Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Chekhov 488]

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

As a relatively newcomer to the thread has Chekhov read much of the thousand pages or so of  past comments and references?

Basically never the twain shall meet,but I am happy to say that the twain is represented by 90%/10% in favour of the vaccine.

There is little if any evidence that either side is swayed by the other  so as we progress into the third part of this subject the basic issue remains that in the U.K. it remains your choice.

Every day is a school day

Or in fact read even the last few pages, where Chekhov repeatedly states he has been vaccinated and would advise anyone over 60, and even over about 40, to get vaccinated.... In fact I think people at any significant risk from Covid have a duty to be vaccinated (though it is their choice) because the lower we get the death toll the less ammunition there is for these draconian suppression policies.

 

However, you are correct that never the twain shall meet. 

Pro suppressionists have closed minds to any evidence that suppression is ineffective and/or not worth the social damage it causes.

Similarly those against the suppression measures tend to only take notice of evidence that supports their position. At least I admit it the latter, where as many of those on the other side do not......

But why is this  ?

Well I think this is because this is not about the science, other than the basic case fatality rate (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 200) and the average age of those sadly dying with or from Covid. Pretty much from the start it is about four things :

 

1 - People's risk aversion and their knowledge of risk probability.
2 - People's attitude to personal freedom, and, more significantly, to other people's personal freedom.
3 - People's attitude to the relative importance of length of life v quality of life.
4 - People's attitude to, and acceptance of, death.

 

Of all of them I suspect number 4 is the most significant. It is an historical trend for people to be less and less accepting of death. People have less and less to do with it and fear it more and more. I sometimes get the impression relatively few people have reconciled themselves to the fact they are going to die.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Chekhov

[Chekhov 488]

49 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Why [vaccinating people at no significant risk from Covid] a waste? Doesn't it reduce the amount of virus in circulation - vaccination is about protecting others as well as yourself.

Vaccines are not that effective at stopping infection, but I thought it was pretty much accepted we were all going to catching Covid sooner or later (other than people who just don't seem to be susceptible to it poss 10% ). Once you accept that as a likelihood much of this current strategy is exposed as probably a waste of time, and certainly not worth the damage to society and/or the economy. 

 

The Times 22 Nov 21 (p12)

Sir Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, agreed with Bell that is was unlikely Britain would follow Europe's path in part because it has had such a high caseload since the summer. He added that reaching a point where the virus no longer spread was "not going to happen" and that it would be around for decades.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Chekhov

[Carbuncle 0]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Are you kidding !

Most of my "supporting material" is from the BBC, an organisation, if anything, biased in supporting the government's suppression strategy.

 

And I object to the term "covid sceptic", it implies I think Covid is  a hoax, which I do not. I am not even an "antii vaxxer" and have been vaccinated myself, though I think vaccinating people under 30, and certainly under 20, is immoral, as is forcing people to be vaccinated.

I wasn't kidding but if you notice I pointed out that tops (top4718) had behaved badly. For what it is worth you have posted two bits of supporting evidence (the Spectator graphs recaptioned from a research paper and the Ioannidis paper) which did not support what you were saying.

 

The Ioannadis paper is (1) junk and (2) does not say what you implied it said. My junk claim is not on the basis that I, an anonymous poster, have examined his analysis and in my opinion it is flawed but rather that his main conclusion (p10) that infection fatality rates (IFRs) are much lower than generally thought at less than 0.2% for most places is off, way off. My reasoning is that quite a few places (including the UK and US) have lost greater than 0.2% of their entire population to covid and some places have lost very considerably more than 0.2% of their entire population. You yourself have suggested an (unvaccinated) IFR of 0.5-1%. Suspicious right? You're quoting a paper to establish a particular fact but if you had paid close attention you would know that the paper was simply not consistent with your own broad outlook. Secondly you had been asserting that poorer countries have had lower IFRs because of younger populations. I said we don't really know they have had lower IFRs. You said "The 1 in 450 IFR figure [from the Ioannidis paper] was for countries with young age profiles, where have you seen stats which say it is lower (i.e. worse) ?" But now, after a severe prodding, you are saying that (p7) of the paper gives a figure of approximately 1/450 ... except now it is not for poorer countries in particular. So a paper that has proved to be wrong in its conclusions, contradicts your own broad outlook on IFR also fails to do the specific job you intended for it which was to support your contention that poorer countries have had lower IFRs. Do you see why I might suspect that you had not read the paper?

 

It is of course tedious to work through a sequence of posts in the way I have just done when one could adopt the charitable explanation that you (or I) have made a minor slip. Unfortunately, its your slip and its one of a number and I am not feeling particularly charitable on account of seeing tops behave badly over a significant period.

[Longcol 592]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Vaccines are not that effective at stopping infection, but I thought it was pretty much accepted we were all going to catching Covid sooner or later (other than people who just don't seem to be susceptible to it poss 10% ). Once you accept that as a likelihood much of this current strategy is exposed as probably a waste of time, and certainly not worth the damage to society and/or the economy. 

 

 

Vaccines have reduced hospitalisations and deaths considerably.  Would you like hospitalisations and deaths back at January levels?  Or no doubt higher without lockdown and vaccinations.

 

You seem keen to vaccinate the thirld world .

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/999/?tab=comments#comment-8473803

 

A waste of time?

[melthebell 862]

Masks it is again then ****ers

[The_DADDY 3,453]

12 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Masks it is again then ****ers

For some maybe. 

[melthebell 862]

3 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

For some maybe. 

selfish

[The_DADDY 3,453]

4 minutes ago, melthebell said:

selfish

Meh 

[top4718 838]

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

I wasn't kidding but if you notice I pointed out that tops (top4718) had behaved badly. For what it is worth you have posted two bits of supporting evidence (the Spectator graphs recaptioned from a research paper and the Ioannidis paper) which did not support what you were saying.

 

The Ioannadis paper is (1) junk and (2) does not say what you implied it said. My junk claim is not on the basis that I, an anonymous poster, have examined his analysis and in my opinion it is flawed but rather that his main conclusion (p10) that infection fatality rates (IFRs) are much lower than generally thought at less than 0.2% for most places is off, way off. My reasoning is that quite a few places (including the UK and US) have lost greater than 0.2% of their entire population to covid and some places have lost very considerably more than 0.2% of their entire population. You yourself have suggested an (unvaccinated) IFR of 0.5-1%. Suspicious right? You're quoting a paper to establish a particular fact but if you had paid close attention you would know that the paper was simply not consistent with your own broad outlook. Secondly you had been asserting that poorer countries have had lower IFRs because of younger populations. I said we don't really know they have had lower IFRs. You said "The 1 in 450 IFR figure [from the Ioannidis paper] was for countries with young age profiles, where have you seen stats which say it is lower (i.e. worse) ?" But now, after a severe prodding, you are saying that (p7) of the paper gives a figure of approximately 1/450 ... except now it is not for poorer countries in particular. So a paper that has proved to be wrong in its conclusions, contradicts your own broad outlook on IFR also fails to do the specific job you intended for it which was to support your contention that poorer countries have had lower IFRs. Do you see why I might suspect that you had not read the paper?

 

It is of course tedious to work through a sequence of posts in the way I have just done when one could adopt the charitable explanation that you (or I) have made a minor slip. Unfortunately, its your slip and its one of a number and I am not feeling particularly charitable on account of seeing tops behave badly over a significant period.

Just remember that whatever scorn you pour on so called "evidence" against the narrative that the ones you are putting the most trust in t are Boris Johnson and the MSM, scary.

[melthebell 862]

2 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Meh 

like it or not, it is, i thought you were more decent than it tbh

[Carbuncle 0]

Just now, top4718 said:

Just remember that whatever scorn you pour on so called "evidence" against the narrative that the ones you are putting the most trust in t are Boris Johnson and the MSM, scary.

Same nonsense as usual. I am not particularly trusting of the MSM and Boris is a versatile liar.

[top4718 838]

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

Meh 

I will 100% not be wearing a mask again, not a chance. I've seen a lot of social media comments that indicate many others won't be either which is good news, we need to make a stand and end this nonsense.

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Same nonsense as usual. I am not particularly trusting of the MSM and Boris is a versatile liar.

Your doing exactly what they want you to do and actually fighting their corner for them, you've done it numerous times on this thread.