Cable Forum - Coronavirus

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

Quote:

‘Slow’ UK response to AstraZeneca side-effects alarms experts

Regulator’s reaction questioned after emergence of blood clots linked to vaccine

But several scientists have told the FT that the regulator was too slow both to pick up on the reports of the adverse reaction and communicate its findings to the medical profession, the public and the media.

Prof Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol studying the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, said other European countries had taken a far more cautious attitude to immunisation than the UK throughout the pandemic. This had led to greater vigilance in the search for side-effects and faster communication of risks to the public.

“The MHRA was slow in responding to the emergence of a specific constellation of symptoms associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine and slow to communicate what they were finding — and I am not the only one who thinks so,” he said.

Gillies O’Bryan-Tear of the UK Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine agreed the regulator might have acted a bit sooner. “I am a great fan of the MHRA. Their response [to vaccine side-effects] has been measured but, yes, a bit late. Deciding how and when to communicate this sort of information is very tricky indeed.”

https://www.ft.com/content/5251e1b9-...a-29dc34d37652 or Google the headline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36077035)

Here’s an ”interesting read” re pandemics.

https://www.pandata.org/wp-content/u...VID-Policy.pdf

Quote:

Introduction - Iatrogenic
pandemic of panic

I switched off at that point. The author has obviously not heard of triaxellated recursion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36077038)

The author has obviously not heard of triaxellated recursion.

Hes not the only one :erm:

It’s the second most difficult thing in the universe, after block transfer computation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36077038)

obviously not heard of triaxellated recursion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36077048)

Hes not the only one :erm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36077054)

It’s the second most difficult thing in the universe, after block transfer computation.

Something to do with SD quality on a HD TV isn't it?

. . . or is that Tripixelated Inversion :shrug: ;) :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36077035)

Here’s an ”interesting read” re pandemics.

https://www.pandata.org/wp-content/u...VID-Policy.pdf

That report is all kind of 'woo'!

I started reading it got to the section 'Stringency of measures has no effect on total deaths assigned to COVID-19'. It looks very formal and scientifically written but doesn't bear any scrutiny. The two references (Chaudhry et al. and De Larochelambert et al.) are worth a read as this report very much cherry picks their conclusions.

Both reports state that socieconomic factors are more important drivers of outcomes than lockdowns but the first report also states that lockdowns spread out the pandemic over a longer period - flattening the curve in Boris speak. The hypothetical question will always be what would the mortality rate from COVID infections be with a short sharp peak that overwhelms hospitals. The second report states that a very rapid lockdown of international travel such as seen in Taiwan, New Zealand and Iceland was very effective.

I kind of gave up after that as this author is pulling out statements with little regard for the overall conclusions of the studies he is citing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36077058)

That report is all kind of 'woo'!

I started reading it got to the section 'Stringency of measures has no effect on total deaths assigned to COVID-19'. It looks very formal and scientifically written but doesn't bear any scrutiny. The two references (Chaudhry et al. and De Larochelambert et al.) are worth a read as this report very much cherry picks their conclusions.

Both reports state that socieconomic factors are more important drivers of outcomes than lockdowns but the first report also states that lockdowns spread out the pandemic over a longer period - flattening the curve in Boris speak. The hypothetical question will always be what would the mortality rate from COVID infections be with a short sharp peak that overwhelms hospitals. The second report states that a very rapid lockdown of international travel such as seen in Taiwan, New Zealand and Iceland was very effective.

I kind of gave up after that as this author is pulling out statements with little regard for the overall conclusions of the studies he is citing.

He's known for it...

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Don't_Work

Quote:

In April 2020, former professor Denis Rancourt posted (on research gate) a short article which he claimed proved that “there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic.” It was removed from research gate, presumably because of its poor quality and the fact that it spread misinformation. This is a complete explanation for not only every mistake his argument makes, but also how (and how we know) masks do work to help prevent the spread of COVID.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/b...-pseudoscience

Quote:

Coronaviruses typically spread through respiratory droplets, and masks hold those back, so infected people are less likely to spread them to others. Since it’s easy for people to have COVID-19 and not know it, making sure everyone is wearing a mask helps prevent accidental contamination. On a neighborhood message board, however, a poster claimed there was no scientific evidence of this.

When my colleague asked for scientific evidence to back this denial, the poster directed her to an article by Denis Rancourt, entitled “Masks Don’t Work.” And, indeed, Rancourt’s paper cited eight peer-reviewed essays, all from reputable journals. But when she actually clicked on the links provided, she found something very curious. None of the studies cited concluded what Rancourt says they did. For example, six of the eight studies measured the effectiveness of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks—not, as Rancourt implied, the effectiveness of wearing a mask vs. not wearing a mask.

Further, the quotes he provided from these articles misrepresented their findings. For example, his quote from a 2012 study in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses read “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” This implies that there is no benefit to wearing masks. In reality, however, the slash in the “mask/respirator” phrase is meant to indicate a comparison between the two types of facial coverings. In other words, the study is saying that masks and respirators are equally effective; it is not lumping them together and declaring them both ineffective. Several of the sentences before and after the one he quotes demonstrate this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36077048)

Hes not the only one :erm:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

The goings on in Germany:

It is reported and confirmed by my German friend that Germany is well up shit creek due to the Datenschutzgesetz, which forbids centralised health records. The delegated Laender have to guess people’s ages by looking at their first names as in Gustav or Wilhelm! Loved knows what they can make of Abdul or Akthar.

And that’s on top of the ant-AZ conditioning they have faced, plus the Ursula factor. Indeed, shit creek hardly covers it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36077106)

Apparently that was only in Lower Saxony, due to an over-zealous interpretation by the Lander government.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...a-privacy-laws

I think 'over-zealous interpretation' could easily apply to much of the entire Covid 19 debate . . not only on here ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36077112)

Apparently that was only in Lower Saxony, due to an over-zealous interpretation by the Lander government.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...a-privacy-laws

I thought a bit of poetic licence was more than acceptable if it helps get a dig in to anything European related.

“Up shit creek nix paddle” would have been poetic licence!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36077119)

“Up shit creek nix paddle” would have been poetic licence!

They have enough paddles, it's just that they're holding the wrong end when using them :D

Probably just as well the EU didn't get its act together. otherwise they would still be holding on to European-wide(including UK) production for themselves.