Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 

Ah so the latest fake SAGE technique to fudge the numbers is to split the pandemic up into its underlying variants and show that a particular one is growing and use that in itself to argue against a reopening, even though the overall position is okay.

 

I note again that she thinks long covid is a reason to delay the roadmap. I, for one, am glad that the government will take a dim view of that proposition.

Lol fake SAGE wants to close the pubs

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

One thing they really fucked up on is not carrying out human challenge trials on the vaccine instantly when they were created. Cummings believes that had that been done we could have started getting jabs in arms as early as summer 2020 whereas the more bureaucratic phase III trials that were actually done led to months of dither and delay while the second wave brewed.

Would you have run challenge trials on 80+ year olds? For a disease that had a fair chance of killing them and we had no cure for? (because if you don’t, then the trial is next to useless)...Oxford didn’t even include many of that age group in the early parts of their trials as the were worried about the ethics of it, so honestly suggesting that we should also have deliberately infected them is pushing the ethical boundaries way too far (Running a challenge trial in healthy 20 year olds doesn’t tell you how the vaccine will work in the people you want to protect...such a trial with the Sanofi/GSK vaccine, for example, would have worked a treat, but it would have failed as soon as it went into those over 60...plus, where do you get safety data from unless you recruit a ton of people to the challenge trials? (Even with over 100,000 participants in phase 3s, we still didn’t pick up some of the AEs that shape the use of the vaccines we have)... How does that safety data translate across ages? Ethnicities? Co-morbidities?...unless you include that level of diversity in your challenge trial, then you don’t know if the vaccine works (hence all of these things were built into the phase 3 trials)...The pre-clinical studies did indeed include viral challenge, and that’s how the candidates for human trials were selected)...Dom doesn’t know what he is talking about..the excellent vaccines we currently have, that will get us out of this mess, were developed properly, without cutting corners or running ethically dubious trials and we got there in record time. If the governments in most of Europe (and elsewhere) had simply paid attention to what happened in other places that got hit before us, they could have mitigated this better, but they didn’t...however it’s not because the vaccine development went down the wrong road. The dither was political, not scientific.

Edited by Toilet Duck
Typo!
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Would you have run challenge trials on 80+ year olds? For a disease that had a fair chance of killing them and we had no cure for? (because if you don’t, then the trial is next to useless)...Oxford didn’t even include many of that age group in the early parts of their trials as the were worried about the ethics of it, so honestly suggesting that we should also have deliberately infected them is pushing the ethical boundaries way too far (Running a challenge trial in healthy 20 year olds doesn’t tell you how the vaccine will work in the people you want to protect...such a trial with the Sanofi/GSK vaccine, for example, would have worked a treat, but it would have failed as soon as it went into those over 60...plus, where do you get safety data from unless you recruit a ton of people to the challenge trials? (Even with over 100,000 participants in phase 3s, we still didn’t pick up some of the AEs that shape the use of the vaccines we have)... How does that safety data translate across ages? Ethnicities? Co-morbidities?...unless you include that level of diversity in your challenge trial, then you don’t know if the vaccine works (hence all of these things were built into the phase 3 trials)...The pre-clinical studies did indeed include viral challenge, and that’s how the candidates for human trials were selected)...Dom doesn’t know what he is talking about..the excellent vaccines we currently have, that will get us out of this mess, were developed properly, without cutting corners or running ethically dubious trials and we got there in record time. If the governments in most of Europe (and elsewhere) had simply paid attention to what happened in other places that got hit before us, they could have mitigated this better, but they didn’t...however it’s not because the vaccine development went down the wrong road. The dither was political, not scientific.

Top notch comment. 

Dom is known for his ability to narrate past events in his favour. 

What exactly was he doing when all these 'terrible' decisions were being made? Why wasn't he telling us all these life & death things back then? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ryan1984 said:

@Toilet Duck - What do you make of forum favourite Christina Pagel?

😁

I think she’s incorrect about some things (she talks about fully vax resistant variants and biologically, I honestly have no idea what that would be). I think she’s right about other things...I wouldn’t have proceeded with step 3 in the hotspots, I’d hold off for a few weeks, vaccinate like crazy and then bring them back in line with the rest of the country at the end of June (data permitting). I’d use Pfizer/Moderna exclusively in the areas with outbreaks to reach full vaccination in 5 weeks and I’d stop movement in and out of those areas altogether. Proceed as planned elsewhere. Simultaneous Nationwide exit from this is idealogical not scientific and entirely at odds with “data not dates”.

The Indy Sage crew do typically err on the most pessimistic side of incomplete data, and they tend to invite people to talk to them that just reinforce their opinion rather than engaging with the large parts of the scientific community that are more optimistic about our medium to long-term prospects. Calling themselves SAGE was deliberately provocative...adding independent to the title seemed to be a reaction to active participation in SAGE meetings by our good friend DC, but is equally argumentative and designed to get noticed. There’s too many cooks and if they were as clever as they think they are, then the correctly qualified members of the consortium should address specific topics when dealing with the public...but they too often stray into areas they don’t fully understand. That said, calling them scum is nonsense. 

Essentially, what we are witnessing is the type of academic debate that is pretty normal...but unfortunately, it’s not simply academic...now it’s shaping policy that impacts on us all (either directly by advising government or indirectly by shaping public opinion). That comes with significant responsibility and should be wielded carefully. In many cases, it has not been.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Would you say the same thing about a man? 

It does seem to be certain men that get most angry by what Christina Pagel has to say I’ve noticed, I wonder why that might be?

Edited by Ozanne
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 

Won't cut through.

 

150,000ish bereaved families maybe make up 1% of the UK population. The rest of us care much more about what's happening now than Dominic Cummings version of events that happened ages ago.

You’re probably right. If starving kids and a prime minister allegedly shouting ‘let the bodies pile up in their thousands’ couldn’t cut through, I doubt anything from unpopular Dom will...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Toilet Duck said:

😁

Calling themselves SAGE was deliberately provocative...adding independent to the title seemed to be a reaction to active participation in SAGE meetings by our good friend DC, but is equally argumentative and designed to get noticed.

Yup. Once they came out calling themselves that, I automatically decided they couldn't be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It does seem to be certain men that get most angry by what Christina Pagel has to say I’ve noticed, I wonder why that might be?

You’re looking for a moral high ground when there simply isn’t one.

Christina Pagel is the most public figure within the independent sage group which is why she’s the most talked about member of said group.

Everyone who you’re trying to position as being sexist has also been vocal about Dr Eric Feigl-Ding who often has extreme pro lockdown (and all that comes with that) views.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BobWillis2 said:

It shocked me to learn that she is married. Poor bloke. 

I don't keep up with the soap opera on here and have no idea of the context - but within that context, this jumps out as being the sort of thing a massive twat would say.

Edited by Homer
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literal human sacrifices?

 

The International Olympic Committee’s insistence that “sacrifices” must be made to ensure the Games go ahead in Tokyo regardless of the coronavirus situation in Japan has sparked a backlash and more calls for them to be cancelled.

On Saturday, Bach, who has been criticised for referring to the “resilience” of the Japanese people, told a meeting of the International Hockey Federation: “The athletes definitely can make their Olympic dreams come true. We have to make some sacrifices to make this possible.”

While it was not clear to whom Bach was referring when he called for sacrifices to be made, many assumed he had the Japanese public in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Literal human sacrifices?

 

The International Olympic Committee’s insistence that “sacrifices” must be made to ensure the Games go ahead in Tokyo regardless of the coronavirus situation in Japan has sparked a backlash and more calls for them to be cancelled.

On Saturday, Bach, who has been criticised for referring to the “resilience” of the Japanese people, told a meeting of the International Hockey Federation: “The athletes definitely can make their Olympic dreams come true. We have to make some sacrifices to make this possible.”

While it was not clear to whom Bach was referring when he called for sacrifices to be made, many assumed he had the Japanese public in mind.

Holding the Olympic BCD is literally a minimum risk, like all other sport that’s been held over the past year. This is a non-story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Holding the Olympic BCD is literally a minimum risk, like all other sport that’s been held over the past year. This is a non-story. 

IN this country its a little risky. An international sports event with multiple countries flying people over,  in a country with very low vaccination rates seems a crazy idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeyT said:

You’re looking for a moral high ground when there simply isn’t one.

Christina Pagel is the most public figure within the independent sage group which is why she’s the most talked about member of said group.

Everyone who you’re trying to position as being sexist has also been vocal about Dr Eric Feigl-Ding who often has extreme pro lockdown (and all that comes with that) views.

It's quire plainly was a sexist comment and got called out as such. 

It is possible to criticise the work of an individual without making stupid comments that belong in the 1970's.

If you don't understand the damage done by casual sexism I suggest you educate yourself a little. That's not me having a go at you, it's genuine advice. 

Edited by HalfAnIdiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...