Any others cynical about a vaccine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I work in the NHS as a community nurse, so probably will be amongst the people who get the chance to try a vaccine relatively early when there is one. I will be taking it, first chance I f***ing get. No point risking an early death just for the pleasure of looking after folk, entertaining though that is.

For me there have been a few interesting learning points from this crisis:

1) Public health medicine knows what it's doing. It's been protecting you from infectious diseases for decades and you didn't notice because they're so damn good at it. They will protect you again, especially if the more insecure sort of political leaders get out of their way.

2) The dislike of experts amongst some sorts of politicians is probably a bigger risk to the publics health than Covid is. As they say, "if you don't like education, wait till you've tried stupidity"

3) Anti-vaxxers are a death cult, and this is the first time they've had a realistic chance to kill a lot of us. Don't fall for it, they won't take responsibility for the outcome and you may not be here hold them to it.

Have a good night. ;)
 
Last edited:
I've been to over 40 countries over the years , some with some particularly nasty diseases . I couldn't even try to remember how many vaccinations I've had , or what diseases they were for . I've never had an adverse reaction to any of them . There's always a possibility that there will be side effects , I can live with that . Pfiezer has announced that they have a working vaccine that will be available soon , I will get it when it's available . I can understand the scepticism expressed by some here , it is a new vaccine . I have family members who are in the vulnerable part of the population , Covid 19 has drastically reduced the amount of time I can spend with them and their quality of life has suffered for it . An effective vaccine will enable me to help them with their daily lives as I did before the outbreak . It may sound a bit selfish , but that would be the main reason for me to be inoculated . The additional benefit of large scale use of an effective vaccine is a return to normalcy , socially and economically . We can't maintain the lock downs for ever without serious economic and social problems . In short , I'm in . We can't sit at home forever IMHO .

AB
 
I make no claims of expertise - it's Zambezi who is questioning the science.

Cheers

Bruce

100% correct. I am asking questions.

Anyone who fails to ask questions is a fool.

Asking questions is not the same as denying science.

MJ, have you considered the science in the video in #138?
 
The hope and desire of us all.

ICL's data modelling for SARS, Ebola and now SARS-CoV-2 have been taken as the gold standard for disease prognosis, and thus politicians have been limited in their options.

The world convulsed when the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus appeared. We seem to have overreacted and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Regardless of the efficacy of any covid vaccine tomorrow or next year, there will be other novel viruses in the years ahead.

I do not think that a vaccine is the fix required to achieve normality. Rather we need a shift in mindset.

The world has lived with four other corona viruses for a long time. We have herd immunity from those.



Disnt know that mindset has a great record in resolving global pandemics but if you say so.

I’m with Flanker - 1st point of post 142 - medical science wins over every time so sooner an effective vaccine is rolled out the better as far as I’m concerned.
 
I work in the NHS as a community nurse, so probably will be amongst the people who get the chance to try a vaccine relatively early when there is one. I will be taking it, first chance I f***ing get. No point risking an early death just for the pleasure of looking after folk, entertaining though that is.

For me there have been a few interesting learning points from this crisis:

1) Public health medicine knows what it's doing. It's been protecting you from infectious diseases for decades and you didn't notice because they're so damn good at it. They will protect you again, especially if the more insecure sort of political leaders get out of their way.

2) The dislike of experts amongst some sorts of politicians is probably a bigger risk to the publics health than Covid is. As they say, "if you don't like education, wait till you've tried stupidity"

3) Anti-vaxxers are a death cult, and this is the first time they've had a realistic chance to kill a lot of us. Don't fall for it, they won't take responsibility for the outcome and you may not be here hold them to it.

Have a good night. ;)

In terms of lethality, this virus has been a non-event. The next one (which is already waiting round the corner) will be more virulent. And the next one more so again. This is the inevitable consequence of pathological human over-population. It's what befalls all species when they over-populate. Human numbers are the real public health crisis yet no one is even acknowledging it exists, never mind addressing the drivers of the phenomenon. There is no public debate on this problem. Any attempt to raise the subject is shut down instantly as the last taboo, as if the only unspeakable solution will inevitably be some sort of extermination programme, which is plainly ludicrous.

Rebalancing the human population in a benign long-term fashion so that the planet can sustain us and all the other forms of life that make it what it is, would be a global endevour requiring a couple of centuries to have serious affect and would demand cooperation on mitigating measures to reduce the damage done by our species in the meantime. It may be too big an ask. But we'll never know unless we start asking. At the moment we are putting sticking plasters on the symptoms and closing our minds to the real disease. The frantic scrabble for vaccines (which will become ever more desperate) so we can return to "normal" is mere deckchair rearranging on the anthropological Titantic. It's the "normal" in our thinking that we need a vaccine for.
 
I make no claims of expertise - it's Zambezi who is questioning the science.

Cheers

Bruce
But you question everyone else without any expertise other than being a keyboard warrior.... it’s easy to call people out, and ask them why they feel they are qualified to have an opinion, yet you offer no such qualifications genius.
 
Obviously they're on the correct path for the vaccines but an annual booster would be required similarly to the flu vaccine due to genetic mutation and possibly weakening immunity. On a footnote a vaccine won't be of use for anyone with a weakened immune system as the body needs to initiate it's own immunity to the vaccine for effectiveness. Therefore eradication of the virus is going to be the ultimate goal so all inclusive of children will probably get vaccinated eventually. Just thinking out loud. Feel free to disagree..
.
 
That is a measure of those who have had a +ve RT-PCR test, not the number who have been exposed.

The world did zero testing for the first year of viral circulation.

And whilst testing in the west is extensive, it is not 100%.

Logic [and Oxford University modelling] suggest a far higher distribution of the virus.

Locally, anecdotal evidence is that covid rattled through North Devon in January 2020. Many of us had the precise symptoms attributed to C-19. Yet stats would not show that.

Did I say it was the number who had been exposed?

You may not care for the answer I gave, but it is the correct one.
 
100% correct. I am asking questions.

Anyone who fails to ask questions is a
fool.

Asking questions is not the same as denying science.

MJ, have you considered the science in the video in #138?
But that's simply not true zambezi, your modus operandi throughout the threads on Covid 19 hasn't been to ask questions, what you have been doing is trying to deny science at every available opportunity.

You don't ask questions you just throw up graphs, data or videos that you claim proves you were right all along. You present everything you post as a fact and have got in over your head trying to come across as an expert. From the start you have claimed this virus is not a big issue and you have gone down a rabbit hole looking for back up on the internet for your theory since forming that opinion.

Your obsession with trying to counter every piece of research posted here or simply flat ignoring the research that doesn't suit your narrative has long ago surpassed comedic levels.
 
In terms of lethality, this virus has been a non-event. The next one (which is already waiting round the corner) will be more virulent. And the next one more so again. This is the inevitable consequence of pathological human over-population. It's what befalls all species when they over-populate. Human numbers are the real public health crisis yet no one is even acknowledging it exists, never mind addressing the drivers of the phenomenon. There is no public debate on this problem. Any attempt to raise the subject is shut down instantly as the last taboo, as if the only unspeakable solution will inevitably be some sort of extermination programme, which is plainly ludicrous.

Rebalancing the human population in a benign long-term fashion so that the planet can sustain us and all the other forms of life that make it what it is, would be a global endevour requiring a couple of centuries to have serious affect and would demand cooperation on mitigating measures to reduce the damage done by our species in the meantime. It may be too big an ask. But we'll never know unless we start asking. At the moment we are putting sticking plasters on the symptoms and closing our minds to the real disease. The frantic scrabble for vaccines (which will become ever more desperate) so we can return to "normal" is mere deckchair rearranging on the anthropological Titantic. It's the "normal" in our thinking that we need a vaccine for.
No one is acknowledging human over population only yourself?

1980 called there Finch and asked did you ever hear of China's one child per family law?

You really do need to start buying rolls of tinfoil in bulk and do a course in millinery.
 
But you question everyone else without any expertise other than being a keyboard warrior.... it’s easy to call people out, and ask them why they feel they are qualified to have an opinion, yet you offer no such qualifications genius.
He questioned one poster, the same poster is trying to present himself as an expert on a subject he clearly knows sweet fanny adams about and has been called out by a lot of other posters.
 
100% correct. I am asking questions.

Anyone who fails to ask questions is a fool.

Asking questions is not the same as denying science.

MJ, have you considered the science in the video in #138?
I am perplexed here so please forgive me if you find this offensive but your equally vehement posts about your faith lead me to question why, in the absence of any real evidence to support the depth of belief you have espoused, you are then so critically questioning of the 'real world' science ? I would have thought that as a scientist you might have begun to question a faith so based on myth and unproveable fact ? Or have I got the wrong person here ?
 
I'm staying well out of the rest of your post... :D

This is interesting though. As far as I know, these are the facts (and correct me if I am wrong):
- Many/most cases, especially in young people are asymptomatic/mild
- There is significantly more testing occurring now than in 'wave 1'
- At the moment, the infection rates are rising in most age groups, but more so in the young than the old.
- There is a time lag from rising infection rates to rising deaths.
- Medical treatment of severe Covid cases has massively improved since 'wave 1'.


If you agree with those, then surely the following would also be true?
- We are detecting many more cases than before, and most of these are being detected in the young. Because we are detecting more cases, we will by definition be detecting more mild cases that may have gone unnoticed before. Obviously, when only the more severely affected patients were being tested, more of those (as a proportion) would go on to need ICU treatment, and more (proportionally) would die.
-By increasing the number of positive results, but by decreasing the number of fatalities due to improved medical care, we are massively reducing the proportion of those that test positive that end up dead.

Now, I don't think anyone is saying that 'wave 2' is as bad as 'wave 1' was, but if you look at the graphs below you can see that there is an increase in daily deaths at the moment, it is about 3 weeks behind the rise in positive test results, and that proportionally there are less deaths per positive test for the reasons I have outlined above.
View attachment 180854

View attachment 180855

On this occasion, I just think you are interpreting the data incorrectly.

Best,
HT
Thanks for this HT, I left out the mention of time lag in the interests of brevity, but I do indeed understand and accept it, as indeed I accept the supplementary points you make, and thank you for making them, which I find help contribute/ unearth some very useful factors to be considered.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of second wave mortalities by age group, to try to tease out the proportions and understand the prevalence in/about its victims this time around, I've read that a proportion of deaths ascribed to Covid this time around don't appear to 'fit' the same categories as the original spike, but without the more granular info this is of course hard to determine either way.

I'm categorically not an anti-vaccination type, only trying to determine whether it is likely/possible that the government's prescription for the problem this time may be over-egged or not; this isn't so easily determined from the darker, wilder and certainly less populous recesses of upland Aberdeenshire. All purely for personal interest/education.

Im personally not presently convinced that the current trajectory of the virus will warrant a mass vaccination programme come the spring time, but this will hopefully become clearer in due course.
 
He questioned one poster, the same poster is trying to present himself as an expert on a subject he clearly knows sweet fanny adams about and has been called out by a lot of other posters.
He also likened my OP to that of trump? So forgive me not taking that one on the chin. What qualifies him to have any more right to question than myself or anyone else for that matter.
 
I just read your OP there again and he was right. :rofl:
If people can’t take tongue in cheek then they perhaps need to look inwardly rather than cast aspersions about other people’s views.... it’s amazing what a silly post can achieve and the monsters that creep out from behind the keyboards...
 
I am perplexed here so please forgive me if you find this offensive but your equally vehement posts about your faith lead me to question why, in the absence of any real evidence to support the depth of belief you have espoused, you are then so critically questioning of the 'real world' science ? I would have thought that as a scientist you might have begun to question a faith so based on myth and unproveable fact ? Or have I got the wrong person here ?

Delighted you asked!

First up, you [and others] labour under a couple of misapprehensions: I am not a scientist. Nor have I ever denied that which repeated observation has found to be true [a definition of science]. Some who answer my questions on here understand that critical difference: I have asked legitimate questions by referencing public domain data and scientists with views at variance with Whitty, Ferguson, Vallance et al. Saying I deny science is patently untrue. To say I am not on the same page as Whitty, Ferguson, Vallance et al is bang on point.

Circling back to that working definition of science: eye-witness observation. If the life, words, death and resurrection of Jesus had not been attested to by a myriad eye-witnesses, any faith in Him would be pointless. It remains that we do have eye-witness accounts of all of the above. And the stand-out aspect of that man's life is that he defeated death. That has not been achieved by anyone else, ever. So what He has to say has to be worth hearing. I would encourage anyone who has not opened a Bible recently should read it afresh, without bias. Weigh the detail in the gospels for yourself. Test the veracity. The link below will give online access to John's gospel. There is a wonderful verse towards the end of that gospel that explains why the miracles were recorded for later generations to read.





Apols to OP for segue...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top