COVID THREAD

[Delayed 461]

11 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It's not difficult to be right more often than the "experts" advising the government.

One would only have to make it 50/50 correct and one would still beat them by a HUGE margin :

 

Mid March 2020 : "We could have half a million Covid deaths in the UK"
19 March 2020 : "12 weeks to flatten the curve".

Late March : "This virus is indiscriminate"
November 2020 : "Modelling suggests 4,000 deaths per day worst case scenario".
Spring 2021 : "Get double vaccinated to get out of Covid and back to normal".
July 2021 : "Freedom day is irresponsible, we could have 200K cases per day by August".
11 Dec 21 : "Omicron could cause 75,000 deaths in England by end of April"

15 Dec 21 : "Omicron likely to be the biggest threat of Covid pandemic so far".

 

The ONLY thing I do not understand is why anyone listens to them any more.....

Thank you Captain Hindsight. You should be the Labour Party Leader with the way you advise what should've happened after the event. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Anna B said:

No, I don't think it's silly at all. There's no doubt that people who haven't been vaccinated are being villified and blamed for the ongoing pandemic which is unfair to say the least, verging on the vindictive, not to say ridiculous

Which has precisely nothing to with the the Times article or anything I wrote.

 

Quote

 

It's probably true that those who have had 2 or 3 jabs will have only built up 'second rate' immunity, and will probably need at least one jab every year, possibly more.

Whereas those who haven't had the jab and caught Covid will have built themselves the Rolls Royce of natural immunity in their system's which may well last them a lifetime.

That is just so far from being true that it's actually laugh out loud funny.  Can't be arsed to do links, because you clearly don't read the responses to your posts let alone any linked articles, but that is just... something else.

 

People who have had covid and then are double vaccinated produce an increased level of neutralising antibodies (infection prevention) and they might be more potent (better at binding their targets).  That's unsurprising due to immune memory/maturation etc etc.  There's evidence coming out right now that that enhanced immunity might wane in the manner previously observed.

 

Vaccination also has the advantage - and stop me if you've heard this little gem before - of not also producing an immune response that's stimulated by a virus that's alive, kicking and would like very much indeed to incapacitate or kill you.  Christ on a bloody bike.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Guest
spacing

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, fools said:

ooh strawman, Telegram, qanon, dark-web ..  careful of those words, bit of a pattern developing.

 

I responded to your posts, and the responses to it. It amuses (and bemuses) me that people take it all in without question, hence the lol.

 

There is no tangent. or lurching about - It's all part of a pattern to ostracise the unvaccinated, a very unpleasant turn of events. Calling many of them extremists, far-right, racist, mysogynist, calling for punishment, is not what I expect from people in positions of power.

 

I used the word 'strawman'. (because your response was).  Don't think I used any of the others, but the article was indeed about Telegram and its use by dangerous extremists.

 

You're the one who's talking about the unvaccinated in the same context as the antivaxers.  Perhaps you should have a little think about that.

[fools 447]

This thread and the conversation around the world conflates the two all the time, and you know it. You've just stuck an "unhinged" in too for good measure.

 

You should really be more questioning of your news sources, it's very naive to think there is no angle behind it, look at the source of the stream, how did this news story come about and why, who's behind it.

[onewheeldave 22]

20 minutes ago, Hecate said:

 

 

Vaccination also has the advantage - and stop me if you've heard this little gem before - of not also producing an immune response that's stimulated by a virus that's alive, kicking and would like very much indeed to incapacitate or kill you.  Christ on a bloody bike.

True, but irrelevant to the point being made, which is that natural immunity conferred by actually catching the virus may be more protective than that conferred by the vaccine.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

47 minutes ago, fools said:

Come back when you understand the words source and narrative.

 

Until then, enjoy your humble pie, it's nice with custard, but don't forget to brush your teeth before bed.

 

For the last time, the source of the narrative was the HSA, a part of government. It's there inside the quotes for all to see.

 

nighty night.

In a BBC discussion an opposition MP replies to  questions from an interviewer.

She does not represent the Government, she is not an employer of the Government, or any body associated with the Government. She does speak as experienced surgeon and manager. 

 

You could always provide real factual Health Security agency sources instead of interpretations of interpretations.

[fools 447]

7 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

In a BBC discussion an opposition MP replies to  questions from an interviewer.

She does not represent the Government, she is not an employer of the Government, or any body associated with the Government. She does speak as experienced surgeon and manager. 

 

You could always provide real factual Health Security agency sources instead of interpretations of interpretations.

yes i could, but it's more fun to let you stew and make a fool of yourself. As I said earlier, you don't decide my schedule. If you're too lazy to look for yourself, tough.

 

She is quoting a government agency, (wrongly as it happens (you'd know that if you'd read the posts from last month)), the name of that agency is in her words, it couldn't be any clearer, so why are you questioning me. It was in every news outlet at the time, you should pay more attention to current events.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by fools

[Annie Bynnol 612]

45 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

True, but irrelevant to the point being made, which is that natural immunity conferred by actually catching the virus may be more protective than that conferred by the vaccine.

and then again may not

OR

contribute to a broader range of responses to incoming viruses.

 

This article published on the 7th in Nature discusses some of the links between variants an vaccination:

Timing is key for some Omicron immunity

A laboratory study from Japan suggests that COVID-19 vaccination followed by a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection months later offers greater protection against the Omicron variant than does vaccination with infection soon after. Vaccinated people who have had an infection are thought to gain strong immunity, at least for a time. The finding implies that countries that saw large numbers of non-Omicron infections in late 2021 have an advantage as 2022 rolls in with the new variant. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Nature 

Good news?

Edited January 10, 2022 by Annie Bynnol
Additional info

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

True, but irrelevant to the point being made, which is that natural immunity conferred by actually catching the virus may be more protective than that conferred by the vaccine.

It isn't irrelevant if it's a potential consequence of infection. Which it is. 

 

22 minutes ago, fools said:

This thread and the conversation around the world conflates the two all the time, and you know it. You've just stuck an "unhinged" in too for good measure.

The conversation might.   I didn't.  The article didn't.  The people quoted in that article - and there's a shedload more than I quoted in my post - are unhinged, which you acknowledged yourself in your second response to my post.

 

Quote

You should really be more questioning of your news sources, it's very naive to think there is no angle behind it, look at the source of the stream, how did this news story come about and why, who's behind it.

Unhinged sociopathic loons are posting unhinged sociopathic looniness on social media.   That's just a thing that's true.  You can go and have a splash about in it yourself if you like.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Guest
merged post spacing

[fools 447]

how many, divide it by the population of the world, then tell me it's proportionate to introduce the matter into this thread.

 

no interest in splashing about thanks, it's a promotional narrative (I don't know any alternative words to assuage your need for variation, sorry)

Edited January 10, 2022 by fools

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, fools said:

how many, divide it by the population of the world, then tell me it's proportionate to introduce the matter into this thread.

 

no interest in splashing about thanks, it's a promotional narrative (I don't know any alternative words to assuage your need for variation, sorry)

Too late, the antivax subject has been roaming free in this thread for quite some time.  But if you have any other naughty subjects you think we shouldn't touch on in this thread, do make a list and we can go through it once I've had my dinner.

[fools 447]

There is one, but I don't know if it's true (for sure) yet, so I won't mention it.

 

The Iron maiden example is very "Brass Eye"

Edited January 10, 2022 by fools