rather than doing so in a drinking establishment and then driving off to kill people. You also have flue related deaths very low because of the reduced contact and the mask wearing. There are probably a few other reductions to the death rate by people being in lockdown that don't come to mind. If there were no lockdowns all the regular killers plus Covid would be taking out many many more of us with the resulting death rate being in the tens of thousands per day.

Pete

I know it's all speculation but I think you may be overestimating the number of people killed by drunk drivers.
Statistics I read said most accidents happen in the home, so since lots of people cooped up at home should mean more accidents.

Again, I know it's all speculation so don't get mad.

 

[DBT85]

In the UK only about 600 people are killed by drunk driving a year. 85,000 are convicted of drink driving, of which apparently 85% are male. Shocker.

Fundamentally because there isn't a distinction between those 1000 deaths per day.

Some (probably a good many) of those deaths will have had no end of potential comorbidities that you could also attribute to their deaths if you were to test for it. Covid isn't necessarily the one thing that finishes off a 91 year old . I've said before the average length of stay in a care home is well under 12 months.

This lack of distinction is really not helping us manage it well.

Read John Lee. Eminent and sensible.

Smells like a whole lot of some, probably, could and if.

Now, I'm right with you that the statement "died with covid" can be skewed. If I test positive today and fall into a cement mixer in 27 days time I get counted into the statistics. Can't help but feel I'm an edge case there.

With that in mind, however, you only have to look at the agonising pleading from hospital staff for people stop clapping and start adhering to the rules to see that the issue is serious, these poor and often undervalued staff are only there because the virus has swamped hospitals. Many of the 117,000 UK deaths have had underlying conditions that did indeed speed up their visit from the reaper, however were it not for the virus they wouldn't have been put in that situation where they ended up in hospital in the first place, and certainly not all at the same time meaning other illness or treatment has to be put on hold. This also hasn't only been contained to care homes. Tens of thousands have died that have only been in a care home to visit their own families.

There have been teams of people employed by every govt the world over who have said "lock it down, close the borders, do what you can to limit the spread, this is going to be bad". Educated people in the fields in question and teams of them, not one mad scientist acting like a dictator. I don't know your background, I don't know your fields of expertise. Maybe you really are more qualified to judge what should have been done across all of those countries than all of the advisors they employed who pretty much all agreed on the same course of action.

I'm not going to keep on or keep replying. The thread is supposed to be about our community getting vaccines of which it seems a large portion of them have done.

 

[Tanglefoot20]

I had mine on Thursday afternoon...at my local doctor...
Aged 66 .... had a text sent me to drop for one.

 

[Noel]

I see we've fallen down the smelly rabbit hole again.