Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - Read OP for Mod Warnings

Whatsisname · 15-11-2020 05:06PM

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Please use your Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, Snapchat, etc and the likes of these chat forums, to inform and correct those not aware of this, or do not follow the mainstream media.

stephenjmcd · 15-11-2020 05:10PM

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. That is a good read and I commend it. It could also be added to the key posts, along with some of my own, as primer reading for contributors before they post further on this boards.ie.

It agrees with my analysis, and good to see this perspective starting to sink in.

Your posts are primer reading ??
Your analysis??

Do you believe what you even write.

Sorry but how many times do you need to be called out for posting such utter nonsense, how is your opinion inferior to anyone else's that it should be primer reading.

Yet again your pretending to have some sort of inside knowledge

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:11PM

darconio wrote: »

Not sure why people keep ignoring the fact that the death toll was inflated to justify the lockdown

https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/fi...9-epidemic.pdf

As of mid April, in line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidance, death reporting was extended to include deaths both in patients with probable COVID-19 in addition to deaths among confirmed cases.
By definition, such deaths must result from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 (for example, trauma).

The of/with thing is a terrible self serving and incorrect argument.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:12PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Your posts are primer reading ??
Your analysis??

Do you believe what you even write.

Sorry but how many times do you need to be called out for posting such utter nonsense, how is your opinion inferior to anyone else's that it should be primer reading.

Yet again your pretending to have some sort of inside knowledge

What do people think they are "calling out"?

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:14PM

Whatsisname wrote: »

At least this confirms that anti restrictions types don't care about their seniors despite all the moral pontifications they come out with.

stephenjmcd · 15-11-2020 05:14PM

nofools wrote: »

What do people think they are "calling out"?

I dont want to risk any bans here from mods but said poster has been across multiple threads portraying to have some sort of inside knowledge into decsion making in this country with regards to covid and that their opinion is inferior to that of others.

The last of what I'll say on the matter as I don't want to derail the thread or waste mods time here.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:15PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I dont want to risk any bans here from mods but said poster has been across multiple threads portraying to have some sort of inside knowledge into decsion making in this country with regards to covid and that their opinion is inferior to that of others.

I would say that their opinion sounds much more learned yes.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:18PM

darconio wrote: »

You can dismiss conveniently everything as a conspiracy theory, the facts are that, from this situation, pharma companies will gain billions.

You sure on that?

I could be wrong but i have hears a few times that vaccines will be produced on a not for profit basis.

Does anyone have the facts?

Whatsisname · 15-11-2020 05:20PM

nofools wrote: »

At least this confirms that anti restrictions types don't care about their seniors despite all the moral pontifications they come out with.

Yeah thats exactly what I was suggesting alright, not nearly to do with anyone saying Bebo is relevant today. Take a day off.

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:20PM

hmmm wrote: »

1. We're going to have 3 relatively effective vaccines (maybe very effective) by year end, with J&J to follow in the New Year. That means limited supply at the beginning of year, but plenty of supply mid-year

I can only assume that you do not really understand how vaccines work or how corona viruses evolve.

There is a very high probability that any vaccine manufactured right now will have little or no effectiveness ofn the most prevalent strain of the virus in 6-12 months time, etc.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:22PM

walus wrote: »

It is you who is twisting facts into arguments about the ‘obscenely rich’. In my original post on the investors standing behind the mRNA technology I simply said:

In summary I presented a statement of facts and later supported by an article that proves the same. Period.

You have made unnecessary and false assumptions that created all this noise.

You are backtracking hugely. What was with the forbes link?

Your entire argument is on very shakey ground and you are presenting misheld opinion as fact. Big big difference.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:24PM

skallywag wrote: »

.

There is a very high probability that any vaccine manufactured right now will have little or no effectiveness ofn the most prevalent strain of the virus in 6-12 months time, etc.

You cannot say that with any certainty what so ever. Same as we can't say much about long term effects.

My understanding is that the genetic drift is slow enough to support vaccination in principle but I'm open to correction as I haven't kept up with the latest.

walus · 15-11-2020 05:24PM

g

nofools wrote: »

You sure on that?

I could be wrong but i have hears a few times that vaccines will be produced on a not for profit basis.

Does anyone have the facts?

Sure they will. They will also assume liability for the side effects.

Would Pfizer stock price have gone up if they were to give the vaccine away for free?

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:26PM

nofools wrote: »

You cannot say that with any certainty what so ever.

Of course not.

That's why I wrote 'very high probability' ...

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:28PM

walus wrote: »

g

Sure they will. They will also assume liability for the side effects.

Would Pfizer stock price have gone up if they were to give the vaccine away for free?

Stock price is just sentiment and how the wind is blowing that day, little reflection on the profitability short term.

I am not happy about the indemnity either as it removes skin in the game but it doesn't make your hyperbole about Bill Gates and nefarious groups any less fantastical.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:29PM

skallywag wrote: »

Of course not.

That's why I wrote 'very high probability' ...

Why is it a "very high" probability so?

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:30PM

nofools wrote: »

I could be wrong but i have hears a few times that vaccines will be produced on a not for profit basis.

Do you realise how much Pfizer have gambled on this, considering the amount of vials which they are currently producing while there still is not even FAA approval under the belt?

They most certainly will be looking for their pound of flesh, and rightly so.

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:34PM

nofools wrote: »

Why is it a "very high" probability so?

There is a distinct difference between something being 'certain' and having a 'very high probability'.

An example : 'there is a very high probability that the Coronavirus which we are all most familiar with, i.e. the 'common cold', will have transitioned to a form which is so dramatically different from it's form today, that any vaccine created today shall be useless in 6-12 months'.

A statement which has been shown to be true year in year out. Is it a 'certainty'? No. Is the probability very high? Yes.

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:36PM

MelbourneMan wrote: »

It could also be added to the key posts, along with some of my own, as primer reading for contributors before they post further on this boards.ie.

Ah man .........

hmmm · 15-11-2020 05:36PM

nofools wrote: »

My understanding is that the genetic drift is slow enough to support vaccination in principle but I'm open to correction as I haven't kept up with the latest.

Yes. So far it appears antigenic drift is very slow, and the vaccines which are expressing the full-length spike protein can cope with all existing mutations (including the so-called "mink" mutations). So little risk at present of the vaccines suddenly stopping working, but it emphasises how important it is to try and get as many people vaccinated as possible (and probably try and reduce the numbers of mink being farmed).

Astra-zeneca (Oxford) vaccine is at cost, and less than €10. Pfizer is being priced at about €40. Moderna is expected to be similar. The pricing is pretty normal, and exceptionally low actually on the Oxford side.

walus · 15-11-2020 05:37PM

n

nofools wrote: »

Stock price is just sentiment and how the wind is blowing that day, little reflection on the profitability short term.

I am not happy about the indemnity either as it removes skin in the game but it doesn't make your hyperbole about Bill Gates and nefarious groups any less fantastical.

A 9% jump in a day is a strong sentiment of not how the wind is blowing that day but a strong sentiment for future profits.

Edit: it was actually a 15% price jump.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:39PM

skallywag wrote: »

There is a distinct difference between something being 'certain' and having a 'very high probability'.

An example : 'there is a very high probability that the Coronavirus which we are all most familiar with, i.e. the 'common cold', will have transitioned to a form which is so dramatically different from it's form today, that any vaccine created today shall be useless in 6-12 months'.

A statement which has been shown to be true year in year out. Is it a 'certainty'? No. Is the probability very high? Yes.

By the same reasoning something you have no possibility of knowing right now cannot be assigned a very high probability.

There is some probability and we don't know yet how much.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:42PM

walus wrote: »

n

A 9% jump in a day is a strong sentiment of not how the wind is blowing that day but a strong sentiment for future profits.

In a world where unknown possibilities become absolutes sure but in reality there is a lot more to it than what you are trying to deduce to suit your argument.

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:42PM

nofools wrote: »

By the same reasoning something you have no possibility of knowing right now cannot be assigned a very high probability

You do not seem to be getting the whole 'probability' thing. If I knew it right now the probability would be a certainty!

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:44PM

skallywag wrote: »

You do not seem to be getting the whole 'probability' thing. If I knew it right now the probability would be a certainty!

You based your certainty on something that happens year out in year but yet we have had never covid 19 or tried to vaccinate against it.

I know the basics of probability enough to know that makes little sense.

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:46PM

nofools wrote: »

You based your certainty on something that happens year in year put yet we have nwver jad

OK, I'm really starting to think that you are just not following my argument.

I never mentioned 'certainty'. You did. I have consistently said that certainty is not possible, but it's rather a high probability.

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:47PM

skallywag wrote: »

OK, I'm really starting to think that you are just not following my argument.

I never mentioned 'certainty'. You did. I have consistently said that certainty is not possible, but its rather a high probability.

Ok yes, i should have said your high probability hunch.

Still without basis

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:55PM

nofools wrote: »

Still without basis

The vast majority of members of the Corona family cannot be effectively vaccinated against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus

Fifth sentence.

The common cold is the most obvious example.

How many years experience have we of the 'common cold' ? Yet there is still no vaccination.

Are you honestly suggesting that a new Corona virus which was unknown until less than 12 months ago will have an effective vaccine within less than 6 months of development with a less than a 'high probability' of failure?

nofools · 15-11-2020 05:58PM

hmmm wrote: »

Yes. So far it appears antigenic drift is very slow, and the vaccines which are expressing the full-length spike protein can cope with all existing mutations (including the so-called "mink" mutations). So little risk at present of the vaccines suddenly stopping working, but it emphasises how important it is to try and get as many people vaccinated as possible (and probably try and reduce the numbers of mink being farmed).

Astra-zeneca (Oxford) vaccine is at cost, and less than €10. Pfizer is being priced at about €40. Moderna is expected to be similar. The pricing is pretty normal, and exceptionally low actually on the Oxford side.

Your posts are a breath of fresh air so first of all thanks and you seem to be well informed on what is actually happening.

Can I ask what is the plan for places where that wouldn't be affordable?

When is global immunity envisioned or projected?

skallywag · 15-11-2020 05:59PM

nofools wrote: »

When is global immunity envisioned or projected?

Is that a serious question? Or are you taking the piss?

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - Read OP for Mod Warnings