Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 21-10-2021, 09:34   #7729
jonbxx
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: #Plagueisland
Age: 54
Services: VM VIP Pack
Posts: 1,712
jonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appeal
jonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appealjonbxx has a bronzed appeal
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshep View Post
Yes the droplets can be bigger but the virus is able to travel short distances independent of the droplet (as I'm sure your aware) and at .14 micron those fabric masks are worthless if you want an effective mask lobby the government for full face cbrn rated masks then I'lltake it seriously. It isn't a vaccine by any measure that applied before covid 19 it doesn't prevent infection, it doesn't prevent death from the virus, it doesn't prevent you passing the virus on and it's effect is lessened by time and is worthless against emerging variants.
Well then...

Not sure that naked virus particles can travel far to be honest. Drying a virus tends to be quite bad for it, especially an enveloped virus such as SARS-COV-2. This study - https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 shows that masks, even cotton ones do have some effect. The effect is more pronounced for 'live' virus (as tested through plaque assays) than 'live' and 'dead' virus (as tested through RT-PCR)

Is the protection 100% - no. Is the protection significant - yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshep View Post
This "vaccine" is an unproved rushed experimental drug for which we have zero real data on it's medium to long term effects because so many stages in the usual research and development of medications were swept aside to get it out the door but it's ok they did some computer modelling. There is no real ground for anyone to be smug and self satisfied with their position everyone needs to do their own research and make a decision based on what they feel is best for them. As I said the coercive element in all of this should have more people questioning then there is.
Based on your own research of the vaccine, what statistical end points would convince you of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? What would be a statistically significant cohort size? How many confounding factors will you take in to account? What p and CI values will be significant?

I have to admit, my statistical knowledge of vaccine trials is not up to deciding for myself so I have delegated this to the experts of the MHRA.
jonbxx is offline