|
Post by andystokey on Nov 25, 2020 22:49:40 GMT
So how do you decide which 10% you want to read? I don’t read twitter mate and from what I’ve seen of the twitter articles on here I’m not missing much I’m sure if it’s important it’ll end up on the MSM It's in Nature, not just one but several articles casting doubt on the efficacy and it's very doubtful the US will use any of the Oxford vaccine. It's widely published.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 25, 2020 22:51:54 GMT
So how do you decide which 10% you want to read? I don’t read twitter mate and from what I’ve seen of the twitter articles on here I’m not missing much I’m sure if it’s important it’ll end up on the MSM Every day I religiously watch Politics Live, Channel 4 News and Newsnight, as well as watching every episode of Peston, Ridge and Marr, I have a subscription to The Telegraph but I also find links to loads of really great stuff on Twitter that I'd ordinarily not even be aware existed. The internet also allows me to (and most importantly) cross-check the stuff I'm reading/being told, so I don't have to take it at face value, be it from the MSM or any other source. Of course everybody is entitled to get their news from whatever source they wish but personally, I'd feel as though I'd be denying myself the opportunity to make up my own mind on a lot of really important discourse if I relied completely on the MSM.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 25, 2020 22:53:28 GMT
I've just looked at how the days fall and realised that Coronavirus is getting more days off for Christmas than I am......
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 25, 2020 22:55:02 GMT
How worried by this article in Wired should we be? Reading the full article casts some doubts compared to the Moderna and BioNtech variants. It also suggests the dosing variation was not planned and was an accident. It will be interesting to see how the gov't spin this one since theyve gone big time for the Oxford one. On a somewhat related issue I'm sure it was said this week that people will not get to choose or perhaps even know which one they will be given when the ball gets rolling. The recipients will just receive in priority order. It might be obvious in the early cadre but not next year if they are all given the go ahead. I doubt individuals will know if they are having at 95% or 62% version. What does it matter it was an accident or not? Seems like a cracking mistake. 👍
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 25, 2020 22:55:03 GMT
An actual MP. What hope is there with buffoons like this representing us? Steve Baker has been absolutely roasting him and his nonsense for a few days now.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 25, 2020 22:56:27 GMT
I don’t read twitter mate and from what I’ve seen of the twitter articles on here I’m not missing much I’m sure if it’s important it’ll end up on the MSM Every day I religiously watch Politics Live, Channel 4 News and Newsnight, as well as watching every episode of Peston, Ridge and Marr, I have a subscription to The Telegraph but I also find links to loads of really great stuff on Twitter that I'd ordinarily not even be aware existed. The internet also allows me to (and most importantly) cross-check the stuff I'm reading/being told, so I don't have to take it at face value, be it from the MSM or any other source. Of course everybody is entitled to get their news from whatever source they wish but personally, I'd feel as though I'd be denying myself the opportunity to make up my own mind on a lot of really important discourse if I relied completely on the MSM. Cut through all the bigoted trolls on Twitter and it opens up a world of sites that allow you to cross check the narrative that MSM often parrots. And there's some very good news outlets breaking through which is much needed.......
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 25, 2020 22:57:53 GMT
You wouldn't be worried about what exactly? I'm not worried about shit spouted on Twitter... Honestly, everything linked to on Twitter isn't shit but if that's what works for you, then hey, that's what works for you, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 25, 2020 22:58:10 GMT
An actual MP. What hope is there with buffoons like this representing us? Steve Baker has been absolutely roasting him and his nonsense for a few days now. Fair play to him then, but sadly, I think he's pissing in the wind Paul.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Nov 25, 2020 23:00:17 GMT
I don’t read twitter mate and from what I’ve seen of the twitter articles on here I’m not missing much I’m sure if it’s important it’ll end up on the MSM Every day I religiously watch Politics Live, Channel 4 News and Newsnight, as well as watching every episode of Peston, Ridge and Marr, I have a subscription to The Telegraph but I also find links to loads of really great stuff on Twitter that I'd ordinarily not even be aware existed. The internet also allows me to (and most importantly) cross-check the stuff I'm reading/being told, so I don't have to take it at face value, be it from the MSM or any other source. Of course everybody is entitled to get their news from whatever source they wish but personally, I'd feel as though I'd be denying myself the opportunity to make up my own mind on a lot of really important discourse if I relied completely on the MSM. Each to his own I’m interested in politics and news in general I read a lot but unlike some,in general, I believe we have a good free press and media from the Mail on one side to the Mirror on the other and from the left wing BBC to the right wing Sky. I don’t honestly believe Twitter can add a lot particularly as the content is unregulated and contributors are answerable to no one.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Nov 25, 2020 23:02:03 GMT
So how do you decide which 10% you want to read? I don’t read twitter mate and from what I’ve seen of the twitter articles on here I’m not missing much I’m sure if it’s important it’ll end up on the MSM I have pretty much the opposite technique. I pretty much never watch the regular media anymore. The decent articles and stories get shared to twitter. And then I can search things out. Plus you get industry publications, foreign journalism etc.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 25, 2020 23:02:26 GMT
Non removable bracelets... this is astonishing and tbh a little scary that so called medical people can advocate this FFS!!! Not only advocate it but be invited into school classrooms to do so! Society seems to be losing it's mind at the minute.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 25, 2020 23:08:04 GMT
Legal cases started against PCR testing in Italy, hot on the heels of the successful case in Portugal.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 25, 2020 23:08:43 GMT
I don’t read twitter mate and from what I’ve seen of the twitter articles on here I’m not missing much I’m sure if it’s important it’ll end up on the MSM I have pretty much the opposite technique. I pretty much never watch the regular media anymore. The decent articles and stories get shared to twitter. And then I can search things out. Plus you get industry publications, foreign journalism etc. This.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 25, 2020 23:12:23 GMT
Reading the full article casts some doubts compared to the Moderna and BioNtech variants. It also suggests the dosing variation was not planned and was an accident. It will be interesting to see how the gov't spin this one since theyve gone big time for the Oxford one. On a somewhat related issue I'm sure it was said this week that people will not get to choose or perhaps even know which one they will be given when the ball gets rolling. The recipients will just receive in priority order. It might be obvious in the early cadre but not next year if they are all given the go ahead. I doubt individuals will know if they are having at 95% or 62% version. What does it matter it was an accident or not? Seems like a cracking mistake. 👍 Because when you do a trial you set out the protocol before you start. This ensures no extraneous variables can be introduced. The Oxford vaccine didn't intend to "underdose" some of it participants they got the solution wrong. However other people in parts of the trial got the dose in the protocol. They are now interpreting results based on some participants who had doses not intended. Which is massively different than the clear protocol for 40k participants in the other RNA trials. The Oxford data is based on a meta data interpretation of lots of mini trials. The placebo groups in the Oxford trials didn't even recieve the same placebo. In so far as it's lucky it's now left the Oxford team and everyone else trying to understand the real efficacy variation. EDIT : Furthermore the age variable in the 90% cadre was significantly different than the 60% participants. Enough to cause a drop in the share price and the view the FDA will probably not licence Oxford AZ in the US in favour of the others. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/astra-vaccine-s-90-efficacy-in-covid-came-in-younger-population
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 25, 2020 23:13:22 GMT
Steve Baker has been absolutely roasting him and his nonsense for a few days now. Fair play to him then, but sadly, I think he's pissing in the wind Paul. You're probably right Dave but at least he's not afraid to call out members of his own party publicly.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 25, 2020 23:26:12 GMT
Fair play to him then, but sadly, I think he's pissing in the wind Paul. You're probably right Dave but at least he's not afraid to call out members of his own party publicly. 200,000 excess deaths from lockdown. This fucking madness needs to end immediately.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 25, 2020 23:30:49 GMT
They don't brief against the government - they explain the advice they provided which they are perfectly entitled to do. If the government didn't allow SAGE to explain their position they would quite rightly be accused of censorship and trying to hide how they arrived at the decisions they make. In the early days there was a lot of criticism of Cummings sitting in on SAGE meetings because it was felt that it was resulting in their advice being tainted by politics before reaching the government. The whole point of SAGE is to provide independent advice - not advice tainted by matters outside it's remit. You are criticising SAGE for doing the job it should be doing. They give zero acknowledgement to the fact that the government can't simply follow their advice to the letter though without it having consequences. The bloke in question is saying there will unnecessary deaths due to the government's Christmas policy. He doesn't of course mention that there could well be unnecessary deaths (suicides etc) from locking people in their homes over Christmas. If virus suppression is all we had to worry about then this would be very simple indeed. Just shut everything down and keep people at home till the vaccines are ready. Problem solved. They don't have to acknowledge that the government can't simply follow their advice because they know full well that the government doesn't have to follow their advice and the government (quite rightly) don't just follow their advice. It's not their fault that the people don't understand how the setup works. What you seem to be wanting is a SAGE that simply arse lick the government. They are there to provide independent advice. The government can choose to take it or leave it. If the government choose to ignore it then they are perfectly within their rights to point out that the government are responsible for the consequences. If the government think their will be rise in suicides they are equally at liberty to point this out to SAGE. The governments decision to relax restrictions over Xmas WILL result in an increase in covid deaths - that's just bleeding obvious and to expect SAGE to say otherwise is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 25, 2020 23:43:48 GMT
What does it matter it was an accident or not? Seems like a cracking mistake. 👍 Because when you do a trial you set out the protocol before you start. This ensures no extraneous variables can be introduced. The Oxford vaccine didn't intend to "underdose" some of it participants they got the solution wrong. However other people in parts of the trial got the dose in the protocol. They are now interpreting results based on some participants who had doses not intended. Which is massively different than the clear protocol for 40k participants in the other RNA trials. The Oxford data is based on a meta data interpretation of lots of mini trials. The placebo groups in the Oxford trials didn't even recieve the same placebo. In so far as it's lucky it's now left the Oxford team and everyone else trying to understand the real efficacy variation. EDIT : Furthermore the age variable in the 90% cadre was significantly different than the 60% participants. Enough to cause a drop in the share price and the view the FDA will probably not licence Oxford AZ in the US in favour of the others. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/astra-vaccine-s-90-efficacy-in-covid-came-in-younger-populationIt’s come from American papers backing their own one. They got lucky. Happy days.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 25, 2020 23:51:10 GMT
Because when you do a trial you set out the protocol before you start. This ensures no extraneous variables can be introduced. The Oxford vaccine didn't intend to "underdose" some of it participants they got the solution wrong. However other people in parts of the trial got the dose in the protocol. They are now interpreting results based on some participants who had doses not intended. Which is massively different than the clear protocol for 40k participants in the other RNA trials. The Oxford data is based on a meta data interpretation of lots of mini trials. The placebo groups in the Oxford trials didn't even recieve the same placebo. In so far as it's lucky it's now left the Oxford team and everyone else trying to understand the real efficacy variation. EDIT : Furthermore the age variable in the 90% cadre was significantly different than the 60% participants. Enough to cause a drop in the share price and the view the FDA will probably not licence Oxford AZ in the US in favour of the others. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/astra-vaccine-s-90-efficacy-in-covid-came-in-younger-populationIt’s come from American papers backing their own one. They got lucky. Happy days. You might be right about the American papers. But they didn't get lucky, they fucked up and the 90% dose doesn't have any efficacy or represent over 55s. Is it a surprise it appears better in younger people who frankly don't need it? (6000 total deaths this year in under 64 yo, ONS) No because vaccines routinely don't have the same efficacy in the older cadre. The two results 62% and 90% cannot be linked to the dose alone.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 25, 2020 23:54:50 GMT
You're probably right Dave but at least he's not afraid to call out members of his own party publicly. 200,000 excess deaths from lockdown. This fucking madness needs to end immediately. Inevitable. Why is anyone surprised. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 0:03:21 GMT
It’s come from American papers backing their own one. They got lucky. Happy days. You might be right about the American papers. But they didn't get lucky, they fucked up and the 90% dose doesn't have any efficacy or represent over 55s. Is it a surprise it appears better in younger people who frankly don't need it? (6000 total deaths this year in under 64 yo, ONS) No because vaccines routinely don't have the same efficacy in the older cadre. The two results 62% and 90% cannot be linked to the dose alone. We all need it.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Nov 26, 2020 2:33:47 GMT
The details coming from the Oxford trial are disappointing, I don’t think it’s sunk by a long way, 62% (avoiding the half-dose as no over 55s is a confounder imo and shouldn’t feed into a larger figure of 70%) is still better than 0% for instance. But it’s a very sub-optimal way to piece together efficacy data, especially when they still have trials running and full datasets to release. This is all on interim data but start as you mean to go on.
There are still questions extant for all 3 major candidates so far, that will only be revealed with time. I think Oxford are hoping for more comprehensive analyses prior to or just after Xmas, and I hope they’ve cleaned a lot up by then. But this is exactly why I say it’s not a slam dunk, it never is.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 26, 2020 2:58:42 GMT
It's fine for Tescos...
This lockdown and it's totally unscientific rules is about destroying independent and small businesses.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 26, 2020 6:56:12 GMT
They give zero acknowledgement to the fact that the government can't simply follow their advice to the letter though without it having consequences. The bloke in question is saying there will unnecessary deaths due to the government's Christmas policy. He doesn't of course mention that there could well be unnecessary deaths (suicides etc) from locking people in their homes over Christmas. If virus suppression is all we had to worry about then this would be very simple indeed. Just shut everything down and keep people at home till the vaccines are ready. Problem solved. They don't have to acknowledge that the government can't simply follow their advice because they know full well that the government doesn't have to follow their advice and the government (quite rightly) don't just follow their advice. It's not their fault that the people don't understand how the setup works. What you seem to be wanting is a SAGE that simply arse lick the government. They are there to provide independent advice. The government can choose to take it or leave it. If the government choose to ignore it then they are perfectly within their rights to point out that the government are responsible for the consequences. If the government think their will be rise in suicides they are equally at liberty to point this out to SAGE. The governments decision to relax restrictions over Xmas WILL result in an increase in covid deaths - that's just bleeding obvious and to expect SAGE to say otherwise is ridiculous. The bloke in question didn't just set out his opinion though did he. Instead of saying 'we understand people want to meet up and see loved ones over Christmas but we don't feel its a good idea with the virus still circulating so highly', we had phrases like 'throwing fuel on the Covid fire', 'unnecessary deaths' and 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'. Obviously a lot of this is due to the government's own making. BoJo and friends made a big deal of 'following the science' to cover their arses so the public naturally now question why the government isn't simply following every word. I don't want a load of yes men advising government but a full argument isn't being allowed to play out so you've got various people freely throwing stones from the side lines whilst on the other side you have the government/media/search engines attempting to suppress anybody with a contrary view point.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Nov 26, 2020 7:44:36 GMT
You're probably right Dave but at least he's not afraid to call out members of his own party publicly. 200,000 excess deaths from lockdown. This fucking madness needs to end immediately. Can’t be true, it’s come from Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 26, 2020 8:34:16 GMT
Tier day today.
Must admit they said before we went in to the current Lockdown Lite we were told the Tiers we returned to would be stricter than before.
But is that really the case ?
It sounds like indoor sports open across all Tiers along with shops, barbers etc.
Pubs with food and restaurants open except for Tier 3.
Only 5 days quarantine after flights if you get a test etc.
I don't understand the household stuff so perhaps it's that which is getting stricter?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 8:38:29 GMT
You only have to get a couple of families catching it and that will inflate the numbers. Maybe the postman or milkman spread it around, or a door handle at a local shop ? My uncle and Aunt live on cheddleton heath road, in their 80's, 1 with dementia, hopefully locked away for their safety Isn't there a high school in Cellarhead though Not sure, there's Moorside on Cellarhead Road according to the interweb thingy
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 26, 2020 8:42:46 GMT
And what's the story with 'Pubs which serve a substantial meal'.
Do you have to actually order said meal or is it enough to go in safe in the knowledge that you could?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 26, 2020 9:08:30 GMT
200,000 excess deaths from lockdown. This fucking madness needs to end immediately. Can’t be true, it’s come from Twitter. No - but it's an example of because it comes from twitter people are happy to believe it's gospel without questipn It's certainly not 'new news' and comes from a report originally compiled in April by the ONS and based on certain assuumptions that have already not come to pass. It was also picked up by the MSM in July - so twitter is well behind the curve on this one. Certain of the 'possible' deaths are attributed to recessionary factors - wonder how many jumping on this will be equally concerned about potential excess deaths due to the forecast recession post a no-deal Brexit? I also wonder how many of those willing to swallow this whole are the same ones who dismissed the ICL forecast of 500k deaths as rubbish?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 9:10:05 GMT
Thanks, I had a good look through that and read a few reports on there, there is still some doubt in some of them and there are some reports they've analysed that show asymptomatic may spread it, it's not as virulent or lasts as long though, I think, would be good if they can get to the bottom of it, finally. And this in a conclusion: - The duration of RNA detection across human coronaviruses has not been well characterised, and comprehensive understanding about viral load dynamics and the duration of viral shedding in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is lacking. www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltextTable 2SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics in asymptomatic individuals compared with symptomatic individuals Median (IQR*) duration of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in asymptomatic individuals, days Viral dynamics in asymptomatic vs symptomatic individuals p value Arons et al (2020)52 Not reported No difference in viral load Not reported Chau et al (2020)51 Not reported Initial viral load similar; asymptomatic individuals had significantly lower viral load during follow-up and faster viral clearance than symptomatic individuals 0·027 Chen et al (2020)26 6 (4–10) Significantly shorter duration of viral shedding among asymptomatic cases, with increasing shedding duration associated with increasing illness severity <0·0001 Han et al (2020)8 Not reported Symptomatic children had higher initial RNA load in nasopharyngeal swab specimens than asymptomatic children (9·01 vs 6·32 log10 copies per mL) 0·048 Hu et al (2020)53 6 (2–12) Asymptomatic individuals had shorter duration of viral shedding compared with pre-symptomatic individuals (median duration of viral shedding was 6 days [2–12] vs 12 days [12–14]) Not reported Lavezzo et al (2020)14 Not reported No difference in viral load p=0·62 (E gene); p=0·74 (RdRp gene) Le et al (2020)57 9 Not reported Not applicable Sakurai et al (2020)41 9 (6–11) Not reported Not applicable Yang et al (2020)54 8 (3–12) Significantly shorter duration of viral shedding from nasopharynx swabs was observed among asymptomatic vs symptomatic individuals 0·001 Yongchen et al (2020)34 18 (range 5–28) Longer shedding duration among asymptomatic cases (median 18 days [range 5–28]) vs non-severe (10 days [2–21]) and severe (14 days [9–33]) cases Not reported Zhang et al (2020)13 9·6 Initial viral load similar; viral clearance occurred earlier in the asymptomatic (9·6 days) and symptomatic individuals (9·7 days), vs pre-symptomatic group (13·6 days) <0·05 Zhou et al (2020)50 Not reported Significantly higher viral load in symptomatic (n=22) vs asymptomatic (n=9) individuals (median cycle threshold value 34·5 [IQR 37·5–39·5] vs 39·0 [32·2–37·0]), but duration of shedding was similar Not reported Attachment Deleted
|
|