Coronavirus 666: The Number of the Delta Variant (but in an entirely scientific context)

[BruceVC]

 

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

(a joke, if you know what Pfizer is mostly known for).

No idea, what do you mean? You little tease....now Im blushing 

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, 213374U said:

Obligatory

 

I mean, it comes as no surprise that Brucie would utterly fail at reading comprehension, but I'd expect anyone else who's taking two seconds to copy paste the text from a site they are citing to, uh, glean the basic idea. It literally says so in the first sentence which you repeated: "children aged 5 and under should not be required to wear masks".

Yes, "children" technically encompasses a broad range of ages, technically from 0 to whatever happens to be the threshold for adulthood wherever you live, for which WHO naturally has different criteria. In the context of the point as it was raised, however, children should not be required to wear masks per WHO.

This is why it's so pointless to even engage on the internet. Doesn't matter how plain or evident the idea is, there's always someone immediately willing to stretch the meaning of words used and turn everything into a semantics discussion so they can be technically right. ****'s exhausting.

Oh stop being so sensitive, of course we enjoy and value  your opinion and views....even if they wrong and dont follow the science 

But you raised something about the WHO and can we question what they say? Firstly I support the WHO because they part of the UN  and they one of several institutions that operate within the auspice  of all the good work that the UN does like the World Food Program. Some people question the validity and purpose of the UN because they think the UN is just about the UNSC and the reality of veto outcomes, but the veto system does actually work and is necessary

Anyway the point being the UN is about many things and almost all of them are about helping countries in times of crisis and disaster so I do support the WHO 

But they have said several things during this pandemic I dont agree with so its okay to question them on some things, we dont need to automatically believe everything  they say about the virus when its been 18 months since the lockdowns started and Corona became a reality. We can see for ourselves the reality of the virus and how to stop the spread and their are proven methods that work 

So I am still not sure what you saying when you  say " kids dont need to wear masks in schools  according to WHO " ......you are welcome to say that as long as you not suggesting that kids dont need to wear masks in schools. This is a relatively easy point to understand and that point is " can kids spread the virus and should they therefore wear masks "

Yes, yes, yes they should wear masks, you dont need to believe me but here is a good science based article which I would encourage you read to understand the risk to kids and how its very likely they can and do spread the virus

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids

Edited August 19, 2021 by BruceVC

[213374U]

lmfao

So, here's the deal.

1) google "covid mask children"
2) paste literally the first link without even reading (it's Harvard, must be good, right?)
3) ???
4) Profit!!!

 

The single mention to masks in the article:

"In July 2021, the CDC recommended that all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to schools wear masks while indoors, regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. They also recommend that everyone who is eligible for vaccination get the vaccine."

So basically, children should wear masks because CDC recommends they wear masks so obviously they must wear masks (while indoors). CDC and WHO seem to have different opinions, and that's fine. But irrelevant. As I said, we only listen to WHO... sometimes.

Another interesting bit about this great science-based article which you obviously didn't read is as follows:

"The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."

It really is baffling how you manage to post links to shoot yourself down.

So yeah:

5 hours ago, 213374U said:

I mean, it comes as no surprise that Brucie would utterly fail at reading comprehension

 

At this point though, I honestly feel somewhat stupid. I really am doing your homework for you when I could be doing something useful. Like sleeping.

[BruceVC]

13 minutes ago, 213374U said:

lmfao

So, here's the deal.

1) google "covid mask children"
2) paste literally the first link without even reading (it's Harvard, must be good, right?)
3) ???
4) Profit!!!

 

The single mention to masks in the article:

"In July 2021, the CDC recommended that all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to schools wear masks while indoors, regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. They also recommend that everyone who is eligible for vaccination get the vaccine."

So basically, children should wear masks because CDC recommends they wear masks so obviously they must wear masks (while indoors). CDC and WHO seem to have different opinions, and that's fine. But irrelevant. As I said, we only listen to WHO... sometimes.

Another interesting bit about this great science-based article which you obviously didn't read is as follows:

"The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."

It really is baffling how you manage to post links to shoot yourself down.

So yeah:

 

At this point though, I honestly feel somewhat stupid. I really am doing your homework for you when I could be doing something useful. Like sleeping.

Of course I read the article, I would never waste your time by not reading the article and yes I did Google this particular link. That doesnt mean its not credible and I only posted it because of the exact part of the article you posted

The article as you posted it clearly says " However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."

 

Which is why I  stated in my post  "and how its very likely they can and do spread the virus " .....you will notice I used the word " likely " on purpose

So in fact you doing what you accusing me of.....not doing reading properly and not comprehending 

So there is no issue and their should be no confusion, the article clearly states that there is a  risk of kids spreading the virus. I am not sure why you still questioning that point ?

Edited August 19, 2021 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

Quote

"The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."

High viral load not necessarily correlating with symptoms and being found even in asymptomatic cases seems to be a bit of a 'delta thing'. Delta has caused high viral loads (usually still a-/ low symptomatic) even in (some) vaccinated people.

Trouble with proving transmission from those people is that trying to isolate high viral loads but a-/ low symptomatic people as vectors when you can practically guarantee anyone has also been exposed to some random hacking their lungs out, and the contact tracing is either non existent or swamped.

[BruceVC]

54 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

High viral load not necessarily correlating with symptoms and being found even in asymptomatic cases seems to be a bit of a 'delta thing'. Delta has caused high viral loads (usually still a-/ low symptomatic) even in (some) vaccinated people.

Trouble with proving transmission from those people is that trying to isolate high viral loads but a-/ low symptomatic people as vectors when you can practically guarantee anyone has also been exposed to some random hacking their lungs out, and the contact tracing is either non existent or swamped.

Do you think kids should wear mask in schools in countries that dont have high level of vaccination and have a high virus load like SA and the USA. In the UK for example masks are optional but they seem to have achieved high levels of vaccination and hospitalizations are down so you can understand their ostensibly controversial health decision

This debate for me  is not about who is right or wrong because of hubris or from a  personal perspective, its about the most effective way to end this terrible, insidious global disease

So the question of kids wearing masks should be about the science and the direct impact to the virus spread in all our countries ?

[Elerond]

12 hours ago, teknoman2 said:

I read an article today that Moderna is starting tests for an m-RNA vaccine for HIV. They have been working on it for years and testing it on animals and they start phase 1 of the tests on humans tomorrow. The first batch of volunteers are people who are completely healthy, they will have the vaccine and will be monitored for 10 months to measure the short term safety. If all goes well in phase 1, phase 2 of the testing will start after that with a broader range of test subjects to see the effects on people of various ages and health statuses. This test phase will last 12 months and then its phase 3 of testing that will involve people who already have HIV to see how well the vaccine works against the virus in a human body.

Years of R&D and animal testing followed by at least 3 years of human testing before the company takes it to the FDA for approval vs 10 months for the covid vaccine. Even if we assume that R&D took just a week and the rest was testing, at best we are now at phase 2 of the test period.

I got my jab fully aware that i'm a test subject for an experimental vaccine (i took part in phase 3 of the clinical trials for another study in 2011 because i had the illness the drug was meant to prevent... didn't help at all and i'm still sick hence the decision to vaccinate despite the risks) but what I can't stand is the fairy tale sold by the government and media that the vaccine is fully tested, safe, effective etc when we are barely halfway through the testing phase.

If you look their test reports you will see that they have done much less testing than they did with their corona virus vaccine, because they have couple billion dollar less funding (Moderna alone received over 2.5 billion dollars to test their vaccine which was already working in their initial test at that point). Question is not long you have tested something but how broadly and how much variety you have in your testing. 

Also HIV is much more complex virus to fight against with vaccines, because it targets helper T cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells that are crucial to humans immune system. Which causes immune system to fight against itself, which leads to AIDS. So it has been difficult to find way to get human immune system attack only against the virus and not itself. It should tell how good messenger RNA method is to make vaccines if it is able to get immune system only/mostly attack HIV instead of going all crazy and kill itself.

 I would point out that  mRNA vaccines have been studied now for 30 years, so they aren't some new experimental thing, but thing that was just becoming in its maturity so that it could become more main stream medicine, which it has had hard time to do because it is so much more expensive than other methods that are used to make vaccines, but it is faster and more reliable method which is why it was able to pop-up to leading methods during current pandemic.

[teknoman2]

It seems everyone here is a researcher in the medical field and not someone who just read/heard something and relays the news, choosing what and who they believe. Bureaucracy aside, what i know about medical research is that its a VERY complicated minefield where any mistakes can cause serious setbacks.

As for the earthquake analogy its still bad. There are set procedures for both people and state services (police, firefighters etc) on how to operate in case of an earthquake, i live in a quake rich country and i've experienced it all first hand, they don't come up with them on the fly. A closer example would be how the Russian firefighting plane Beriev that was sent for evaluation by Greece was given emergency authorization by both governments to be operated by its Russian crew in active duty against the huge fires we have here. Still, the difference remains that this plane was not built from scratch in record time just for these fires.

On a more positive note, in France they found that properly trained dogs can sniff out covid in patients with higher accuracy than even PCR tests, which makes them ideal for finding people who are infected and who are not able to get through the invasive tests, like elderly with Alzheimer's, people with mental disabilities, small children etc. or even people who show no symptoms and would not have tested for it at all. 

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Do you think kids should wear mask in schools in countries that dont have high level of vaccination and have a high virus load like SA and the USA. In the UK for example masks are optional but they seem to have achieved high levels of vaccination and hospitalizations are down so you can understand their ostensibly controversial health decision

This debate for me  is not about who is right or wrong because of hubris or from a  personal perspective, its about the most effective way to end this terrible, insidious global disease

So the question of kids wearing masks should be about the science and the direct impact to the virus spread in all our countries ?

Kids and people in general should wear mask when it is sensible to do so, like then need to be close to multiple people for long period of time in confided space which doesn't have good ventilation. And they are able to wear mask so that it doesn't case them breathing problems and they are able to switch to new mask periodically (once per hour for good measure but at least twice per 8 hours.)

Mask don't do any good if they aren't wore properly and if they get wet from your breathing.

So wearing mask just to wear mask will not most likely help anyone

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Kids and people in general should wear mask when it is sensible to do so, like then need to be close to multiple people for long period of time in confided space which doesn't have good ventilation. And they are able to wear mask so that it doesn't case them breathing problems and they are able to switch to new mask periodically (once per hour for good measure but at least twice per 8 hours.)

Mask don't do any good if they aren't wore properly and if they get wet from your breathing.

So wearing mask just to wear mask will not most likely help anyone

True but if you read Hurlshots post the kids in his school are wearing the masks correctly so it can be done

But I am not sure I understand your point considering the debate we having? Do you personally think kids must wear masks at schools in most of our countries where the virus level is high and spreading like SA, USA, Mexico,Russia,  some   EU countries, the whole of South America and most of Africa?

Edited August 19, 2021 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

13 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

True but if you read Hurlshots post the kids in his school are wearing the masks correctly so it can be done

But I am not sure I understand your point considering the debate we having? Do you personally think kids must wear masks at schools in most of our countries where the virus level is high and spreading like SA, USA, Mexico,Russia,  some   EU countries, the whole of South America and most of Africa?

If wearing them can be organized such manner that they are helpful then yes, especially if no other safety measures can't be used, like keeping distance and smaller group sizes, good ventilation, washing hands and more time in outdoors

[majestic]

14 hours ago, teknoman2 said:

what theory? that it took years of research before they proceeded with testing on humans? https://www.biospace.com/article/moderna-to-launch-clinical-trials-for-mrna-based-vaccine-for-hiv/

No, that you can even begin to compare a virus as problematic as HIV to a relatively simple coronavirus with a way to attach to human cells that has been throroughly researched for decades, the fact that there were two decades of research on SARS to base everything off of for SARS-CoV-2 which has a version number in the name because it shares 70% of its makeup with the original SARS from 2003 (so much, by the way, for the idea that this is a completely new virus - it's a novel strain of coronavirus, yes, but it's still actually 95% the same as coronaviruses found in bats - should also give everyone a hint on how this didn't escape from any lab but is simply another unfortunate case of zoonosis), and of course the different incubation times and infectiousness.

If you take an HIV vaccine test and control group and observe them for a month or two you're unlikely to be even able to test for new HIV cases, and HIV's transmissibility is so, so, so much lower than that of SARS-CoV-2 that you need an extended study period before even attempting to draw conclusions about efficacy, never mind testing for the myriad of HIV mutations that there are, the problems with coming up with proper study groups who all need to engage (and continue to do so) in a sufficient amount of high risk activities, and any number of such things - and that is before all of the red tape that's been cut for emergency approval because, hey, global pandemic (or, if you believe certain groups, "plandemic", amirite? kek).

I do share your misgivings about your government's response, because it hasn't been much better here either, however, that's on the politicians. Not on the vaccines. Nobody involved in creating and testing them was ever claiming that they would be 100% effective in preventing an infection or hospitalization, and for all the data we have by now, we can draw the conclusion that they do exactly what they're supposed to do - mitigate against a disaster like the nigh complete collapse of medical care in Italy back in 2020 - but are a little less effective against the delta variant. Which isn't unexpected either. Neither is not being as effective after 1d6 + 3 months.

Our government, meanwhile, thought it would be a good idea to call vaccinated people "fully immunized" which gives the wrong impression, especially to people from high risk groups who think they're perfectly safe now, but are only mostly safe.

6 hours ago, teknoman2 said:

It seems everyone here is a researcher in the medical field and not someone who just read/heard something and relays the news, choosing what and who they believe.

Isn't that the beauty of science, actually, to not have to choose to believe someone, but simply look at all available, peer reviewed data and know? You don't need to be a reseracher in the medical field to have someone who is explain to you how these vaccines work based off of decades of medical research. Yes, scientists make mistakes, and that's a good thing. Is science perfect? Well, no, there are problems and accidents happen. Sometimes it is running into a dead end. And every now and then, someone with a radical idea who is telling everyone else that they are wrong is right, like Einstein was with relativity. But guess what, Einstein had the a theory with certain predictions, other contributed proof in form of experiments, and look at that, the other theories were discarded. No more aether, among other things.

People telling you the vaccines are unsafe can't even come up with data to corroborate that, it's just a feeling or some misgiving borne out of not understanding how things work, or a general sense of unsease that the words "gene therapy" bring. A good deal of nations were willing to stop the AZ rollout over a nothingburger of a blood clotting issue (which was incredibly tragic for the affected, but overall a statistical nothingburger nonetheless), so if there would be any actual data that would corroborate all the horror scenarios cooked up by the conspiracy theorists, then hey, that would certainly... no, never mind. Really, and that's exactly why I should have stayed out of here and from now on will, again. Because why bother trying to come up with posts when they're waved away by telling me that this is just something I believe.

Speaking of believing, only a couple of pages back you believed that nobody knows what is in the vaccines, now you believe that medial "professionals" who had a look into the makeup of the vaccines (where did they get that from when there's no data available?) think they're unsafe.

Edited August 19, 2021 by majestic
Edited in a clarification regarding relativity, can be checked by 23374U's quote

[Elerond]

SARS-CoV-2 = Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Full name of SARS was SARS-CoV = Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus

Which just tell how medical circles name viruses by telling what they do and which virus type they belong

Edited August 19, 2021 by Elerond

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

If wearing them can be organized such manner that they are helpful then yes, especially if no other safety measures can't be used, like keeping distance and smaller group sizes, good ventilation, washing hands and more time in outdoors

Small class sizes in public education? What kind of fantasy world do you think we live in?!?

(Side note: My classroom ventilation system was built in the 50's and is probably pumping out asbestos.)

[Malcador]

Is remarkable how common poor ventilation is.

[213374U]

4 hours ago, majestic said:

And every now and then, someone with a radical idea who is telling everyone else that they are wrong is right, like Einstein was with relativity. But guess what, Einstein had the proof to back it up, and look at that, the other theories were discarded.

He didn't when he first formulated General Relativity -- it was all just a bunch of math. Actual empirical proof wasn't verified until years later by measuring light bending around the sun during an eclipse, IIRC. Which only adds to the genius of the whole thing, and why a century later, we still get news items about "XYZ once again proves that Einstein was right".

Problem is when people turn from religion to science to look for absolute certainties. At the heart of science is "we don't know". Which is good because GR predicts that FTL travel destroys causality... eternally condemning humanity to remain in this solar system.

[majestic]

29 minutes ago, 213374U said:

He didn't when he first formulated General Relativity -- it was all just a bunch of math. Actual empirical proof wasn't verified until years later by measuring light bending around the sun during an eclipse, IIRC. Which only adds to the genius of the whole thing, and why a century later, we still get news items about "XYZ once again proves that Einstein was right".

Problem is when people turn from religion to science to look for absolute certainties. At the heart of science is "we don't know". Which is good because GR predicts that FTL travel destroys causality... eternally condemning humanity to remain in this solar system.

You're right, of course, he had a formulated theory, and actual proof in the form of successful experiments to test predictions came later. It's the prime example of how science doesn't work like the conspiracy nutjobs think it does, which was the point I was going for. I mean, sure, you'll always have scientists who refuse to accept that their favorite theory turned out wrong, but we're all subject to human failings. You still get people looking for the aether in this day and age, it's just become more fun to be an anti-vaxxer than tilting with windmills named relativity, apparently.

edit:

Changed the original post to reflect that.  

Edited August 19, 2021 by majestic

[213374U]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

It's the prime example of how science doesn't work like the conspiracy nutjobs think it does, which was the point I was going for. I mean, sure, you'll always have scientists who refuse to accept that their favorite theory turned out wrong, but we're all subject to human failings.

It's not just conspiracy nutjobs -even if they are the most glaring example- it's most people, generally speaking. For all the talk of the importance of "critical thinking", it seems the criticality is rarely, or ever, applied inwards -- often true even for scientists. Statistics are an incredibly powerful tool to help make sense of the world around us, but ultimately statistical models are models and not reality itself, being subject to biases, errors and limitations. This is not to say they are worthless and any old wives' tale is just as good which for some seems to be the result of one scientist making an erroneous claim at some point. But it also does not mean that just because it turned up in a peer-reviewed journal, it's straight up Word of God. Especially if it's cutting-edge stuff. I remember last year when people were taking preprints as gospel. I wonder how much of that ended up with substantial revisions... or even in the trash.

Educating people to deal with uncertainty and reject quick answers to complex questions has always been an uphill battle. I figure it's not getting any easier in the age of instant expertise.

...dunno why I went off on this tangent, but thanks for coming to my TED talk I guess.

Edited August 19, 2021 by 213374U

[Bartimaeus]

6 minutes ago, 213374U said:

...dunno why I went off on this tangent, but thanks for coming to my TED talk I guess.

It was a lot less sanity-draining than what usually goes on in this thread.

[teknoman2]

@majestic

Since you seem so knowledgeable on the subject, here's a question: Pericarditis! Regardless of rarity, why did nobody know this dangerous side effect existed until 2 months after the vaccine was approved and used en masse? Did they know and hide it or did they not test the vaccine enough to know its there? I can't think of a 3rd option.

And this sums up my problem with the whole situation. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by teknoman2

[Zoraptor]

Myocarditis rather than pericarditis? Doesn't matter anyway, the answer is that if you run a study on ~40,000 people and a side effect only occurs at a 1/100,000 rate the chances are that no one gets the side effect in the study. But that's true whether the study is expedited or long term. If you're giving it to 500 million europeans you statistically Expect 5000 people to get it, but againm that's irrespective of whether it was approved fast or slow.

They do stop studies when possibly related serious effects show up, eg they stopped the AstraZeneca covid vaccine when someone in the phase 3 trial developed neurological symptoms, but that was eventually shown to be unrelated.

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

But it also does not mean that just because it turned up in a peer-reviewed journal, it's straight up Word of God.

Indeed. For anyone who doesn't know the 'original' 'scientific' 'antivaxxer' Andrew Wakefield got his MMR vaccine --> autism paper published in The Lancet.

And he, of course, wasn't really antivax since he was himself, coincidentally, trying to patent individual vaccines.

[majestic]

1 hour ago, teknoman2 said:

@majestic

Since you seem so knowledgeable on the subject, here's a question: Pericarditis! Regardless of rarity, why did nobody know this dangerous side effect existed until 2 months after the vaccine was approved and used en masse? Did they know and hide it or did they not test the vaccine enough to know its there? I can't think of a 3rd option.

And this sums up my problem with the whole situation. 

Zoraptor already answered, but: With these side effects being so rare - and that includes the blood clotting issue with the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccine - they're statistically unlikely to show up in studies, expedited or not.

The regular, non-emergency approved vaccinations with longer study times usually feature study groups of a lot less people, where you would be even less likely to find statistical outliers. The testing of these vaccines was immense and on a scale never seen before. Because there was enough funding, and to prevent another Pandremix. Because that vaccine* had a side effect in the form or narcolepsy with an incidence of like 1 in 32000, which was not found during human testing due to smaller test groups.

That's pretty much one of the reasons why the covid-19 vaccine test groups contained upwards of 40.000 people.

Even if they had done tests on groups of enough of a size to find the blood clotting and myocarditis issue, the vaccines would have been approved and declared safe for use regardless (they're still used, after all...). It might have prevented a few deaths in the case of the blood clotting because of increased checking after receiving the shot, but that's about it. It really is a no-brainer when comparing the incidence rates of side effects with the mortality rate of contracting covid-19, never mind any of the deaths that are indirectly caused by having your medical care system collapse on you. Even now there is a statistically significant increase in mortality rates during lockdowns not related to covid-19 because of the delayed treatments for other diseases (or people not going to the doctors for treatment). 

Not to mention that mycarditis is a side effect that you can get from contracting any number of respiratory diseases, even when they're only having mild or no symptoms, and that usually stops absolutely no one from going to work with a cold.

Most over the counter pain medication has serious side effects in the same range of likeliness, and they're sold... well, over the counter. Make it a vaccine and suddenly it becomes a problem for the same people who think nothing of buying an aspirin.

*Actually, there are studies showing that contracting swine flu leads probably to increased amounts of narcolepsy. There's a direct link the to the vaccine insofar as it was the antibodies that caused narcolepsy in affected individuals - there's a chance they would have gotten it from contracting the disease just as well.

Edited August 19, 2021 by majestic

[teknoman2]

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Myocarditis rather than pericarditis? Doesn't matter anyway, the answer is that if you run a study on ~40,000 people and a side effect only occurs at a 1/100,000 rate the chances are that no one gets the side effect in the study. But that's true whether the study is expedited or long term. If you're giving it to 500 million europeans you statistically Expect 5000 people to get it, but againm that's irrespective of whether it was approved fast or slow.

They do stop studies when possibly related serious effects show up, eg they stopped the AstraZeneca covid vaccine when someone in the phase 3 trial developed neurological symptoms, but that was eventually shown to be unrelated.

Indeed. For anyone who doesn't know the 'original' 'scientific' 'antivaxxer' Andrew Wakefield got his MMR vaccine --> autism paper published in The Lancet.

And he, of course, wasn't really antivax since he was himself, coincidentally, trying to patent individual vaccines.

Right, myocarditis, i got the name wrong. You're probably right but still, when an emergency situation requires a solution built from scratch and involves tens of billions of taxpayer money i get a bit skeptical... especially if the goalpost seems to be moving in favor of accelerated spending (recent raise in the price of the vaccines).  

Anyway, i read that Oxford studies show that vaccines lose around 35% effectiveness against D in 3 months from the second shot.

Edited August 20, 2021 by teknoman2

[Gorth]

5 hours ago, 213374U said:

For all the talk of the importance of "critical thinking", it seems the criticality is rarely, or ever, applied inwards -- often true even for scientists. Statistics are an incredibly powerful tool to help make sense of the world around us, but ultimately statistical models are models and not reality itself, being subject to biases, errors and limitations.

As recent as yesterday I participated in a survey performed the University of Queensland about video gaming and the effects of isolation caused by Covid.

It was grotesque and sadly no commentary section, so I could give those "researchers" a piece of my mind. It was so obvious, that they had already made their conclusion and now people participating were being "railroaded" with multiple choice options that I would describe as confusing at best and deliberately misleading at worst, trying to somehow retrieve data to support their theory. It was a complete wasted of time and tax payer money. At least to your surveys without trying to actively mislead people to answer in a way you would prefer them to answer and let them answer truthfully instead.

Edit: By deliberately misleading, I mean the frequent use of double negatives in the answer selections and questions that are assumptions about you.

 

25 minutes ago, teknoman2 said:

Anyway, i read that Oxford studies show that vaccines lose around 35% effectiveness against D in 3 months from the second shot.

Funny how everyone is a scientist these days

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

58 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Funny how everyone is a scientist these days

If only everyone could be a sexpot instead.