COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

Hagar said:
^^ and when the measles epidemic strikes within the next few years there will be much hand wringing and wondering why the MMR rate did fall close to or below 90%.
Click to expand...

I am fully expecting US citizens to start having restricted travel around the world in a few years if they continue down the path they're going. Just not worth the risk for countries to bring Americans in that could be carrying these diseases that are supposed to be virtually extinct, and destroying herd immunity.
 
Last edited:
Tephnos said:
I am fully expecting US citizens to start having restricted travel around the world in a few years if they continue down the path they're going. Just not worth the risk for countries to bring Americans in that could be carrying these diseases that are supposed to be virtually extinct, and destroying herd immunity.
Click to expand...
You just know Trump is going to go fully ape**** and impose 25% tariffs on any country that does, though you know it'll be fine for the US to do the same if the shoe's on the other foot.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
You just know Trump is going to go fully ape**** and impose 25% tariffs on any country that does, though you know it'll be fine for the US to do the same if the shoe's on the other foot.
Click to expand...
this is what gets me....... if there is 1 thing which triggers me more than anything else it is double standards... And it isnt just Trump, Musk is just as bad!

its like Tesla whining about the EU putting tariffs on their cars because some of the stock comes from China (and lets face it they are VERY modest tariffs)...... whilst at the same time their CEO is cosying up with the American president who is absolutely hammering China (albeit Must is fine with that because the American Teslas are built in America).

So sure I would absolutely expect to see US exceptionalism raise its head for double standards on vaccination things as well.

pulling it back on track, and I know it is not the same people (presumably) complaining but it also shows what a lose lose position the NHS are in as well.

they are being sued by staff who caught covid whilst at work.................... and at the same time were looking at being sued by staff who refused to take the vaccine and were forced to leave ..... and yet the reason they insisted staff took the vaccine was to both protect them and the patients in the hospital.

its a bit of a rock and a hard place!.

(that said the PPE shambols i am more sympathetic to the staff over but surely that was a government failing rather than NHS)
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
Don’t have a vaccine and you’ll be fine. Why people want untested stuff in them is beyond me
Click to expand...

Complete utter 100% garbage.
Between July 2020 to December 2020 before the OAP had her vaccine there were 50,000 volunteers on Covid vaccine trials and I was one of them.
I was informed after the trials I was on placebo's because of my comorbidities.
50,000 on a clinical trial is/was unheard of so stop spreading lies.
 
Simon said:
Depends on the definition of testing doesn’t it. Don’t you question why you were a placebo. They didnt test it you because of existing issues
Click to expand...


Vaccination protects the population and the health service, not the individual.
 
Simon said:
Simon said:
Depends on the definition of testing doesn’t it. Don’t you question why you were a placebo. They didnt test it you because of existing issues
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is how trials work, some have the drug others don't and they make a decision who best to try it on.

Simon said:
Again loads of laughs. No comments. You HAD to have a vaccine to keep a job in NHS.
Click to expand...

There are 100s, maybe a 1000 of staff at our hospital who haven't had the jab and they are not made to have it so once again stop telling lies.
Yes there was a point around 2021 where there were threats but they subsided and nobody got forced into it.
We still have our infection control trying to talk staff into it all the time but we can say no.

Also the Vaccine Damage Payment was not because of Covid vaccines, it was out way before Covid for any vaccine.

I thought you had a brain but I'm not so sure now with all the crap you're spouting.
 
Simon said:
Depends on the definition of testing doesn’t it. Don’t you question why you were a placebo. They didnt test it you because of existing issues
Click to expand...

You appear to have no idea of how you do any medical testing.

Hint, Placebo has a very specific medical meaning and in medical testing you always have at least two groups, one gets the medication and one gets the placebo (without even the people administering the medication knowing if done properly), specifically so you can see if the medication/vaccine works by comparing it against the placebo.
It also helps rule out side effects as with a vaccine you'll likely get people complaining about a sore arm etc even if you just give them an injection of pure water.
 
Werewolf said:
You appear to have no idea of how you do any medical testing.

Hint, Placebo has a very specific medical meaning and in medical testing you always have at least two groups, one gets the medication and one gets the placebo (without even the people administering the medication knowing if done properly), specifically so you can see if the medication/vaccine works by comparing it against the placebo.
It also helps rule out side effects as with a vaccine you'll likely get people complaining about a sore arm etc even if you just give them an injection of pure water.
Click to expand...

Honestly I've lost a lot of respect for him, I always thought he had more sense than most.
It's like an ICE car owner regurgitating all the mythical crap about EVs over and over.
 
Not sure how having a view on this is relevant to that. Yes I understand placebo. Just odd they told you why you were after. Surely they didn’t have such limitations on the actual roll out. So it’s odd to pre filter in a study…

I’m not an anti vaxxer either. Just by chance I didn’t have this one and I’m not exactly regretting it. Apparently I had Covid but didn’t notice so don’t really see the need for it personally. It didn’t reduce transmission either by having it. So I’ll get on with my life just like I haven’t had a rabies vaccine either
 
Last edited:
Simon said:
Not sure how having a view on this is relevant to that. Yes I understand placebo. Just odd they told you why you were after. Surely they didn’t have such limitations on the actual roll out. So it’s odd to pre filter in a study…
Click to expand...

They have to tell you or else I could have walked away thinking I was protected and when the NHS Staff jabs were rolled out around Jan 7th 2021 I could have said "It's OK I've been done".
Werewolf has already explained why they pre filter, it definitely isn't strange.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
This is how trials work, some have the drug others don't and they make a decision who best to try it on.
Click to expand...

WHat you are describing is a rigged study lol.

The point of a placebo is to find 50k people, give 25k the drug and 25k a placebo, where you DONT KNOW who has gotten the real drug vs the placebo

Then you analyse the data, trying to find a difference between the real drug and the placebo.

If you select people you are manipulating the results.
 
platinum87 said:
WHat you are describing is a rigged study lol.

The point of a placebo is to find 50k people, give 25k the drug and 25k a placebo, where you DONT KNOW who has gotten the real drug vs the placebo

Then you analyse the data, trying to find a difference between the real drug and the placebo.

If you select people you are manipulating the results.
Click to expand...

I was part of a study with the jabs where we weren't told until the end. Not everything is a conspiracy.
 
platinum87 said:
WHat you are describing is a rigged study lol.

The point of a placebo is to find 50k people, give 25k the drug and 25k a placebo, where you DONT KNOW who has gotten the real drug vs the placebo

Then you analyse the data, trying to find a difference between the real drug and the placebo.

If you select people you are manipulating the results.
Click to expand...

Some have to know which people are getting the drug and placebo or else you wouldn't be able to collect the data.
Also I made the assumption I was given the placebo because of my comorbidities but that probably wasn't the case, my bad.
I was told I was given the placebo Dec 2020.
 
Last edited:
SexyGreyFox said:
Some have to know which people are getting the drug and placebo or else you wouldn't be able to collect the data.
Also I made the assumption I was given the placebo because of my comorbidities but that probably wasn't the case, my bad.
I was told I was given the placebo Dec 2020.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have been not given it due to comorbidities, that would have been just as useful data either way.
platinum87 said:
WHat you are describing is a rigged study lol.

The point of a placebo is to find 50k people, give 25k the drug and 25k a placebo, where you DONT KNOW who has gotten the real drug vs the placebo

Then you analyse the data, trying to find a difference between the real drug and the placebo.

If you select people you are manipulating the results.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but not quite.

What you are trying to describe is a double blind experiment, which are typically considered the best, so that neither the recipients, nor the scientists, know who is being treated with the placebo or the real thing. However, that's typically more of an issue when the scientists are in direct contact with the patients, and in far smaller samples, when you're hitting sample sizes this big, where the people making the selection are not going to be the same people given the drugs, nor taking the reports of how the patient reacted in person, it's far less of an issue if the scientists know who's who. The reason you "blind" the scientists is to prevent almost subconscious manipulation of the patients, treating them differently etc, or even just being looselipped and letting them know, again, really not an issue here.

Selecting people (which doesn't seem to have been the case) for either the placebo or the real thing, is also something that can be good, or bad. In a case like this, it's a bit like the matched pairs we were discussing earlier. If you can try and match people with similar circumstances, and give one the placebo and one the real thing, it presents potentially better datapoints. You still don't technically even need the scientists to know, you use the computer to match the most similar patients with certain criteria, and split them equally amongst the two groups.
 
Unseul said:
You wouldn't have been not given it due to comorbidities, that would have been just as useful data either way.
Click to expand...

Once again I apologise.
Five of us were told what we had been given and between us WE assumed that me and another bloke didn't have it because of our comorbidities.
You're correct that wouldn't make sense.
Sorry for the confusion.
 
Simon said:
I’m not an anti vaxxer either. Just by chance I didn’t have this one and I’m not exactly regretting it. Apparently I had Covid but didn’t notice so don’t really see the need for it personally. It didn’t reduce transmission either by having it. So I’ll get on with my life just like I haven’t had a rabies vaccine either
Click to expand...
You say you're not an anti-vaxer so out of curiosity what exactly is your issue with the COVID vaccine, am i right in saying, from what you've previously said, that it's down to the amount of testing that was done before rolling it out?

Is it only that or have i missed some of your other reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom