Jump to content

When will this shit end?

Chrisp1986

By Chrisp1986,
in Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • steviewevie

    10647

  • zahidf

    6871

  • Crazyfool01

    6413

  • Ozanne

    7531

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jparx
jparx

I think on a music festival message board it’s a legitimate question to ask. It doesn’t suggest the OP doesn’t give a shit about anything else. Of course there are much bigger things to be worrie

Toilet Duck
Toilet Duck

So...OX/AZ, blood clots, suspension of vaccinations, politics, vaccine hesitancy, convoluted data, PR problems, Brexit, EU procurement naivety, poor logistics, national identity...there’s an awful lot

Lycra
Lycra

A while since I/we posted because just like everyone else we get fed up of this shit. So just like to say..... For the first time since last March we are free of covid patients 😊

Posted Images

Toilet Duck Rising Star

Toilet Duck

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

@Toilet Duck you have started trending on Twitter :) 

I can't for the life of me remember why I picked that ridiculous name, but it's rather apt now!

 

Edit: Actually, I think it was something to do with Father Jack...

Edited by Toilet Duck
I remember something!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neil Grand Master

Neil

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, jparx said:

We're fully in Black Mirror territory now with this disinfectant malarkey. 

people are fighying in the supermarkets for it.

There's a big rise in domestos violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gizmoman Rising Star

gizmoman

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, zahidf said:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Pandemic-Innovation

 

Good article from bill gates. Basically infection risks of big concerts aren't worth the minimal economic benefits (relatively)

Bill Gates has the same medical qualifications as Donald Trump but he has bigger ideas,

"The goal is to pick the one or two best vaccine constructs and vaccinate the entire world—that’s 7 billion doses if it is a single-dose vaccine, and 14 billion if it is a two-dose vaccine. The world will be in a rush to get them, so the scale of the manufacturing will be unprecedented and will probably have to involve multiple companies."

at least he's honest, his goal is vaccination of everyone on the planet. Would everyone require vaccination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zahidf Grand Master

zahidf

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, gizmoman said:

Bill Gates has the same medical qualifications as Donald Trump but he has bigger ideas,

"The goal is to pick the one or two best vaccine constructs and vaccinate the entire world—that’s 7 billion doses if it is a single-dose vaccine, and 14 billion if it is a two-dose vaccine. The world will be in a rush to get them, so the scale of the manufacturing will be unprecedented and will probably have to involve multiple companies."

at least he's honest, his goal is vaccination of everyone on the planet. Would everyone require vaccination?

I heard it's the bleach or the vaccination. At least the bleach will mean THEY CANT CONTROL YOUR MIND WITH 5G RAYS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zero000 Community Regular

zero000

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Bill Gates has the same medical qualifications as Donald Trump but he has bigger ideas,

"The goal is to pick the one or two best vaccine constructs and vaccinate the entire world—that’s 7 billion doses if it is a single-dose vaccine, and 14 billion if it is a two-dose vaccine. The world will be in a rush to get them, so the scale of the manufacturing will be unprecedented and will probably have to involve multiple companies."

at least he's honest, his goal is vaccination of everyone on the planet. Would everyone require vaccination?

The difference being Bill Gates is not resolutely thick.  It's still a significant % of the wold which would need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work

 

EDIT: Link is not about COVID, but adds some context.

Edited by zero000
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gizmoman Rising Star

gizmoman

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, zero000 said:

The difference being Bill Gates is not resolutely thick.  It's still a significant % of the wold which would need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work

 

EDIT: Link is not about COVID, but adds some context.

He's not stupid that's for sure, if he had said the aim is to achieve herd immunity or eradication of the virus I might not have seen the quote as so strange. He seems to have an unhealthy fixation on vaccines (pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deaf Nobby Burton Experienced

Deaf Nobby Burton

Posted
Posted (edited)

I just cannot begin to get my head round how Trump’s mind works. All the horrible diseases and viruses that have blighted mankind over the years. Aids, Ebola, Zika, Malaria, all the billions upon billions of dollars pumped into looking for and developing treatments and cures, but not once did somebody stop and think, I know, let’s kill them with bleach! I suppose they do say the best ideas are the simplest ones. 

Edited by Deaf Nobby Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toilet Duck Rising Star

Toilet Duck

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Waterdeep said:

@Toilet Duck what do you make of this? Is it saying 54% of asymptomatic had ground glass opacities?

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110

 

CT imaging isn't really my thing unfortunately, we do a bit in mice, but I have a veterinary pathologist who helps me interpret them! Only ever heard of GGNs (ground glass opacity nodules) in relation to lung cancer, but a quick look at the paper shows that the authors themselves acknowledge significant variation in possible explanations. The images are from a snapshot in time, so without longitudinal monitoring (multiple CTs taken over time), they have no idea where the patients are along the course of infection (or indeed whether the nodules are growing or will spontaneously regress), plus they also acknowledge that when the PCR test was done, patients may have been incorrectly classified as either positive or negative. The control group that is missing is similar passengers who were never exposed to coronavirus to see what the frequency of GGNs might be. A quick look in the medical literature shows a paper indicating that they occur in 60% of never-smokers lungs (and that paper cites a bunch of other studies that found the same thing), so it would seem to be in line with what has been shown and un-related to coronavirus...one of the things that causes GGNs to appear on CT scans is inflammation...the key seems to be whether they persist and grow or resolve of their own accord. Follow up is the only way to determine that, which unfortunately they didn't do here. A CT a couple of weeks later may well have been completely clear in the asymptomatic patients, but they don't have that data (for lung cancer monitoring, they are followed for up to 5 years). They correlate their findings with other clinical features, but not any other background data on the patients (smoking history for example would certainly be something I would have thought would be relevant). In short, not sure how much it tells us! Maybe one of the medics on the board more familiar with lung pathology could give you a better answer...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neil Grand Master

Neil

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

And a guy threw a bottle of domestos over the local vicar 

he was arrested and charged with bleach of the priest. 

A junkie shot up some bleach.

Now he's clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toilet Duck Rising Star

Toilet Duck

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Interesting if true

 

This is going back to the herd immunity idea of sorts, but in a slight more managed way. The only problem with that is the caveat that we have no idea how long immunity lasts (which makes it risky). Via this approach, you could eventually reach a point where most people have been infected, only for many to no longer be immune (we honestly have no idea whether this could be the case). They are possibly correct though as there are more susceptible individuals in a population that was more successful in suppressing the virus, so subsequent peaks if not controlled have the potential to be significant. Personally, I'd go for full on suppression keeping the R0 of the virus below 1 with source control as we open back up (my old friend face masks again plus some aggressive contact tracing), I think it's a less risky strategy and the safest route to controlling the virus without a vaccine....it's safer if immunity is transient and it provides a route to actually eradicating the virus if immunity is more permanent...but hey, I don't make policy decisions for governments! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...