Fully vaccinated to dominate deaths - allegedly

[12gauge82]

16 minutes ago, Scully said:

Weird isn’t it? Whenever there is the notion of a virus of some sort spreading around the world, my first reaction has always been...’No, couldn’t happen in this day and age, with all the science and tech’ we have.’ 
When it first appeared in the news I just thought it would peter out like all the others, and never amount to anything too serious. Never thought for a second we’d be where we are now. 

I think that's what most of us thought bud. 

[mel b3]

24 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That's the sort of stuff!

I was sceptical when we were told to do it - and remained so until 2008 - when local floods (which didn't directly flood the works) caused a pumping station failure and consequent water loss - for about 3 weeks I think it was.  The plan actually worked well - and we only lost a very small number of hours.  Many other local businesses who were less well prepared had a tougher time.

Epidemic was definitely one of the subjects covered - but I tended to visualise it as large scale personnel absence due to a flu type illness sweeping through all of the staff. 

In all fairness , these plans do work pretty well (if implemented correctly , and everyone is on board) . one of my jobs was cleaning emergency chemical spillages (we used isocyanates). if a spillage occurred, alarms would sound , and the workforce(except the spillage team) evacuated the shop floor . i had a small set of ba in a locker on the shop floor , that i could use for a minor spillage clean up , and a full set with banana suit in a locker in the canteen , just in case it was a big nasty . it didnt happen very often , but everyone knew the drill , so it was never a big drama . other guys had jobs like notifying all the local schools within 5 miles if we had a major spillage , others were responsible for making sure that nothing leaked offsite (fluids) . in contrast , when i walked into my first day at the council , it was like walking into dads army .

Edited May 20, 2021 by mel b3

[serrac]

22 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

All the information they've asked for is there

No it isn't...

When a group of scientists ask for evidence they do so expecting a data-set and details of the methodology used so they can run the scenario again and determine if the asserted conclusions are sound (you know, ala Wakefield).

In the case (2) of the endothelial cells which you cited the EMA reply did not even name the clinical and non-clinical studies they relied upon to come to their conclusions.  Even allowing for the possibility that some reference is made to the endothelial cell question in the links provided in response to question 6 is it too much to ask that for the avoidance of doubt they explicitly state which studies formed their conclusions for Q2?

Further, this admission (q6) indicates a thorough review of all the studies relied upon by the EMA for its various decisions is warranted.

"No evidence of thrombocytopenia or coagulation disorders was detected in clinical trials for any of
the COVID-19 vaccines so far authorised.

Cases of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events have recently been reported for the 3
vaccines from real-life use."

 

23 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

I could go on and on and on showing how it's not claimed they're 100% safe. All of the above specifically use that description. Vaccines are safe within all reasonable parameters - and are for the vast VAST majority far better than catching the disease against which it's fighting.

 

Ok so I indulged in a little bit of hyperbole there - let's call it "safe" and "95% effective"

But how many out there in the general public are aware that the word "safe" in the world of vaccines (and I suppose medicines in general) has a different meaning than in most other contexts.  Or that a vaccine considered safe under that  definition in a group at high risk to the target condition can be simultaneously very dangerous for a group at low or negligible risk i.e. teens and children in the case of covid.  No we are told the covid vaccine is "safe" and it's rolled as if equally safe for all.

Can we say without doubt that the vaccine is the better option for the vast VAST majority of children under 18 given that the pre-approval trials excluded anyone under 18?

It will be interesting to see if cases of "covid" among under 18s sees any statistical change once the vaccine is rolled out to them in substantial numbers.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, serrac said:

No it isn't...

When a group of scientists ask for evidence they do so expecting a data-set and details of the methodology used so they can run the scenario again and determine if the asserted conclusions are sound (you know, ala Wakefield).

In the case (2) of the endothelial cells which you cited the EMA reply did not even name the clinical and non-clinical studies they relied upon to come to their conclusions.  Even allowing for the possibility that some reference is made to the endothelial cell question in the links provided in response to question 6 is it too much to ask that for the avoidance of doubt they explicitly state which studies formed their conclusions for Q2?

Further, this admission (q6) indicates a thorough review of all the studies relied upon by the EMA for its various decisions is warranted.

"No evidence of thrombocytopenia or coagulation disorders was detected in clinical trials for any of
the COVID-19 vaccines so far authorised.

Cases of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events have recently been reported for the 3
vaccines from real-life use."

 

 

Ok so I indulged in a little bit of hyperbole there - let's call it "safe" and "95% effective"

But how many out there in the general public are aware that the word "safe" in the world of vaccines (and I suppose medicines in general) has a different meaning than in most other contexts.  Or that a vaccine considered safe under that  definition in a group at high risk to the target condition can be simultaneously very dangerous for a group at low or negligible risk i.e. teens and children in the case of covid.  No we are told the covid vaccine is "safe" and it's rolled as if equally safe for all.

Can we say without doubt that the vaccine is the better option for the vast VAST majority of children under 18 given that the pre-approval trials excluded anyone under 18?

It will be interesting to see if cases of "covid" among under 18s sees any statistical change once the vaccine is rolled out to them in substantial numbers.

I’m at a loss to figure out what it is you’re trying to prove really, nor if anyone can state ‘without doubt’ anything regarding Covid.
Isn’t it common knowledge that the vaccine isn’t 100% effective nor 100% safe?
I’ve had both my vaccinations in the knowledge I could have suffered a blood clot or a myriad of side effects, but I still went ahead and had it. What was the alternative apart from not having it? 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Scully

[Dave-G]

I know this doesnt quite fit the thread but I feel politics sometimes has some influence in doctors decisions/policies. BMA doctors have an anti conservative government agenda IF what I experienced applies across the board. and we know some don't like the shooting we do.

A local female consultant doctor who has different days at three different teaching hospitals + another at a local private one requires all her afternoon's appointments were set at 2PM... meaning about 40 people (20 patients + companion) turn up and while away their afternoon for what was typically a 15 minutes examination of my hand to access the requirements of a Dupuytren's release procedure.

When I arrived about half an hour late once the reception nurse chided me for being late - despite there being the usual 'consultant running about an hour late' notice on the whiteboard. When I eventually got seen sometime after 4pm I enquired about staggering the appointment times a bit to save so many people wasting so much of their time which is just as important to them as hers is to her. 

Well she went into one about I should take that up with the conservative MP who is responsible for the underfunding.

I eventually lost a little finger to MRSA: a hospital acquired infection that made the flesh go mushy.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Dave-G

[Gordon R]

Quote

I eventually lost a little finger to MRSA: a hospital acquired infection that made the flesh go mushy.

I lost a vertebrae and two inches in height to MRSA. I would have swapped that for my little finger.