• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,118
Points
1,260
Holy crap the left is coming around...

Maybe the extreme left. There are some of us that remember what the whole mask thing was about - keeping hospitalizations low to relieve stress on hospitals.

There are also some of us that remember that science is literally "fuck around [hypothesis, experiments] and find out [conclusions, leading to other hypotheses and experiments]". The meme is actually correct. So when science seemingly changes its stance and some people get up in arms that they're "reversing course", it's because they're taking the latest info and incorporating it into their new hypothesis. Science isn't a straight line and people for some reason can't figure that out.

So yeah, I agree with what the panelists say. I also realize that maybe in a year, they are both wrong and we have to go back to the drawing board and try something else.

Because that's what happens with science.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,545
Points
1,090
Remius already mentioned it it so I won't talk about trusting the "oh yeah we totally have it in hand" line on FB, linked to a Protonmail account which is specifically designed to be anonymous.

I'm more concerned that she never mentions who the accountants and lawyers are, or what firm they work for (or working for themselves, etc). So how are the supporters supposed to check whether or not she's lying? If she is so sure of their support, she would loudly be saying "I am working with XYZ accountant and ABC lawyers to ensure that the money gets to where it's needed." The fact that they don't is yet another red flag.
Well, you pays your money, you takes your chances! I learned that the hard way at a midway back in the 70's. LOL! Not my money, not my monkey.....
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
888
Points
960
Maybe the extreme left. There are some of us that remember what the whole mask thing was about - keeping hospitalizations low to relieve stress on hospitals.

There are also some of us that remember that science is literally "fuck around [hypothesis, experiments] and find out [conclusions, leading to other hypotheses and experiments]". The meme is actually correct. So when science seemingly changes its stance and some people get up in arms that they're "reversing course", it's because they're taking the latest info and incorporating it into their new hypothesis. Science isn't a straight line and people for some reason can't figure that out.
Science is about the process, not the outcome. This is why we have flat earthers; because people don't understand science.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,361
Points
1,260
I think this article belongs here as well

Thank you @Kirkhill

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
966
Points
1,060
The article is a tad dated, Nov 21, but not dated enough that it isn't topical.

From The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals.


The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing​

 

Attachments

  • Lancet Article.pdf
    353.1 KB · Views: 5

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,704
Points
1,090
What’s funny about those that have lost resiliency in Ontario is that we have an actual roadmap to reopening. Tough it out. March is almost upon us.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,193
Points
1,160
The article is a tad dated, Nov 21, but not dated enough that it isn't topical.

From The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals.


The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing​


A week ago I posted in this thread my opinion on the reliance of "peer review" as relating to the quality of arguments presented in this forum. I readily agree that The Lancet (original menu and all its expanded associated flavours) is near the top of the food chain in English language medical journals so I'm not suggesting that they don't apply rigor in reviewing reports submitted for publication, however as PMedMoe pointed out this is a letter to the editor. My assumption is, that while they take care in selecting the letters that they publish, such letters are not subject to the same rigorous peer review process.

I have no desire to do battle with Prof. Dr. Kampf (pun intended). His letter to the editor, though, does beg the question - Huh? Yes, I'm deliberately being sarcastic, but I was left, after reading his letter, wondering what was the point. Or more specifically, what was your point in providing the link?

I've extracted two passages from Prof. Kampf's letter that suggests to me what I think he is trying to say (the rest of the letter appears to be the points he decided to use from the studies/reports/commentary that he used as references in his argument).

High COVID-19 vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in populations by reducing the number of possible sources for transmission and thereby to reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. . . .

. . . Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.

While I don't necessarily disagree with an assumption that decisionmakers seem to be minimizing the relevance of the vaccinated in their decision making process, I believe it is a stretch to think that such is totally ignored in public health planning. It may be more likely that the greater attention paid to encouraging the unvaccinated contributes to a perception that vaccinated transmission rates don't figure in the decision making. None of the references that he provided supports his contention of such "gross negligence"; what their findings were, variously:

Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study
Our findings help to explain how and why the delta variant is being transmitted so effectively in populations with high vaccine coverage. Although current vaccines remain effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination alone is not sufficient to prevent all transmission of the delta variant in the household setting, where exposure is close and prolonged. Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission, but our analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant.

Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021
This nosocomial outbreak exemplifies the high transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals. This suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities. However, a third vaccine dose may be needed, particularly in individuals with risk factors for severe COVID-19. Appropriate use of masks, especially in high-risk settings is advised.

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.

And I would like to thank you for the link to The Lancet. While I have read it occasionally over the years, one of the benefits to this pandemic (he said sardonically) is wider "free' access to many of the prestigious journals that previously required a subscription (either personal or institutional - especially when one no longer works for the institution). Sporadically over today, I spent an enjoyable time reading the various links that contributed to this post and several other topics of discussion.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
Tell them you're still going to smoke and drink and you'll get the same denial form.
Those precious pieces are for those who'll do thier best to honor the doners, and the donor's family, by looking after themselves on the second chance given.
Baby steps.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
764
Points
940
Something looked at in potential organ recipients is their ability to manage their health before and after transplant.

"The transplant center will be looking for indications that you are able to manage your health and that you care about maintaining your health whenever possible. For example, if you are waiting for a kidney transplant but you are not following your healthcare provider’s instructions, you may not be considered a candidate. The post-transplant regime is rigorous and requires diligence; your ability to follow your current regimen will be considered an indication of your willingness to take care of yourself after surgery. Non-compliance with important health maintenance instructions, such as drinking alcohol while in treatment for a liver problem, could exclude an individual from the liver transplant list."
Source: How to Get on the Waiting List for an Organ Transplant

Pretty sure eating well, no drinking, exercise and up to date on vaccinations would all fall under that heading.

You can be turned down for several health reasons, cancer diagnosis, obesity, etc.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,439
Points
1,360
The family is using the word ‘denied.’ The hospital said ‘ineligible.’ Denied, reduce priority, ineligible…all a result of the hospital’s assessment that he is not the best candidate to receive the heart of someone who died and offered the gift of life to someone else.

"D.J. is an informed patient," Tracey Ferguson said in a brief interview at her home in Mendon, about 50 kilometres southwest of Boston. "He wants to be assured by his doctors that his condition would not be worse or fatal with this COVID vaccine."

And if DJ’s choice as an informed patient is that he is at greater risk of dying through vaccination than he is of receiving a new heart to replace his current failing heart, then…well, I supposed that’s his flavour of ‘informed.’ He has freedom of choice to act on his informed perspective.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
129
Points
530
Apparently Sweden has decided not to "believe in Science".

"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them," Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.

She added that the decision could be revisited if the research changed or if a new variant changed the pandemic. Kids in high-risk groups can already get the vaccine."

Soooo what "science" is being disbelieved?
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
88
Points
450
Mick, with the Canadian stance on vaccination for children being opposite to that taken by Sweden, then I suppose it is Canadian "science" that is being disbelieved? Or can opposite stances taken from the same data both be following science? ...but that would mean that our conclusions could not be defended by calling people "science deniers".


Perhaps it was not clear, but my use of quotations around, "believe in science", was to highlight the dogmatic approach that appears to have taken over the vaccination campaign in Canada.
 
Top