Hmmzis wrote: » It's an intersting opinion piece, very idealistic, utopian even. From a practical and realistic point of view, what they are postulating is not workable. Some aspects of the current guidelines would be great to maintain (hygiene, avoid people when sick or at least wear a mask, more focus on better nutrition and health in general).
hmmm wrote: » Their argument seems to be that even with a vaccine, there will be a relatively large group of people who are not protected (vaccine doesn't provide sterilising immunity, this group can't take a vaccine or they don't get a good response to a vaccine). That's fair. At the moment that "at risk" group is very large, so I think there is broad public support for restrictions despite the severe social and economic cost. If that group is a lot smaller after vaccines have been administered, that support is going to fray. It's very tough for the people involved and I don't have an answer myself as to what we are going to do, but it's very hard to see the public supporting the public health measures with all the social and economic costs. Hopefully we will have some alternatives we can offer this group e.g. easy ways to sterilise items coming into a home, good ppe for both them and anyone dealing directly with them, and ultimately vaccines or some other treatments which offer foolproof protection.
autumnbelle wrote: » Has China a vaccine? How are there numbers remaining so low
Ce he sin wrote: » That would rather depend on whether you mean the reported numbers or the actual numbers... The official explanation is that their lockdowns were so severe and enforced so ruthlessly that the virus was almost suppressed. South Korea and Singapore have to a lesser extent kept numbers down by contract tracing of an intrusive nature that we wouldn't tolerate - following suspected contacts by CCTV for example.
Hego Damask wrote: » Social media has a big part to play in all this hysteria too, I am convinced that if this had happened in 2000 we would just have had a few bottles of soap at shops/bars/cinemas etc and advised to social distance ...
Dionaibh wrote: » Absolutely. This is a social media pandemic. If there was no social media or internet then life would've carried on as normal. But instead we get celebrity scientists who can predict the future (no going back to normal), more celebrity scientists who say the opposite, a daily case count, doom merchants like Fauci, 24/7 hysteria, and social media deciding how things should proceed.
charlie14 wrote: » What a load of absolute drivel. U.S.A. alone to date has deaths from Covid-19 that are four times their total deaths in the Vietnam War, twice their total deaths in the First World War and half their total deaths in the Second World War. Their citizens were very aware of the death tolls during all those wars, (especially Vietnam), with no social media or internet.
Dionaibh wrote: » The number is grossly inflated. All sorts of deaths have been classified as COVID deaths. A woman from Tennessee who died 6 months ago received a letter a few weeks ago to say she'd recently tested positive for COVID-19. The US is very different from Western Europe. I'm talking more about Western Europe. Can you honestly say you would've noticed there was a pandemic in Ireland were it not for the media? I wouldn't.
charlie14 wrote: » In the U.S.A. under the present regime, if anything, the numbers are being under reported. But lets go to Western Europe. How about Italy. The health service of the province of Bergamo was totally over-run. The dead bodies were stacking up so much they had to call in the army. You think Italians would not have noticed if it wasn`t for social media or the internet ? Spain`s health service, even with lockdown, came close to being over-run. You think the Spaniards would not have noticed if it wasn`t for social media or the internet ? If we had no media then we very likely would not know we had a pandemic scale virus in our midst. But that would have meant no guidelines on how to avoid contracting it, or what restrictions there were to prevent it spreading. I`m pretty sure that we would have noticed there was something going on within a very short time after it had run rampant unimpeded and the bodies started stacking up. It that point it would have made no difference if we knew we had a pandemic or not. it would have already wiped out the vulnerable, the elderly and some of those who could care less about either as well.
Real Donald Trump wrote: » Fauci is mild in comparison to Sam Mcdonkey and Gerry Gimpleen
CruelSummer wrote: » This Forbes article re vaccines in development is quite concerning.https://www.forbes.com...tter_impression=true Their interim analysis data are based on small numbers and success in primary analysis is just 60%: “ For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group. The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent.” It also goes on to say, the aim of vaccine trials is not to prevent severe Covid cases: “ It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.” Waiting on one of these vaccines while throwing our way of life under the bus is a huge mistake in my opinion. We need to learn to live with this for the time being and protect those at risk until more reliable treatment comes on stream.
Dionaibh wrote: » Forbes and The Atlantic are particularly bad for doom and gloom. I googled "vaccine" this morning and the head of project Warp Speed was interviewed the other day and said that, based on the data they're seeing, they expect 80 to 90% effectiveness. They all say different things. I made the point that a lot of people enjoy this too much to want it to end. Every passing day confirms that for me.
is_that_so wrote: » A study on everyone's favourite drug - Hydroxychloroquine Conclusion - Had no effect on the rate of mortalityhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
plodder wrote: » Indeed. They are first generation vaccines. What do people expect when a vaccine has never been developed this quickly before? If they prevent severe cases in the vulnerable, that's good enough for me.
Dionaibh wrote: » https://techstartups.com/2020/08/24/renowned-epidemiologist-yale-professor-dr-harvey-risch-says-dr-fauci-fda-caused-deaths-hundreds-thousands-americans-saved-hyd/ Recently, Dr. Risch wrote: “There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results and 10 of them were patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.” Interesting what Professor Risch says about what Fauci did in the 1980s during the AIDS epidemic. 53 studies show positive results.
“As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions,” the letter states. “But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments.
is_that_so wrote: » Hmm, you really have it in for Fauci! The paper mentions other studies in the introduction and points out that many of them are tiny. As for Dr Risch -https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/08/16/ysph-professor-criticized-for-promoting-unproven-drug-to-treat-covid-19/
Dionaibh wrote: » I wouldn't pay much notice of that criticism. The problem with hydroxychloroquine working is that it means no need for a vaccine. Hence the war on the drug. Professor Risch is highly respected and when someone of his ilk says the evidence in favour of hydroxychloroquine is "stronger than anything else I've ever studied" then I think it's time to sit up and take notice.
timsey tiger wrote: » The only problem with hydroxychloroquine working, is that it doesn't. It was tried the world over and rejected the world over.
jackal wrote: » Hmm, New England Journal of Medicine or TechStartups.com, which should I put more faith in???
Stark wrote: » Ooh a graph. Don't worry, if you can't find it, you can always do a new one up with crayons. Funny how the one proponent of it isn't using it as a treatment at the moment, right?
