Andrew3000
-
Posts
1,110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Andrew3000
-
-
2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:
Don't like this kind of comment, full of contempt and condemnation. Lacks any empathy or imagination. When you are well and being heavily pressurised to do something you don't trust that you fear might compromise your health unnecessarily that's one thing; to be seriously ill and out of control is quite another. Who else do they resent treating; what other people who made a decision that didn't work out do they judge similarly?
-
1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:
Covid is clearly going to account for a large number.
Do you not think that people having very little if any access to medical facilities is also going to have led to a sizeable number of deaths?
Agreed, also,the policy of dissuading people to seek treatment until very breathless was wrong. Early treatment should have been given greater emphasis
-
1 hour ago, Eddie said:
Still waiting for an answer.
I guess that's the trouble with irrefutable truth - it's irrefutable.
All cause mortality, yes should be helpful. See what you think of this. Genuinely interested in your opinion on his analysis and the fact of censorship within mainstream science.https://rumble.com/vrtbjf-the-latest-data-on-vaccine-efficacy-and-safety-from-the-uk.html
-
2 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:
Question for everyone:-
In YOUR mind/opinion, is it acceptable for a fellow human to be more fearful of the unknown (vaccine) than of the Covid?
Yes, of course. Although for some Covid was at some point the unknown. Fear of both is completely understandable.
-
15 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:
There are lots of problems with the data - agreed. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the official data doesn't count re-infections. Can you believe that!? It means that the longer the pandemic goes on the more incorrect the cases data gets!
As a result, if you want to track the actual impact of Covid over time, Hospital Admissions data is a much
30 minutes ago, Norman said:It's been blatantly obvious from the start that how we define/defined Covid deaths is different to other countries. And like you say, that plays a huge part in the data and then decision making and models.
Either that or our health system is one of the worst in the world.
Yes, we've known this for a while just thought it was worth reierating as the stats discussion progressed. It worries me that people like Prof Fenton are being silenced, how can youtube justify taking down his presentations and why is he suddenly having trouble publishing his data? This pattern is very troubling on a number of levels and is one reason I am cautious and sceptical about our strategy to manage this.
-
Sorry this is meant for @PistoldPete, forgot to quote.
Scientific research would require standardised diagnostic testing so yes.
Prof Fenton is pointing out the flaws from a research data point of view, not a pragmatic clinician view.
Of course Covid has caused deaths and serious illness the question is about validity and accuracy of the numbers we have collected. This applies to both Covid & vaccine safety.
So what is your view of the definitions given and the implications for the data and therefore the decisions made on this data?
-
https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/covid-19-definitions-matter-and-these.html?m=1
The fundamental issue seems to be that the data is hugely flawed because of poor definitions of various categories.
-
-
Uou can't stop this:
camerwork is DIY/Hand held job?
-
1 hour ago, Andrew3000 said:
Dr John Campbell a mainstream medic and not really a dissenting voice has been a victim of fact checkers who he feels are not credible. I'll see if I can find the link.
Correction: he's a retired A & E staff nurse. I fact-checked meself! But am I qualified?....
-
-
7 hours ago, Eddie said:
This government have a history of cherry-picking, and then applying a 'too little, too late' solution. It's what populist, right-wing governments do. I don't doubt that there are a proportion of the general public who are very eager to apply the 'this doesn't really apply to me' school of thought too. Less than two weeks ago, a prominent 'dissenter' within this thread said "Right, that's it - I'm never wearing a mask again." - I wonder how that's working out? As far as the press are concerned, they will always take a doomsday approach because sensational headlines entice people to buy or to click.
I don't really understand the points you are making in your second and third paragraphs other than you are suggesting (as others have done) that it's all a big conspiracy. Can you please offer citations and sources, especially with respect to the 'academic papers suddenly pulled'?
Conspiracies do exist of course. I have no conspiracy theory, wild or otherwise, as I don't know what motives are at play. But there is much to suggest that some of these conflict with sensible public health policy.
I'll post a few things over time in relation to my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. For a start, listen to Peter Mcullough on the dark horse podcast about his paper on vaccine safety. Of course if you look him up he has been attacked and many may think discredited. I'm open to whether he's credible or not, but have a listen see what you think. Dr John Campbell a mainstream medic and not really a dissenting voice has been a victim of fact checkers who he feels are not credible. I'll see if I can find the link.
I'm just wanting more debate. Hart group are interesting.
-
44 minutes ago, Eddie said:
Well, sure but do you believe this method is being followed? And are we following all the science or cherry picking to suit? I've lost confidence in both the academic, political and journalistic processes lately.
Conflicts of interest between business and academic funding, unqualified 'fact checkers', deployed rapidly on dissenting voices, different standards of evidence being applied to suit different agendas.
Unprecedented examples of academic papers being suddenly pulled, without explanation after they been peer reviewed and accepted.
Worrying themes.
-
-
3 hours ago, Eddie said:
Agreed. Darwin.
?
-
12 hours ago, Eddie said:
Are you suggesting that a far higher proportion of the unvaccinated have bigger underlying health problems than those who are vaccinated? I can't think of any other reason why there would be a huge bias towards the unvaccinated being at greater risk of hospitalisation and being in intensive care apart from the obvious one (that vaccination means that, in all likelihood, your symptoms are going to be far milder than if you were not vaccinated).
No I'm not necessarily saying this,just posing questions. But there could be a bias in this sample. Maybe there is a trend for those unvaccinated in ICUs to not care about their health, take risks, drink, smoke etc. They could be very different from other unvaccinated people who eat well and look after themselves and this may impact on the risk. So this needs to be investigated because we could have important interactions between factors that are otherwise obscured.
-
10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:
Given that the Government have just ordered another 114m doses, Id say they are planning another 2 booster programmes at least
Wow. So have we got safety data relating to 5 shots in such a short space of time?
Does early detection and home treatment makes more sense?
Is anyone considering alternative strategies?
It seems very incoherent to me, but what the hell do I know?
-
10 hours ago, Eddie said:
I wish I had your patience.
Speaking of patience (or near-homonyms), I see that the Sunday Times are running an article today suggesting that 90% of Covid patients in intensive care currently are unvaccinated.
No further comment necessary.
Are we making too much of correlation without considering what other factors are measured? How many of these people have underlying health conditions, are obese or are from areas with high air pollution? How many people are we talking about, Icu beds are relatively few in number.
Do we care about context and critical analysis or are we all happy to have our biases confirmed? I'm far from certain what is going on, but I think without proper critical analysis this kind of reporting could be deeply irresponsible, divisive and dangerous.
-
4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:
I have done, I have had the vaccine, if I'm not safe now then I never will be.
Happy to take my chances now.
So how long does immunity last from each shot? That's one thing I'm struggling to make sense of, the temporary nature of the protection. So what the hell does fully vaccinated actually mean? In 6 months time, what will it have meant to have had 3 shots?
-
5 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:
I know I'm only talking to the half of people in this thread that believe in science and that accept there are people more knowledgable than they are.
But the irony is, that if all the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers hadn't been anti-mask and anti-vaxx they wouldn't be whining about having to wear a mask now because there would be no need.
The new variant is here in this country, in large part, because of people who refused to wear masks and have the vaccine.
Dr. Fauci said as soon as the vaccine came out that if we cannot get at least 80%, preferably 90% of people to get vaccinated then it would just mutate.
No doubt that was all part of the great conspiracy.
And yes, I recognise that if they'd not been whining then they wouldn't be whining now, but you get my gist.
I assume you 'scientifically respectful' and ever so 'umble folk are well versed in the differences between the propensity of RNA viruses (like covid-19 and influenza) vs. DNA viruses to mutate?
-
46 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:
I know I'm only talking to the half of people in this thread that believe in science and that accept there are people more knowledgable than they are.
But the irony is, that if all the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers hadn't been anti-mask and anti-vaxx they wouldn't be whining about having to wear a mask now because there would be no need.
The new variant is here in this country, in large part, because of people who refused to wear masks and have the vaccine.
Dr. Fauci said as soon as the vaccine came out that if we cannot get at least 80%, preferably 90% of people to get vaccinated then it would just mutate.
No doubt that was all part of the great conspiracy.
And yes, I recognise that if they'd not been whining then they wouldn't be whining now, but you get my gist.
This looks purely like bait, but hey, I'm hungry.
So there's just one scientific viewpoint now?
Where is the science to back up the scapegoating of unnvaccinated people? Some scientists were warning that a mass vaccination programme in the middle of a pandemic would drive mutations and outlined their reasoning. Not saying they are right, but Fauci does not speak for all scientists.
Some totalitarianism thinking going on for sure.
-
On 08/11/2021 at 22:30, Boycie said:
Embargo lifted in Jan, cheeky bid for him, in his last year of contract.
Could do a lot worse! But, imagine wages would be hard.
-
7 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:
I would be astonished if Liverpool took Gerard only on the back of what he's 'achieved' at Rangers. The risk would be that he'd just turn into the new Solskjaer or Lampard.
I see what you mean, but with the pressure of expectation at Rangers, could it be argued he has already achieved more than both of them?
Also, are there signs Klopp is going to finish then?
For Gerard, not sure the move to Villa really would strengthen his case unless he emulates Moyes at West Ham or something similarly dramatic. Big risk, but then he could stay at Rangers too long.
-
I'm hoping that the recent developments in treatment help shift the emphasis away from vaccinating everyone and his dog.
I hope they are safe and effective. Wish I could trust our research system to show this but when important analysis of safety data about vaccines gets pulled after the peer review without explanation it kind of dents the confidence.
Shame we couldn't have an unbiased analysis of already existing anti-virals but at least we are expanding options.
The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread
in The Jim Smith Room
Posted · Edited by Andrew3000
So what is the motivation to make the 'ironic' comment? Likelynto be resentment. Now of course, if you are over-worked,stressed and maybe even traumatised, you are in a threat focused mental state and will blame others. I have no difficulty empathising with that, however as a professional clinician it would help to be mindful of this. furthermore, having worked in the NHS, I appreciate that mis-management and underfunding of services are a major issue. Maybe my issue should more be with the people who share this kind of comment. It comes across as smugly enjoying the suffering of the patient, to score a point. Not pleasant.
None of us should be so arrogant as assume we are so sure about what is the right course of action. There are major ethical dilemmas here and all some of us want is to promote critical analysis in the face of a dominant view that claims to know best.