The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Gone]

 

[Bob The Badger]

I think it's becoming apparent that the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing people catching Covid was significantly exaggerated.

It appears to me that too many people are being infected when you have so many who have been double-vaccinated.

I didn't realise the uptake was as high as it is and when I saw @maxjam post an article that said it was 80% I actually went to look for info that disproved that.

There isn't any because it's actually higher than that. I was wrong.

I'm no mathematician, in fact I failed 'O' level maths, so I have no clue about how these stats would look if analysed by an expert. But it doesn't feel like you can have vaccine efficacy rates over 90% (as we were told) with so many people double-jabbed and yet still be seeing so many people catch it.

Here's why I kinda don't care though.

Clearly the people catching it aren't getting as seriously ill and not as many people are dying. So the campaign in that respect, has been a success.

BUT, when you over-promise like it seems they did, then you give ammunition to the anti-vaxxers.

Wasn't the vaccine tested on the alpha variant?

In which case, maybe it was that effective then and the mutations to beta and then gamma before delta kicked their asses reduced the efficacy. I honestly don't know.

Even so, they should have said, this is how effective it is now, we have no way of knowing how effective it will be later when the virus mutates.

Playing Devils Advocate again however, when you have a public health crisis the first thing you want to do is protect the public as quickly as you can and sowing seeds of doubt would just have slowed down the toll out and increased the death count.

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Bob The Badger

[GboroRam]

14 hours ago, i-Ram said:

I see that the recent Steps Concert in Glasgow might be a superspreader event. A couple of cases initially but this afternoon the numbers increased quickly to 5,6,7,8.

Tragedy. 

[RoyMac5]

5 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

Playing Devils Advocate again however, when you have a public health crisis the first thing you want to do is protect the public as quickly as you can and sowing seeds of doubt would just have slowed down the toll out and increased the death count.

The social meedja world we live in today it wouldn't have mattered if it been shown to be 100% effective and gave you the winning numbers for your pools coupon, there would have been plenty of nay-sayers and conspiracy theories.

[Archied]

5 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

I think it's becoming apparent that the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing people catching Covid was significantly exaggerated.

It appears to me that too many people are being infected when you have so many who have been double-vaccinated.

I didn't realise the uptake was as high as it is and when I saw @maxjam post an article that said it was 80% I actually went to look for info that disproved that.

There isn't any because it's actually higher than that. I was wrong.

I'm no mathematician, in fact I failed 'O' level maths, so I have no clue about how these stats would look if analysed by an expert. But it doesn't feel like you can have vaccine efficacy rates over 90% (as we were told) with so many people double-jabbed and yet still be seeing so many people catch it.

Here's why I kinda don't care though.

Clearly the people catching it aren't getting as seriously ill and not as many people are dying. So the campaign in that respect, has been a success.

BUT, when you over-promise like it seems they did, then you give ammunition to the anti-vaxxers.

Wasn't the vaccine tested on the alpha variant?

In which case, maybe it was that effective then and the mutations to beta and then gamma before delta kicked their asses reduced the efficacy. I honestly don't know.

Even so, they should have said, this is how effective it is now, we have no way of knowing how effective it will be later when the virus mutates.

Playing Devils Advocate again however, when you have a public health crisis the first thing you want to do is protect the public as quickly as you can and sowing seeds of doubt would just have slowed down the toll out and increased the death count.

 

The thing is you need people to trust you and the government have handled so much of this badly, 

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The social meedja world we live in today it wouldn't have mattered if it been shown to be 100% effective and gave you the winning numbers for your pools coupon, there would have been plenty of nay-sayers and conspiracy theories.

Of course there would but if your not honest then you just give conspiracy theories weight ,, 

[ramit]

 

[PistoldPete]

I never understood that vaccines would be 90% effective in stopping you get the virus, only at reducing the chances of you being seriously ill or dying.

 

 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, ramit said:

 

Still not seen anybody explain why If wearing a mask cuts infection rate by 53 % countries that have kept mask mandates plus tougher restrictions are not only not doing better than England but actually a lot worse ,, other than imagine how much worse it would have been without them?‍♂️

[PistoldPete]

51 minutes ago, Archied said:

Still not seen anybody explain why If wearing a mask cuts infection rate by 53 % countries that have kept mask mandates plus tougher restrictions are not only not doing better than England but actually a lot worse ,, other than imagine how much worse it would have been without them?‍♂️

Cause and effect.

[PistoldPete]

2 hours ago, ramit said:

 

Is GB News still running?

[Archied]

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Is GB News still running?

Odds on which runs longer ,, GB news or constant COVID restrictions ?‍♂️

Edited December 4, 2021 by Archied

[Archied]

44 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Cause and effect.

You mean countries having them caused no effects?

[PistoldPete]

37 minutes ago, Archied said:

You mean countries having them caused no effects?

No, countries that have big COVID problems bring in tighter restrictions.

[RoyMac5]

 

[Archied]

31 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

No, countries that have big COVID problems bring in tighter restrictions.

Erm no , countries that kept tighter restrictions have faired  worse than ones that relaxed them ,, not just failed to fair better and that with masks reducing infection by a massive 53%, it’s there in black and white undeniable figures??‍♂️

We are now seeing vaccine efficacy against spread starting to show poorer and poorer results but still countries are pressing on with vaccination passports and two tier society s ,

just imagine how much we could bolster the nhs with money wasted on vaccinating those that don’t need to be vaccinated 

maybe one day people waking up to the figures will force the government to target the fight against covid properly rather than monetising and politicking the virus

Edited December 4, 2021 by Archied

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Erm no , countries that kept tighter restrictions have faired  worse than ones that relaxed them ,, not just failed to fair better and that with masks reducing infection by a massive 53%, it’s there in black and white undeniable figures??‍♂️

We are now seeing vaccine efficacy against spread starting to show poorer and poorer results but still countries are pressing on with vaccination passports and two tier society s ,

just imagine how much we could bolster the nhs with money wasted on vaccinating those that don’t need to be vaccinated 

maybe one day people waking up to the figures will force the government to target the fight against covid properly rather than monetising and politicking the virus

Maybe you do not get the difficulty in spotting the difference between cause and effect.

People taking medicines are more likely to die than people not taking medicines. That doesn't mean taking medicine is more likely to kill you than not taking medicine. 

[Bob The Badger]

12 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I never understood that vaccines would be 90% effective in stopping you get the virus, only at reducing the chances of you being seriously ill or dying.

 

 

Ok, so I confess to be going on memory and it's not something that is easy to check without spending a lot of time trawling back through interviews, which I'm not going to do.

I'm pretty sure at the time of the vaccines starting to be rolled out they (the pharma companies) announced they were 90%+ effective. I don't think anybody then was saying that they were 90% effective in reducing hospital admissions or death.

I think most people just presumed they meant 90% effective in not catching covid.

But of course, in the last few months they have been saying that, and I'm not even saying they were lying (other than through omission).

It could just be that I was stupid and/or naive in thinking that and most other people realised it wasn't what they meant.

My memory is fairly sucky, so I could be wrong and they explicitly said what you understood to be true, but there were certainly instances when that wasn't the case - hence the confusion.

@Eddie and @Tamworthram liked what you had to say so I'm curious to know that if they realised at the actual time of roll out that the vaccine companies weren't suggesting you're chances of catching Covid were reduced so drastically.

I'm just trying to be honest with the debate here. It would be, as somebody who is strongly pro-vax, pro-mask and anti-Tory, to not even mention this.

In fact, a friend on Facebook said this to me after I posted something similar 'Only problem is an anti vaxxer will read your post and then interpret it as "See, even the vaccinated are saying it's useless"

And he's right, but the alternative is to be intellectually dishonest and that's how I view many on the right. I don't want to be like that.

Pompous enough for you @TexasRam? I think I'm upping my game nicely.

[Bob The Badger]

12 hours ago, Archied said:

Still not seen anybody explain why If wearing a mask cuts infection rate by 53 % countries that have kept mask mandates plus tougher restrictions are not only not doing better than England but actually a lot worse ,, other than imagine how much worse it would have been without them?‍♂️

You are taking one measure and suggesting that is the only thing that has an impact wqhen it's not even th emost important thing, vaccine uptake is.

You cannot just look at mask wearing without taking into consideration vaccination uptake, density of population, age of population, health of population,  transient nature of population, actual uptake of mask wearing as opposed to restrictions imposed and I'm sure, lots of other factors.

IF that is you want to understand what is going on.

You're taking one peice of information (and btw, I don't even know if what you're saying is true, I'll just presume it is) and seizing on it without going any deeper because it supports what you already believe.

That is classic, classic, and thrice I say classic, confirmation bias. Tversky and Khaneman would be proud ?

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

Ok, so I confess to be going on memory and it's not something that is easy to check without spending a lot of time trawling back through interviews, which I'm not going to do.

I'm pretty sure at the time of the vaccines starting to be rolled out they (the pharma companies) announced they were 90%+ effective. I don't think anybody then was saying that they were 90% effective in reducing hospital admissions or death.

I think most people just presumed they meant 90% effective in not catching covid.

But of course, in the last few months they have been saying that, and I'm not even saying they were lying (other than through omission).

It could just be that I was stupid and/or naive in thinking that and most other people realised it wasn't what they meant.

My memory is fairly sucky, so I could be wrong and they explicitly said what you understood to be true, but there were certainly instances when that wasn't the case - hence the confusion.

@Eddie and @Tamworthram liked what you had to say so I'm curious to know that if they realised at the actual time of roll out that the vaccine companies weren't suggesting you're chances of catching Covid were reduced so drastically.

I'm just trying to be honest with the debate here. It would be, as somebody who is strongly pro-vax, pro-mask and anti-Tory, to not even mention this.

In fact, a friend on Facebook said this to me after I posted something similar 'Only problem is an anti vaxxer will read your post and then interpret it as "See, even the vaccinated are saying it's useless"

And he's right, but the alternative is to be intellectually dishonest and that's how I view many on the right. I don't want to be like that.

Pompous enough for you @TexasRam? I think I'm upping my game nicely.

Bob it doesn’t matter what you say in terms of real anti vaxers , they will not move one way or the other but that does not mean we should be afraid to have open honest debate (I see from your post your not),

ive said masks do bugger all , bottom line is that’s a response to outlandish claims they cut infection by 53 % and on such figures they should be mandated, truth is I feel they possibly have some very small effect in certain situations for certain people ,

honest debate and honesty is vital because at this point the only people who look like they have and are predicting anything with any degree of accuracy are the conspiracy theorists and that not good, but worse than that proper focus and targeting of measures to understand and do the best we can against this virus is harmed 

im constantly put in this box or that box at the extreme end of scale , whether it’s a tactic or people just can’t see they do this I’m not even sure anymore but I really don’t care I am going to keep on questioning because I feel people really need to??‍♂️

Edited December 5, 2021 by Archied