• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Diamond Lights said:
Ultimately I'm just really fudged off. A lot of friends over or people I follow in Australia and every time they post a pic, they're out for lunch, they're at a festival, they're at the gym. And I don't get why we couldnt control of this? Other countries have shown it's possible.
Click to expand...
Go see a friend for lunch, visit some family, relax and enjoy.

Problem solved.

Diamond Lights said:
People complaining "you can't lockdown because of the economy". Well, several countries did and managed it properly through testing and tracing and their economic recovery is afoot, as I said, people out and about etc.

We're close to entering our 3/4 version of a lockdown, because we never once bothered to get to grips. And it was all so avoidable.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
CZ did a great job on the initial lockdown. Everything non essential shut, people mostly stayed home, everyone wore masks in public - not just in shops, but everywhere. We were advised we couldn't travel there due to restrictions on incoming flights.

They have had it as bad as anyone else this winter.

If some countries didn't lock down and haven't suffered, and some have locked down but still suffered, it makes claiming lock downs as the defining factor very difficult.
 
scaramanga said:
Go see a friend for lunch, visit some family, relax and enjoy.

Problem solved.


CZ did a great job on the initial lockdown. Everything non essential shut, people mostly stayed home, everyone wore masks in public - not just in shops, but everywhere. We were advised we couldn't travel there due to restrictions on incoming flights.

They have had it as bad as anyone else this winter.

If some countries didn't lock down and haven't suffered, and some have locked down but still suffered, it makes claiming lock downs as the defining factor very difficult.
Click to expand...

It’s about the severity and length of the lockdown - crushing the virus, not just suppressing it to a level where it can surge again.

Europe was too quick to open up - as many scientists predicted. We’re now paying the price in every sense
 
Mikey10 said:
It’s about the severity and length of the lockdown - crushing the virus, not just suppressing it to a level where it can surge again.

Europe was too quick to open up - as many scientists predicted. We’re now paying the price in every sense
Click to expand...
They locked down for about 6 weeks fully and gradually opened up from there. There were virtually no cases at all in the spring and summer there.

In as much as a lockdown can be said to have worked, theirs worked.
 
Mikey10 said:
I accept that it’s not easy.

However, they’ve known for at least a fortnight (months really) that this day was coming for the AZ vaccine. It’s not a surprise. And we’re told that it’s been manufactured and is ready to go. Why couldn’t it have been sent out to at least some mass vaccination centres which were ready to open their doors today? They should have had a plan months ago re who was going to actually give the injections. It looks like they’re only starting to think about that now.

I don’t think it bodes well.
Click to expand...

They haven't known the specific day though or what the recommendation on approval would be for instance (2 doses 4 weeks apart, half a dose then a full dose, 2 dodes up to 12 weeks apart etc).

You can't just send out vaccines to places before it's been approved, it needs to be batch checked for quality control first is one example. And you can't start booking vaccination appointments before something has been approved - what if an 85yr old person has a booking and turns up not knowing it's been cancelled for instance, then what?

The logistics of rolling out a vaccine aren't as simple as approve it then start jabbing people a few hours later - they've done many things wrong but on vaccines seem to be doing well so far.
 
LutonSpurs said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1344347380917940226
Click to expand...
Wow! Thank you LutonSpurs, that is great to read. Why are so many news outlets using this useless figure of 52% FFS? Scaremongering?

I've copied the gist of the tweets here so people like Parklane1 can read it:

Many are citing a figure of 52% for protection after the first dose. That isn't useful.

The 52% value is a useless AVERAGE from the Pfizer trial data, for the 21 days between the first and second doses.

Until day 10 the placebo and trial groups have very similar data. This is *expected* - no vaccine has an effect until days later, when the immune system has had time to develop a response.

Looking at the day 0 to day 10 period there is an efficacy of 10%.
Looking at the day 10 to day 22 period there is an efficacy of 86% (+/- confidence intervals).

The 52% figure is a mush of those two completely different scenarios. It's not useful. People shouldn't be citing it in this context.

86% is a much more accurate and relevant figure.
 
Bullet said:
Wow! Thank you LutonSpurs, that is great to read. Why are so many news outlets using this useless figure of 52% FFS? Scaremongering?

I've copied the gist of the tweets here so people like Parklane1 can read it:

Many are citing a figure of 52% for protection after the first dose. That isn't useful.

The 52% value is a useless AVERAGE from the Pfizer trial data, for the 21 days between the first and second doses.

Until day 10 the placebo and trial groups have very similar data. This is *expected* - no vaccine has an effect until days later, when the immune system has had time to develop a response.

Looking at the day 0 to day 10 period there is an efficacy of 10%.
Looking at the day 10 to day 22 period there is an efficacy of 86% (+/- confidence intervals).

The 52% figure is a mush of those two completely different scenarios. It's not useful. People shouldn't be citing it in this context.

86% is a much more accurate and relevant figure.
Click to expand...

Having complex data explained for laymen is always a wonderful thing to see. One of the reasons there is so much polarisation is that people do use the data to tell their own story on either side of this conversation. It's a shame. Objectivity is a rare quality even amongst some of the more balanced media outlets on this topic.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Having complex data explained for laymen is always a wonderful thing to see. One of the reasons there is so much polarisation is that people do use the data to tell their own story on either side of this conversation. It's a shame. Objectivity is a rare quality even amongst some of the more balanced media outlets on this topic.
Click to expand...
Even when there's no subjectivity, explaining complex topics to laymen is an incredibly rare skill.

The meaningless old trope of "Those who can do..." Is just that, but it comes from an element of truth. The ability to impart knowledge to those with no technical understanding of a subject is monstrously difficult. Combine that with the rarity of enough in-depth knowledge of a field to then be able to break it down to such simplicity and you're left with almost nobody who can do both.
 
LutonSpurs said:
With a Vaccine they might. Otherwise herd immunity won't work without a collapse of a health service.
Click to expand...
That depends on what happens to hospitalisations over time.

I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that the most vulnerable will show first. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the hospitalisation curve to flatten.
 
scaramanga said:
Even when there's no subjectivity, explaining complex topics to laymen is an incredibly rare skill.

The meaningless old trope of "Those who can do..." Is just that, but it comes from an element of truth. The ability to impart knowledge to those with no technical understanding of a subject is monstrously difficult. Combine that with the rarity of enough in-depth knowledge of a field to then be able to break it down to such simplicity and you're left with almost nobody who can do both.
Click to expand...

So I agree. Largely if you are a layman in any topic you should blind follow the expert unless it's an exercise of academia where you can ask and hypothesise. Where we are right now is non experts are building huge platforms as experts without credentials and are getting away with violating data and giving their false interpretation. That means we need those exceptional folks who can translate the complex stuff to the laymen accurately and objectively to beat the whole post truth era we have been drawn in to. Its frightening really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back