The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Nope just a view much like many views in lancet and the bmj that disagree with the official line that gets dismissed ??‍♂️

What?

What are you trying to say with your ramblings about control and coercion? 

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

There will be vested interest not hoping as much as you are ,,,, MONEY, PATENT S

There's enough 'usual' patients without needing any more. Did you swallow a book about conspiracy theories?

[RoyMac5]

You got a pseudonym Archied? ?

 

[therealhantsram]

51 minutes ago, Archied said:

Is that peer reviewed ?

Yes, published in the Lancet.

Here's the link.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext#seccesectitle0013

 

"People who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety. The deficits were of substantial effect size for people who had been hospitalised (N = 192), but also for non-hospitalised cases who had biological confirmation of COVID-19 infection (N = 326). Analysing markers of premorbid intelligence did not support these differences being present prior to infection. Finer grained analysis of performance across sub-tests supported the hypothesis that COVID-19 has a multi-domain impact on human cognition."

Edited July 24, 2021 by therealhantsram

[Day]

 

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, David said:

 

You can't blame @DarkFruitsRam7 for the whole pandemic! ?

[Stive Pesley]

6 minutes ago, David said:

 

Quote

A spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he was not aware of claims the virus could be spread through flatulence

Never mind Boris - what does Donald Trump think?

[Archied]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

You got a pseudonym Archied? ?

 

Nope ,,, but I’ve got eyes and ears and like to look outside the sheep pen , scares the sheep though

[Gone]

I really hope this isn’t true, doesn’t effect me for a couple of reasons (one because I don’t think I’ll see another premier league game watching my club for quite a few years and the other without disclosing my medical records?) but tragic, disgusting and devisive if factual. 

 

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I really hope this isn’t true, doesn’t effect me for a couple of reasons (one because I don’t think I’ll see another premier league game watching my club for quite a few years and the other without disclosing my medical records?) but tragic, disgusting and devisive if factual. 

 

We've got to hope the vaccine passports don't make it through Parliament, and if they do, get out and protest.  I honestly believe that it will start with non-essential things like nightclubs and football (depending on your idea of non-essential) but progress to offices, public transport, supermarkets, etc all under the guise of 'for your protection'. 

The Telegraph article I posted a day or so ago summed it up very well saying something along the lines of the Govt may not be conspiring to push us into a Chinese style society, but through incompetence we could still still end up there anyway.  We have to stop this two tier society they are trying to inflict on us before it starts, otherwise it gets increasingly difficult to take our freedoms back.

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

 long covid ,,,, what’s next longer covid??‍♂️

Jeez, you really are insensitive. People have posted on here about their problems with long covid.

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Jeez, you really are insensitive. People have posted on here about their problems with long covid.

Jeez , same old tactic , long covid is not justification to keep the world closed , force vaccines , cause deaths and other health and mental health problems , long cancer , long diabetes, long angina ,      long list of longs that don’t close the world down and we are taboo to speak about ,

Being the sensitive hero only works if you do it across the board 

[Archied]

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

We've got to hope the vaccine passports don't make it through Parliament, and if they do, get out and protest.  I honestly believe that it will start with non-essential things like nightclubs and football (depending on your idea of non-essential) but progress to offices, public transport, supermarkets, etc all under the guise of 'for your protection'. 

The Telegraph article I posted a day or so ago summed it up very well saying something along the lines of the Govt may not be conspiring to push us into a Chinese style society, but through incompetence we could still still end up there anyway.  We have to stop this two tier society they are trying to inflict on us before it starts, otherwise it gets increasingly difficult to take our freedoms back.

The hilarious bit is the amount of people you hear now saying that a two tier society is wrong and unacceptable but their solution is for everyone to get vaccinated is stunning and from otherwise intelligent people ??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️, it’s like people don’t even hear their own words anymore ,,,must wear masks but ok to turn off app that notifies you if you have been near infected people ????, you couldn’t make this stuff up ,, ok if you really believe all the covid stuff then no matter if their are false alarms with the app there are also genuine notifications, it’s ok to put others at risk then? 
the hypocrisy and stupidity of these contradictions is beyond laughable 

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Archied

[G STAR RAM]

I'm so glad we still have the BBC to report on all of the important news to us during these troubled times...

Don't remember actually seeing any 'UK man who was scared of Covid 19 survived it with no ill effects' type stories.

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'm so glad we still have the BBC to report on all of the important news to us during these troubled times...

Don't remember actually seeing any 'UK man who was scared of Covid 19 survived it with no ill effects' type stories.

Ain’t that the truth , yet the number of people I personally know who have caught it twice now ( pinged and tested positive)and had to isolate twice is growing and with hardly a symptom, this is amongst my age group between 55 and 70 

also the criteria for diagnosing then counting long covid numbers is the most woolly fast and loose cover all blanket poss , again before I’m subjected to the old silence tactics , I’m sure there are genuine cases just as there are with covid deaths ( any cause within 28 days of a covid test ) , hospitalisation s how many being treated for other things but testing positive? Anybody finding anything wrong with them no matter how long after testing positive even without a symptom are being diagnosed with long covid without investigation, again I know this through experience of friends ,

yet the same criteria is not applied to anyone finding anything wrong with them after being vaccinated, anything and everything is applied to disconnect from vaccine side effects 

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Archied

[Andrew3000]

13 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Absolutely it is. And when the general consensus in the scientific community says it's safe, I'll agree with Andrew3000. But before that happens, it's still anecdotal evidence. 

Come on, there is more than anecdotal evidence which I've supplied links to. You can't do meta-analysis on anecdotal evidence! Anyhow, I just want balance in all things and to feel that we can debate such important issues.

[Archied]

15 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

Come on, there is more than anecdotal evidence which I've supplied links to. You can't do meta-analysis on anecdotal evidence! Anyhow, I just want balance in all things and to feel that we can debate such important issues.

Not a chance , there are people diagnosed with long covid without testing positive or having a symptom before , could you imagine them diagnosing vaccine side effects to someone not vaccinated ??‍♂️

[Andrew3000]

14 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

As @maxjamnow knows the AZ are not the RNA tech and quite a large majority of our shave been those. So you could always chose to have the AZ. Your point isn't valid for this vaccine and you've still not actually backed up your assertion with facts ?

I said mostly using RNA, but it is right to point that out. @maxjam points out some scientists are concerned about the spike protein. 

As for safety checks, you are quite right to ask for evidence and I will keep looking at this because perhaps I have been mislead here. However, the article you posted says this :

"Although the vaccines have completed the necessary steps of each trial, the health and economic impact of COVID-19 has meant the process has been sped up"

So what does that actually mean? You can't speed up longer term follow up. To me, it says we didn't wait for the long term data but don't worry we are still collecting it. 

Then there is the adverse events reporting. Tess Lawrie wrote about her concerns. I was worried that initial reports of these were quickly being shot down in the media.

I will go back to things I've listened to and read and consider this more carefully. I'm open to being wrong, which is why we should always debate with people we disagree with! I will be honest about my own bias, I don't trust authority because of my own personal experiences and history shows that power corrupts. The evidence of corruption in our governments is overwhelming, so much so we have become numb to it, like with Trump.

Academia is a flawed system. Big businesses have too much power to influence everything in our lives etc etc. 

So I have my biases as do we all. Its been good actually to air some of this stuff because it doesn't feel that socially safe to do that. Which is another thing some of us are worried about. 

[GboroRam]

19 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

Come on, there is more than anecdotal evidence which I've supplied links to. You can't do meta-analysis on anecdotal evidence! Anyhow, I just want balance in all things and to feel that we can debate such important issues.

It's interesting, I'm not dismissing the potential. But there needs to be more than been to date before we hold it up as a treatment. We've heard lots of treatments talked about and longer study shows it to be ineffective. 

Remdesivir was championed at one point but has since been found to be limited in its effectiveness. 

Those of you telling us to follow the money, be wary of the promise of a panacea drug. These things are highly complex and can't be evaluated after watching a few YouTube videos. 

[Andrew3000]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

It's interesting, I'm not dismissing the potential. But there needs to be more than been to date before we hold it up as a treatment. We've heard lots of treatments talked about and longer study shows it to be ineffective. 

Remdesivir was championed at one point but has since been found to be limited in its effectiveness. 

Those of you telling us to follow the money, be wary of the promise of a panacea drug. These things are highly complex and can't be evaluated after watching a few YouTube videos. 

Gboro, you couldn't resist a dismissive barb at the end there! I take your point and I freely admit it is hard to work out what is a credible source, but I can't fault Tess Lawries credentials as an external consultant to WHO and a practising medic. 

My main concern IS drugs being held up as a panacea precisely because of the vested interests, the power and money. My interest in Ivermectin is partly maintained by the fact it is an out of patent drug that no-one can profit from greatly, as I understand it.

Anyway, whether it works or not we need more options to manage this terrible situation and protect our health.