Coronavirus

[Parklife]

7 hours ago, tutankamun said:

If they can fight it off without any problems, why would they need the vaccine?

Remember:

1) The vaccine doesn’t stop you catching and passing on Covid.

2) The vulnerable have been vaccinated 

The concentrated effort should be to ensure all the vulnerable have had their 2nd jab. Leave the kids alone.

You've been corrected on the first one before and shown that the vaccine is proving to reduce transmission massively. 

It's strange that in a thread where you're praising  someone for "stating facts", you yourself are coming out with misleading comments.

It's almost like what you value aren't "stating facts" at all but rather stating things that back up the predetermined viewpoint you've already decided upon. 

[Don Fonte]

1 hour ago, Bad_Mobby said:

Worth a poke though 

The most important thing in this discussion.

UTA

[RAZOR]

Here's me thinking the rat tail died out with James McFadden.

 

[manboobs109]

Just keep the fucking pubs open, that's the main thing.

[Henry]

8 hours ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Depends the extent of social distancing. Ive not had a cold in fucking yonks and it's ace. 

Social distancing is the one we’ve got to abandon if we have any hope of returning to something like normal life.

[alscotoz]

13 hours ago, tutankamun said:

If they can fight it off without any problems, why would they need the vaccine?

Remember:

1) The vaccine doesn’t stop you catching and passing on Covid.

2) The vulnerable have been vaccinated 

The concentrated effort should be to ensure all the vulnerable have had their 2nd jab. Leave the kids alone.

You a teacher?

[thedandydon]

16 hours ago, Bad_Mobby said:

Where about in guffland are you?

Warrington

13 hours ago, tutankamun said:

If they can fight it off without any problems, why would they need the vaccine?

Remember:

1) The vaccine doesn’t stop you catching and passing on Covid.

2) The vulnerable have been vaccinated 

The concentrated effort should be to ensure all the vulnerable have had their 2nd jab. Leave the kids alone.

I believe there is some evidence that the vaccine does prevent transmission to some degree but yeah, it won’t stop it entirely, nor will it prevent you catching covid. But it will, for those who are unfortunate enough to catch it while vaccinated prevent serious illness or the need for hospitalisation in the majority of cases. Pretty much the purpose of a vaccination and not exclusive to Covid.

In the fight against Covid, this is as good as it gets.

The age group I mentioned are the most likely to mix in larger groups and least likely to stick to the ‘rules’. If the vaccine is protecting the older age groups and potentially reducing transmission then it stands to reason it will have much the same effect with them. Any gain has to be a positive. It’ll be up to those younger individuals to decide if they want to take the vaccine that might help them but probably wont make much difference in terms of risk, or take their chances without it but continue to pose a threat to supressing the virus.

12 hours ago, Ke1t said:

Correct. 

What are her medical credentials that she's given a national platform to discuss best practices during a pandemic?

You might as well have Gazza on, pished up and waving a chicken, telling us how to stay safe, as this fucking cunt. 

I doubt anyone watches This Morning for highbrow debate but I think like most of us she has her opinion and its rare that a contrary point of view gets aired thar goes against the grain. There was a decent expert on QT last night who made a lot of sensible points about the dropping of restrictions. He wasn’t being alarmist about the rising case numbers and putting the emphasis on the good work the vaccine is doing and how we should balance this against the social and economic factors. Variants will come and go, we can’t be sticking our heads in the sand every time a new one emerges. We’ll just have to learn to live along side them.

The only debate now is whether enough of the population will have had at least 1 jab and at what point all over 50’s have had their 2^nd. We’re about 75% of the way there with the former and can’t be far off offering it to all of the latter that want it.

 Im 39, had my first when my other half had her 2^nd (vulnerable) and just received my 2^nd yesterday. Less than 6 weeks between both.

[jamiesd]

6 hours ago, Parklife said:

You've been corrected on the first one before and shown that the vaccine is proving to reduce transmission massively. 

It's strange that in a thread where you're praising  someone for "stating facts", you yourself are coming out with misleading comments.

It's almost like what you value aren't "stating facts" at all but rather stating things that back up the predetermined viewpoint you've already decided upon. 

Oh dear

[Ke1t]

3 hours ago, thedandydon said:

 

* I doubt anyone watches This Morning for highbrow debate but I think like most of us she has her opinion and its rare that a contrary point of view gets aired thar goes against the grain. There was a decent expert on QT last night who made a lot of sensible points about the dropping of restrictions. He wasn’t being alarmist about the rising case numbers and putting the emphasis on the good work the vaccine is doing and how we should balance this against the social and economic factors. Variants will come and go, we can’t be sticking our heads in the sand every time a new one emerges. We’ll just have to learn to live along side them.

The only debate now is whether enough of the population will have had at least 1 jab and at what point all over 50’s have had their 2^nd. We’re about 75% of the way there with the former and can’t be far off offering it to all of the latter that want it.

 Im 39, had my first when my other half had her 2^nd (vulnerable) and just received my 2^nd yesterday. Less than 6 weeks between both.

 

* Unfortunately you're probably, depressingly, pretty far off the mark there. There are people who get their 'news' from memes on Facebook and Twitter, and make life decisions based on what some uninformed rando has banged together on Photoshop. 

My complaint isn't that there are contrary positions, but that airtime is given to people who are wholly unqualified to give their opinion, like aforementioned shrill bint. Millions of people will watch her spout her bollocks, and because she's on the telly they naturally assume she's some sort of expert on the matter, then go tell their equally dumb mates that 'They said on the TV', spreading the bollocks they now assume is gospel. 

At the very least a disclaimer should be superimposed that says, "This bint has no fucking idea what she's talking about."

Next up, we'll be talking to Gazza about how he reckons Newtonian physics work. 

"How, man... Ah reckon, reet, ah reckon that them Nyow-townian Phizzix are fookin' canny, like. Lerruz get me cock oot an' we'll taak a' aboot the relayshionship atween force an' mowmentum."

 

 

 

[tutankamun]

Next from the tombola... the Nepal variant ?

 

[NEM]

17 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Next from the tombola... the Nepal variant ?

 

Ha ha what a heap of shite 

[tutankamun]

18 hours ago, Parklife said:

You've been corrected on the first one before and shown that the vaccine is proving to reduce transmission massively. 

No I haven’t 

[Foster14]

8 hours ago, tutankamun said:

No I haven’t 

Fill your boots:

Government article:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half#:~:text=A new study by Public,transmission by up to half.&text=Studies have already demonstrated that,your risk of being infected.

And related research by Public Health England:

https://khub.net/documents/135939561/390853656/Impact+of+vaccination+on+household+transmission+of+SARS-COV-2+in+England.pdf/35bf4bb1-6ade-d3eb-a39e-9c9b25a8122a?t=1619601878136

[tutankamun]

7 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

Fill your boots:

Government article:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half#:~:text=A new study by Public,transmission by up to half.&text=Studies have already demonstrated that,your risk of being infected.

And related research by Public Health England:

https://khub.net/documents/135939561/390853656/Impact+of+vaccination+on+household+transmission+of+SARS-COV-2+in+England.pdf/35bf4bb1-6ade-d3eb-a39e-9c9b25a8122a?t=1619601878136

This just confirms it doesn’t stop you passing it on.

[Foster14]

3 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

This just confirms it doesn’t stop you passing it on.

It proves that the likelihood of you passing it on after one of the two jabs is reduced significantly (and I guess we will see about two in due course).

That is why there are benefits in the younger having it.  If the vaccine can reduce spread, as scientifically supported in the research I referred to, then it can help offset the risks associated with the vaccine not being 100% effective at reducing the symptoms among the vulnerable.  

If the vaccines were 100% effective, then this wouldn't be the case, but makes sense why they would want as much of the population vaccinated as possible.

[tutankamun]

2 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

It proves that the likelihood of you passing it on after one of the two jabs is reduced significantly (and I guess we will see about two in due course).

That is why there are benefits in the younger having it.  If the vaccine can reduce spread, as scientifically supported in the research I referred to, then it can help offset the risks associated with the vaccine not being 100% effective at reducing the symptoms among the vulnerable.  

If the vaccines were 100% effective, then this wouldn't be the case, but makes sense why they would want as much of the population vaccinated as possible.

Did they do all these tests for all the variants and vaccines?

E.g. Astrazenica was only 10% effective against mild to moderate infection of the South African variant.

[Foster14]

You have stated that vaccines do not stop transmission.  The only studies done so far seem to suggest they do in part.  That it does in part supports the government's strategy to get as many people vaccinated as possible, tis all. 

[tutankamun]

The WHO are not aware of a Nepal variant 

Portugal probably going onto amber/red list 

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, Foster14 said:

You have stated that vaccines do not stop transmission.  The only studies done so far seem to suggest they do in part.  That it does in part supports the government's strategy to get as many people vaccinated as possible, tis all. 

Exactly. He's been told it all before too. He'll probably need told again in another month. 

[manboobs109]

Why are cases going up as we vaccinate more people then?

[Parklife]

8 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Why are cases going up as we vaccinate more people then?

Cases are going up predominantly in unvaccinated groups 

[NEM]

8 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Cases are going up predominantly in unvaccinated groups 

On those it has little or no effect on. Happy days then 

[Parklife]

1 minute ago, NEM said:

Happy days then 

Vaccines working like a dream, happy days are here again. 

[manboobs109]

No idea why there are any restrictions at all then. I should be at that Croatia game. It's fucking ridiculous.

[Zeus]

All the bloody youngsters fault 

[Ramandu]

20 hours ago, Ke1t said:

 

* Unfortunately you're probably, depressingly, pretty far off the mark there. There are people who get their 'news' from memes on Facebook and Twitter, and make life decisions based on what some uninformed rando has banged together on Photoshop. 

My complaint isn't that there are contrary positions, but that airtime is given to people who are wholly unqualified to give their opinion, like aforementioned shrill bint. Millions of people will watch her spout her bollocks, and because she's on the telly they naturally assume she's some sort of expert on the matter, then go tell their equally dumb mates that 'They said on the TV', spreading the bollocks they now assume is gospel. 

At the very least a disclaimer should be superimposed that says, "This bint has no fucking idea what she's talking about."

Your point in general is fine, but the problem comes when the expert brought on talks nonsense. People within a group often hold an opinion because other experts hold it.

For example the start of the pandemic WHO said don't wear masks and don't close borders, because neither works. TV was filled with loads of well meaning doctors saying "I'm a doctor acshully, masks are bad, closing borders doesn't work". 

Here's ex model Caprice having a better understanding than some Oxford grad Dr on TV. Her reasoning was right too.

https://youtu.be/AxwADk0FJOA

Public health has failed quite a lot on this during the last 15 months.

There's a general problem in the media about identifying actual experts. What we want is people who are right, what we get is people who are confident and forceful.

[Parklife]

7 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

Your point in general is fine, but the problem comes when the expert brought on talks nonsense. People within a group often hold an opinion because other experts hold it.

For example the start of the pandemic WHO said don't wear masks and don't close borders, because neither works. TV was filled with loads of well meaning doctors saying "I'm a doctor acshully, masks are bad, closing borders doesn't work". 

Here's ex model Caprice having a better understanding than some Oxford grad Dr on TV. Her reasoning was right too.

https://youtu.be/AxwADk0FJOA

Public health has failed quite a lot on this during the last 15 months.

There's a general problem in the media about identifying actual experts. What we want is people who are right, what we get is people who are confident and forceful.

Should've just let the beautiful Devi tell us what the do.

[Betty Swallicks]

On 6/1/2021 at 11:06 PM, milne_afc said:

She looks and sounds like a lunatic

And is married to posh Tory cunt James Cracknell. 

All good reasons to disregard anything she says.

[Ke1t]

5 hours ago, Ramandu said:

Your point in general is fine, but the problem comes when the expert brought on talks nonsense. People within a group often hold an opinion because other experts hold it.

For example the start of the pandemic WHO said don't wear masks and don't close borders, because neither works. TV was filled with loads of well meaning doctors saying "I'm a doctor acshully, masks are bad, closing borders doesn't work". 

Here's ex model Caprice having a better understanding than some Oxford grad Dr on TV. Her reasoning was right too.

https://youtu.be/AxwADk0FJOA

Public health has failed quite a lot on this during the last 15 months.

There's a general problem in the media about identifying actual experts. What we want is people who are right, what we get is people who are confident and forceful.

The problem comes when an appeal to authority fallacy is used to attempt  bolster an argument, as in the case of ex-model Caprice here. 

When she references an article by 'Wu's spokesperson'*, she's simply parroting something she heard with no apparent understanding of anything beyond what she read by a single individual (an expert)... and as a spokesperson for (presumably) the nation of the Virus' origin it would be reasonable to assume that any commentary coming from that source (authoritarian China) would be heavily filtered and edited to fit a very specific narrative. 

I can cite a single 'expert' who will tell you that Climate Change is a Liberal hoax, perpetrated by scientists who simply use the spectre of a dying planet to get more grants. It's best to understand where that single expert is coming from... and it's usually from a place where they're being funded by oil companies. 

Roger Cohen, by all accounts a brilliant scientist and an 'expert' on climate, spent a lot of his time denying that Climate change was a thing. You could cite him all day long as an expert. He was also being funded by Exxon to deny Climate Change.  He was also in a minority of 1 or 2 percent of scientists who denied climate change. 

Ex-model Caprice having a "quote from an expert" is no persuasive argument, particularly when that single expert is (presumably) a member of the Chinese government, and not actually an expert but a spokesperson for someone called 'Wu'. 

I'd say Caprice isn't showing any understanding at all... she's repeating a thing she read from a single source, and a pretty dubious source at that. 

She repeatedly emphasises how "This is a spokesperson from Wu."

Okay, Caprice, but so what?  

 

*Presumably either Chinese Vice Premier Wu or Chinese Health Minister Wu. 

[Ramandu]

4 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

The problem comes when an appeal to authority fallacy is used to attempt  bolster an argument, as in the case of ex-model Caprice here. 

When she references an article by 'Wu's spokesperson'*, she's simply parroting something she heard with no apparent understanding of anything beyond what she read by a single individual (an expert)... and as a spokesperson for (presumably) the nation of the Virus' origin it would be reasonable to assume that any commentary coming from that source (authoritarian China) would be heavily filtered and edited to fit a very specific narrative. 

I can cite a single 'expert' who will tell you that Climate Change is a Liberal hoax, perpetrated by scientists who simply use the spectre of a dying planet to get more grants. It's best to understand where that single expert is coming from... and it's usually from a place where they're being funded by oil companies. 

Roger Cohen, by all accounts a brilliant scientist and an 'expert' on climate, spent a lot of his time denying that Climate change was a thing. You could cite him all day long as an expert. He was also being funded by Exxon to deny Climate Change.  He was also in a minority of 1 or 2 percent of scientists who denied climate change. 

Ex-model Caprice having a "quote from an expert" is no persuasive argument, particularly when that single expert is (presumably) a member of the Chinese government, and not actually an expert but a spokesperson for someone called 'Wu'. 

I'd say Caprice isn't showing any understanding at all... she's repeating a thing she read from a single source, and a pretty dubious source at that. 

She repeatedly emphasises how "This is a spokesperson from Wu."

Okay, Caprice, but so what?  

 

*Presumably either Chinese Vice Premier Wu or Chinese Health Minister Wu. 

I'm not saying Caprice is particularly wise. She may be an idiot or a genius, I've no idea, and don't really care. I'm saying that public experts are very fallible. And they often speak with an authority and confidence they haven't earned. 

How do you tell a real expert from a blagger? How do you tell if someone is speaking outside of their area of expertise? Saying "just trust the guy with letters after his name" isn't much better than saying "don't trust any experts".