Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Bruce Banner]

8 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Pointing out the likely consequences of your behaviour is not blackmail. 

Possible would perhaps be more accurate?

[nightowl]

7 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Possible would perhaps be more accurate?

Possible is better than likely.

Do you remember in October when students went to live in cities with higher prevalence rates and were villified for having the virus including fencing them into halls etc?  They were treated very badly, so the precident of shaming an politically unrepresented group of people has been shown up before.

[pig]

Jesus wept the state of our government 🤣:

 

 

 

[moonriver]

2 hours ago, nightowl said:

It does, but a way to convince them is to imply they won't be able live their lives anymore if they don't.

Back to the trust issue, doing this could backfire. The "young people" have taken a big social and financial hit in the last year and now to be told this!

Shocking. What a terrible document.

This just reinforces my belief that the vaccine rollout "competion" is so politcal. eg.. front page of today's Times "Britain set to jab all adults by early June. Beating EU by two months". 

So of course, then today I heard MSM giving nothing but praise, as to how well the UK government are handling the pandemic compared to the EU.

I find it patronising in this document how they are placing the public into different groups to try and brush off the public's valid questioning of these new experimental unlicensed vaccines.  

I especially agree with you when you say "It doesn't have any guidance for dealing with people's single biggest (& legitimate) worry of vaccine safety and testing" and just chooses to blame it on conspiracy theories.

Also are they suggesting lying to the health and care workers group with their suggestion of telling them...  "“We advocate the vaccine and are leading by example. I am having the vaccine today".

Their guidance for persuading young people to accept the vaccine of  "Explain implications of not being vaccinated for seeing loved ones by focusing on the potential regret one might feel if they were not vaccinated and were to subsequently infect others", I find misleading when there is no proven evidence that being vaccinated prevents passing the virus onto others.

I also agree that this could backfire. Most young people are not as naive as the "Powers that Be" appear to think they are, and are quite able to make their own informed decisions as to whether to accept the vaccination or not.  By pushing this vaccine relentlessly, might cause an increased hesitancy amongst the young. 

[fuzzy_bear]

5 minutes ago, moonriver said:

Shocking. What a terrible document.

Their guidance for persuading young people to accept the vaccine of  "Explain implications of not being vaccinated for seeing loved ones by focusing on the potential regret one might feel if they were not vaccinated and were to subsequently infect others", I find misleading when there is no proven evidence that being vaccinated prevents passing the virus onto others.

There is now a wealth of evidence for this effect - it was always  biologically implausible that vaccines would not to reduce or prevent transmission 

[Arpeggio]

18 hours ago, captainb said:

Haha genius! Ignore the deadliest mass shooting in US history as its "one event. Link to a random isreali self produced page that shows nothing..

So a self aggrandizing anonymous person on an internet forum calling themself "captainb", who rarely, if ever actually makes links to any references behind what they say, is not only a better source for information, but an authority on what is good information or not.

I was thinking of flipping a coin, but this seems slightly better, I wiil make sure to pass everything through you first.

18 hours ago, captainb said:

 Ignore 2020 being a record year for gun related homicides.

Oh my you are sticking to your guns aren't you!, I meant what I said. You could probably learn about context? (I know you wont!). Given what this place is like with simple but "very clever" people like you, perhaps I shouldn't have. I said:

"shooting massacres seemed to go down a lot."

What this means is things like Sandy Hook 2012 and the amount of attention the media want to give. Noticeably different.

On average 65% of US gun deaths are suicides. Whether with a gun or not, suicides were on the way up and went up even higher in 2020, surprise surprise. Even a school district needed to reopen in 2020 because too many children were killing themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/us/politics/student-suicides-nevada-coronavirus.html

Tip: There's an example of posting a link to something one says!

As for homicides as well as overall gun crime in particular, I already knew that democrat areas that excercise gun control, such as Philadelphia & California, account for a large increase in 2020 but I wasn't factoring this in due to the specific gun control narrative context.

18 hours ago, captainb said:

Standard track for you. The only thing missing is one of your dodgy vitamin pop ups. You on commission for those? 

As above. Tone down down your childishness a bit unless you want people to reply to you like you are one.

18 hours ago, captainb said:

Please say it involves a vitamin pop up!

No I went to bed it was late. As above. Grow up.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Arpeggio

[Arpeggio]

5 hours ago, moonriver said:

Their guidance for persuading young people to accept the vaccine of  "Explain implications of not being vaccinated for seeing loved ones by focusing on the potential regret one might feel if they were not vaccinated and were to subsequently infect others", I find misleading when there is no proven evidence that being vaccinated prevents passing the virus onto others.

There is no evidence that a healthy person who is not ill can pass a virus onto others either, let alone a deadly one.

Lies are like a tree. You have fundamental lie at the root / trunk then you branch out from there. Once enough branches grow out people see the issue at the root as a given, established and unarguable.

[Will!]

Antivaxxer FUD is hard to sell in a carnival atmosphere.

FT: Israelis raise glass to Pfizer as lockdown ends

[Arpeggio]

9 minutes ago, Will! said:

Antivaxxer FUD is hard to sell in a carnival atmosphere.

FT: Israelis raise glass to Pfizer as lockdown ends

I did search for "Israelis raise glass to Pfizer as lockdown ends"

and very high up in results found...

"Compliant Israelis raise their glasses to Pfizer – a company who were fined $2.4 billion dollars for repeated dishonest, criminal, anti-trust activities over the last 20 years – as lockdown ends"

I'd have used Google except they simultaneously have large investments in vaccines while censoring criticism of vaccines in their search results.

You can put your head back in the sand now.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Arpeggio

[Will!]

5 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

I did search for "Israelis raise glass to Pfizer as lockdown ends"

and very high up in results found...

"Compliant Israelis raise their glasses to Pfizer – a company who were fined $2.4 billion dollars for repeated dishonest, criminal, anti-trust activities over the last 20 years – as lockdown ends"

I'd have used Google except they simultaneously have large investments in vaccines while censoring criticism of vaccines in their search results.

You can put your head back in the sand now.

Tell us which search engine and give us the link then.

[Arpeggio]

1 minute ago, Will! said:

Tell us which search engine and give us the link then.

I wonder why you ask this. I can't believe it's due to you not believing it as though you are ignorant enough not to know.

Pfizer are ranked no. 2 in the top 10 most violations in the industry.

Penalty total since 2000: $4,712,210,359 Number of records: 74

[Will!]

7 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

I wonder why you ask this. I can't believe it's due to you not believing it as though you are ignorant enough not to know.

Pfizer are ranked no. 2 in the top 10 most violations in the industry.

Penalty total since 2000: $4,712,210,359 Number of records: 74

Damning stuff, but the most recent product safety issue at Pfizer was in its Shiley division in 1994, which was a little while ago.

[zugzwang]

6 minutes ago, Will! said:

Tell us which search engine and give us the link then.

Third result up on duckduckgo.

It's a self-recursive link on this blog.

https://wirralinittogether.blog/

Which is why the denialist crank won't publish it. 👇

Compliant Israelis raise their glasses to Pfizer – a company who were fined $2.4 billion dollars for repeated dishonest, criminal, anti-trust activities over the last 20 years – as lockdown ends

[zugzwang]

47 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

There is no evidence that a healthy person who is not ill can pass a virus onto others either, let alone a deadly one.

 

Another egregious lie.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3#ref-CR1

Quote

 

How many people don’t experience any symptoms after becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2? And what is their role in spreading COVID-19? These have been key questions since the beginning of the pandemic.

Now, evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will experience no symptoms, and they will transmit the virus to significantly fewer people than someone with symptoms. But researchers are divided about whether asymptomatic infections are acting as a ‘silent driver’ of the pandemic.

...

To understand what is happening in people with no symptoms, Cevik and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis³ of 79 studies on the viral dynamics and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, which is posted on social-sciences preprint server SSRN. Some studies showed that those without symptoms had similar initial viral loads — the number of viral particles present in a throat swab — when compared with people with symptoms. But asymptomatic people seem to clear the virus faster and are infectious for a shorter period.

 

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

I've just invested in one of these:

 

[pig]

34 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I've just invested in one of these:

 

 

[Megadebt]

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

Another egregious lie.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3#ref-CR1

Yet another perverted pointing of your finger as though you aren't one spreading your sick repeat lies. This is exactly what I mean with regards to branching out more of your disgusting manipulation attempts from a fundamental root of a lie.

Do you actually bother to read the papers referenced in your completely biased link? or do you just look at the bit you want to see then say "That'll do let's post some more of my sensational BS and call people who disagree with me liars".....  looks like it!

Quote:

"The Uruguayan Ministry of Health provided on board SARS-CoV-2 virus testing of all passengers and crew, which occurred on 3 April (day 20; ATGen-Diagnostica, Montevideo) with CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.

Of the 217 passengers and crew on board, 128 tested positive for COVID-19 (59%). These included all passengers who tested negative on the VivaDiag qSARS-CoV-IgM/IgG Rapid Test. There were 10 instances where two passengers sharing a cabin recorded positive and negative results.

Despite 128 (59%) of the population testing positive, fever and mild symptoms were present in only 16 of 128 COVID-19-positive patients (12.5%), with another 8 medically evacuated (6.2%) and 4 requiring intubation and ventilation (3.1%). There has unfortunately been one death to date (0.8%). There were therefore a total of 24 COVID-19-positive patients who were symptomatic (19%), with the majority being asymptomatic (104 patients or 81%)."

There's no mention of PCR cycles used, which is a critical factor! Then it says all passengers who tested negative on the antibody test had COVID19 from the PCR test (which, again they make no mention of cycle threshold), or the fact that PCR tests don't find a virus according to the Nobel prize winning inventor of the technology (which, surprise, surprise, you don't care about).

If that is the basis the article makes that asymptomatic transmission might be as high as 81% it is clutching at straws. It's good enough for you though because that's what you want to hear.

Briefly looking at the other meta study your link mentions, I see that it also refers to PCR tests and many of the studies referred to are care and nursing facilities, which is no new news to me with regards to pathogen loads and weak immune systems.

Obviously this is more work for me because I bother to read the links you post, so I might have more of a look into that one later.

In the mean time you might like to try reading and learning.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Arpeggio

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I've just invested in one of these:

No joke:

While once arguing about PCR tests in person with a virologist they proudly said "PCR tests don't amplify genetic material, amplify is the wrong word" . The next day someone way above their pay grade referred to the PCR test as amplifying genetic material.

Aynal.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Arpeggio

[Arpeggio]

2 hours ago, Will! said:

Damning stuff, but the most recent product safety issue at Pfizer was in its Shiley division in 1994, which was a little while ago.

Nice turd polish / making out I was suggesting something contrary to your point when I wasn't.

The post referred to "repeated dishonest, criminal, anti-trust activities".

 

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Third result up on duckduckgo.

It's a self-recursive link on this blog.

https://wirralinittogether.blog/

Which is why the denialist crank won't publish it. 👇

Compliant Israelis raise their glasses to Pfizer – a company who were fined $2.4 billion dollars for repeated dishonest, criminal, anti-trust activities over the last 20 years – as lockdown ends

Yup. The reason I didn't post that and chose to link to twice as much fines for Pfizer instead was...

A) You et al. (particularly you) are champion records holders of posting ad hominem attacks and name calling on this thread. I'd put £1000 on betting you'd have said your "denialist crank" freakout crap anyway, whether I posted it or not! I guarantee it. In your typical arrogance you are now claiming you know the reason for someone else's actions. Even a slightly aware person might say "perhaps it is because"  but this is you.

B ) The links I gave were more comprehensive on this subject, covering more history and cases of fraud etc.

C) When you et al. ask a question this is more often than not for a specific & predictable reason, usually related to A)

[captainb]

3 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

So a self aggrandizing anonymous person on an internet forum calling themself "captainb", who rarely, if ever actually makes links to any references behind what they say, is not only a better source for information, but an authority on what is good information or not.

I was thinking of flipping a coin, but this seems slightly better, I wiil make sure to pass everything through you first.

Oh my you are sticking to your guns aren't you!, I meant what I said. You could probably learn about context? (I know you wont!). Given what this place is like with simple but "very clever" people like you, perhaps I shouldn't have. I said:

"shooting massacres seemed to go down a lot."

What this means is things like Sandy Hook 2012 and the amount of attention the media want to give. Noticeably different.

On average 65% of US gun deaths are suicides. Whether with a gun or not, suicides were on the way up and went up even higher in 2020, surprise surprise. Even a school district needed to reopen in 2020 because too many children were killing themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/us/politics/student-suicides-nevada-coronavirus.html

Tip: There's an example of posting a link to something one says!

As for homicides as well as overall gun crime in particular, I already knew that democrat areas that excercise gun control, such as Philadelphia & California, account for a large increase in 2020 but I wasn't factoring this in due to the specific gun control narrative context.

As above. Tone down down your childishness a bit unless you want people to reply to you like you are one.

No I went to bed it was late. As above. Grow up.

Ah I can see why most give in and block your sorry soul. Sadly out of principle I don't do that. 

Although fully understand why the vast majority have.. 

Inane ramblings and nonsense continue apace. 

Even if you delved into reality for a mere second you might discover massacres sadly continued apace in 2017 onwards. 

Neither mind back to the little fairy's and echo chamber with you

[Megadebt]

 This PCR cycling issue,  isn't it just super sensitive analysis -assuming samples free from contamination. 

 Question whether minute traces are infectious or dangerous to patient better than just labelling the PCR test as quackery.  

 Almost like a drugs sniffer dog nabbing some social workers, lawyers and the odd commuter sitting in the wrong seat on the tube... and a riot van full of closet stoners too.

  Like arguing no more than a 10x microscope is ever required as that is enough to see all the fleas.  We look deeper and find more detail, the clever bit is sifting what is relevant. 

 After pages of debate on thos subject...has any proper research been done comparing both transmissibility R values and morbidity on lower/higher PCR cycles?

[Megadebt]

18 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

No joke:

While once argueing about PCR tests in person with a virologist they proudly said "PCR tests don't amplify genetic material, amplify is the wrong word" . The next day someone way above their pay grade referred to the PCR test as amplifying genetic material.

Aynal.

...has any proper research been done comparing both transmissibility R values and morbidity on lower/higher PCR cycles +ve cases?

[Will!]

10 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Nice turd polish / making out I was suggesting something contrary to your point when I wasn't.

The post referred to "repeated dishonest, criminal, anti-trust activities".

 

You weren't suggesting something contrary to my point?  Oh good.  My point was:

3 hours ago, Will! said:

Antivaxxer FUD is hard to sell in a carnival atmosphere.

FT: Israelis raise glass to Pfizer as lockdown ends

I'm glad we agree.

[Arpeggio]

3 minutes ago, Megadebt said:

...has any proper research been done comparing both transmissibility R values and morbidity on lower/higher PCR cycles +ve cases?

Anything you want it to be.