Coronavirus

[phart]

7 minutes ago, romanticscot said:

I personally found this to be disgusting. There is no reason, well medical anyway that children should be given medicines that are not fully tested, for a disease that they are at so low risk at catching on a mass scale. 

What specific test haven't been done? I'm not familiar with what the tests that should have been done, what ones have not been done?

Also kids (0-14) are the largest cohort of positive per capita and have been for a while now

 

Also here's Big Bird doing the same in 1972

 

[romanticscot]

2 minutes ago, phart said:

What specific test haven't been done? I'm not familiar with what the tests that should have been done, what ones have not been done?

Also kids (0-14) are the largest cohort of positive per capita and have been for a while now

 

Also here's Big Bird doing the same in 1972

 

What testing method is used to provide this data? 

[phart]

Just now, romanticscot said:

What testing method is used to provide this data? 

Sorry I don't understand the question. They used a standard randomised testing procedure with three stages of trials.

You said the medicines were not fully tested, i'm asking you what tests need to be done so they are fully tested. I'm assuuming you;d know since you said they weren't fully tested.

[phart]

The data in the graph if that's what you're asking is found here https://www.opendata.nhs.scot/dataset/covid-19-in-scotland

I took a screenshot from here https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/

Edited November 10, 2021 by phart

[romanticscot]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

Sorry I don't understand the question. They used a standard randomised testing procedure with three stages of trials.

You said the medicines were not fully tested, i'm asking you what tests need to be done so they are fully tested. I'm assuuming you;d know since you said they weren't fully tested.

I understand your question now, I used to work for a life sciences company. I would want atleast 5 years of clinical trials and safety data but even that is a short time, 7-10 would be better.

[romanticscot]

9 minutes ago, phart said:

The data in the graph if that's what you're asking is found here https://www.opendata.nhs.scot/dataset/covid-19-in-scotland

I took a screenshot from here https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/

Cases provide herd immunity, and we would expect higher cases of a respiratory illness when immune systems are at their most vulnerable in the winter months. 

[phart]

Just now, romanticscot said:

Cases provide herd immunity, and we would expect higher cases of a respiratory illness when immune systems are at their most vulnerable in the winter months. 

I was just answering the claim "that they are at so low risk at catching on a mass scale.  "

When in fact the 0-14 cohort is catching it more than any other group.

[romanticscot]

1 minute ago, phart said:

I was just answering the claim "that they are at so low risk at catching on a mass scale.  "

When in fact the 0-14 cohort is catching it more than any other group.

Right, and according to the data you shared above there has been less than 30 deaths since this began in the age bracket if 0-30. Mass Vaccination is not warranted for this age group because the risk outweighs the benefit.

I would want to know the testing method used to diagnose the cases in the metrics you shared to factor in probable false positives. 

[phart]

4 minutes ago, romanticscot said:

I understand your question now, I used to work for a life sciences company. I would want atleast 5 years of clinical trials and safety data but even that is a short time, 7-10 would be better.

So you'd not vaccinate anyone and court the tens of millions of extra deaths. All on an arbitrary timeframe.

Phase III normally takes the longest but that's cause you have a lot less data, however during the pandemic you had so much data you could judge effectiveness a lot quicker.

We'd still be 6 years from rolling out a vaccine on that ideal timeframe.

I'm happy with the current timeframe. I could be foolhardy and in 2 years we'll all start dropping dead from the vaccine , i guess like any real life experiment we can wait and see.

[phart]

Just now, romanticscot said:

Right, and according to the data you shared above there has been less than 30 deaths since this began in the age bracket if 0-30. Mass Vaccination is not warranted for this age group because the risk outweighs the benefit.

I would want to know the testing method used to diagnose the cases in the metrics you shared to factor in probable false positives. 

No one spoke about deaths till you brough it up now "that they are at so low risk at catching on a mass scale. " was what we were speaking about. I think we're running at something like 93.6% of LFT are backed up by PCR testing. This will be spread the same across all cohorts so even if there was 50% false positives they'd still be the largest cohort. This is basic maths.

I'm not debating whether children should be vaccinated i'm saying what you stated above in bold is just wrong according to the figures.

[romanticscot]

Just now, phart said:

So you'd not vaccinate anyone and court the tens of millions of extra deaths. All on an arbitrary timeframe.

Phase III normally takes the longest but that's cause you have a lot less data, however during the pandemic you had so much data you could judge effectiveness a lot quicker.

We'd still be 6 years from rolling out a vaccine on that ideal timeframe.

I'm happy with the current timeframe. I could be foolhardy and in 2 years we'll all start dropping dead from the vaccine , i guess like any real life experiment we can wait and see.

To answer your question I would allow people more information and allow them to make a properly informed decision , not suppress other treatments, not mandating cures and allow the Dr and Patient discussion to function as it always has. I know family members who took the jabs earlier this year had no idea what stage of testing they were in, nor any understanding of the typical time frame for clinical testing, you cannot simulate time and call that a long term safety study. 

[phart]

What's been suppressed?

Also wouldn't these other treatments need to be tested for 10 years clinically in the doses and cohorts for them to be safe. We can't use anything until we have 7 years of clinical data i thought.

[phart]

more real world data

 

[thplinth]

‘I’m a doctor and I fear we will never regain the public’s trust after Covid’

In some circles, both academic and cultural, even questioning one of these ‘scientific facts’ will result in ostracism and derision. That’s always been the dominant attitude of any consensus of scientists, and one imagines it likely always will be. Considering the current and growing misgivings of the trustworthiness of scientific and medical authorities, perhaps two pieces of advice might be useful.

First, to the general public: science is a process of epistemology – that is, how things can be known – which is incredibly useful, but limited in scope. The scientific method depends on an experiment being repeatable and measurable. Hence, scientific inquiry is definitionally limited to the present and the material. Beware any ‘scientific expert’ making dispositive assertions about the past or the future and attempting to shout everyone else out of the room.

Second, to physicians, researchers, and the scientific and medical communities at large: approach your roles with some humility. Even children have immediate access to pocket computers, with libraries of information. Yes, that includes piles of misinformation that need to be corrected. That said, you do no one favors, yourselves most of all, when you overstep the bounds of experimental knowledge and adopt the roles of priests, prophets, and oracles. Your collective lack of humility, as we’ve seen over and over in the context of Covid-19, can result in real harm. 

For the public to regain its faith in science, scientists must cast off the arrogant authority that at this point is tattered and torn anyway.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/539814-covid-doctor-science-trust-lost/

Hear hear.

[phart]

Ah the Doctor who belives wholesale the bible is a statement of fact(he is a creationist) and thinks "Also, half-angel giants riding dinosaurs is almost certainly a thing that really happened." is lecturing people on science, how quaint.

"As a Christian, my axiom is “the Bible is authoritative in every respect,” and its explanatory power as relates to everything from natural history to human behavior is immensely satisfactory."

Doesn't believe in evoluton either.

"I’ll say this: the idea that the self-replicating, self-healing, autoregulating, sentient machine that is the human body is a product of chance mutations of a spontaneously-arising functional DNA/protein interface is scientific nonsense"

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by phart

[phart]

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by phart

[Lamia]

12 hours ago, phart said:

Ah the Doctor who belives wholesale the bible is a statement of fact(he is a creationist) and thinks "Also, half-angel giants riding dinosaurs is almost certainly a thing that really happened." is lecturing people on science, how quaint.

"As a Christian, my axiom is “the Bible is authoritative in every respect,” and its explanatory power as relates to everything from natural history to human behavior is immensely satisfactory."

Doesn't believe in evoluton either.

"I’ll say this: the idea that the self-replicating, self-healing, autoregulating, sentient machine that is the human body is a product of chance mutations of a spontaneously-arising functional DNA/protein interface is scientific nonsense"

 

Oh come on now, don't get personal! 

[phart]

1 minute ago, Lamia said:

Oh come on now, don't get personal! 

Just doing my own research.

It's the classic Stewart Lee point.

 

[thplinth]

12 hours ago, phart said:

Ah the Doctor...

So still infinitely more qualified to voice an opinion on the subject than a pair of gobshites on the tamb then. 😀 

Attacking someone for their faith. Gosh Feynman would be so pwoud. 

[phart]

infinitely aye, there's that innumeracy rearing it's head again.

Their beliefs, you want to batter folk cause of their political beliefs while moralising against someone laughing at someones scientific beliefs. Incoherent hypocrisy.

Weird how it's suddenly an appeal to authority when suddenly it's a random anaesthetist saying something, but when almost every evolutionary biologist or virologist, immunologist etc says it's a conspiracy. A cover-up. More incoherent irrationality. But I guess that is what happens when a facebook algorithm has picked your world-view for you.

 

 

 

[thplinth]

It is pretty funny getting lectures from people who, when you do post an article that raises many points, completely ignores the content of the article written and instead cheers on yet another ad hominem argument against the author. This time for having religious beliefs. I guess that makes you a bad person in their eyes.

It is practically every single time as well. Over and over... how many ad hominems is it now. It must be dozens and dozens by now... That is pure sophistry and that (amongst other things) is why their is no interaction with your 'inputs'.

Bonhoeffer was bang on the money, don't argue with them as they will attack you. As we can see, over and over and over... (it is very boring as well, also worth mentioning).

[thplinth]

On 11/9/2021 at 1:12 PM, Lamia said:

It was a genuine question which yet again you avoid answering. Think that is the answer in itself right there.

😀 FFS do I have to spell it out... I was following Bonhoeffer's advice. But you managed to attack me anyway as he predicted.

He's good I'll give him that (old Bonhoeffer that is, another religious man, so obviously evil and unworthy of any opinions, but hard to do an ad hominem on, as he was executed by the Nazis in a concentration camp, must be very frustrating 😀.)

[phart]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

It is pretty funny getting lectures from people who, when you do post an article that raises many points, completely ignores the content of the article written and instead cheers on yet another ad hominem argument against the author. This time for having religious beliefs. I guess that makes you a bad person in their eyes.

It is practically every single time as well. Over and over... how many ad hominems is it now. It must be dozens and dozens by now... That is pure sophistry and that (amongst other things) is why their is no interaction with your 'inputs'.

Bonhoeffer was bang on the money, don't argue with them as they will attack you. As we can see, over and over and over... (it is very boring as well, also worth mentioning).

Always the victim thplinth eh?

I've engaged with hundreds of points in this thread.

You on the other hand haven't. As I said you're wanting folk to batter folk for their beliefs then get all moral when it suits. Telling folk to stick to their guns on the vaccine while getting it yourself.

Moaning about ad hominems while posting

I know you prefer it when it is the same half dozen circle jerks all tugging each other off but try to be more tolerant of other opinions."

"My impression of them is they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Useful idiots perhaps is too strong but it is definitely heading that way quickly. They think they know best and that arrogance empowers them to tell you what to do what to think, to control your life. I find them a bit creepy. "

and that's just on the lhe last page

A huge hypocrite with a primitive world view.

It's why a youtube video convinced you the earth used to be tiny and that's why dinosaurs were big cause the earth grows through time. Or why when folk were posting in the burds you'd love to ride thread you shat into your own hand and it posted it on here with the title "turds you'd love to shite"

But sure you're the lone light of reason in a turgid sea of blind idiots.

 

[thplinth]

The victims are obviously the people who are the target of the ad hominems. Surprised you cant work that out. In this most recent case the author of the RT article I posted above. Poor guy.

I did say if YOU want to get personal the WE can... and I gave my personal observations in return. That is not just one way feedback as some folk seem to think. As I said though I would prefer not make it personal at all... but I cant stop other people doing it and when they do I'm going to (reluctantly) state how I see it. 

As for the ad hominems I don't have a problem with you doing it. It is clearly your main weapon given the frequency you use them. I honestly don't care for that reason, that you do use them so much, it becomes ridiculous... But equally you have to understand why I don't accept you as someone I can trust as an impartial and unbiased source. If that was the case why all the ad hominems, the two things don't reconcile for me and it is ironically nothing personal, it just answers Lamia's question.

Here is the test though. Let's see who has to use ad hominems next in this discussion or something similar. I am excluding humour and being deliberately rude (for any reason). Let's also see who feels the need to personalize it again for whatever reason and let's see who follows who about from post to post for whatever reason. We don't need to look at the past, let's just look at the future.

Now can we get back on topic, thanks.

[phart]

I'm posting and answering in this thread, you're the one who took a post from this thread i posted and then moved it to others thread to , so i guess we have our answer.