Covid19

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Just to go a little further on that from a quick glance at the link Adam posted it doesn't seem that the GP personally is remunerated for giving a jab but the surgery/practice. Whether they then just divvy it up and take it home I don't know but chances are some of them will invest that back into the surgery to buy new equipment, carry out renovations, buy better PPE for their staff etc. It doesn't seem to be quite as clear cut as GPs running round singing 'We're in the money'...

[Ali C]

27 minutes ago, JT! said:

...says every person who thinks the Earth is flat.

I don't mean that as harsh and insulting as it sounds, but I just wanted to point out the absurdity of that statement.

It's perfectly fine to question things, like, how much money are GPs making from covid booster shots? That's a perfectly reasonable question. Another perfectly reasonable question is how much more money are bike shop owners making because of covid?

The problem is that these questions, they find the answers the questions were designed to find, they're not genuine questions, they're implications hidden as enquiry. For example, how much more money are bike shop owners making because of covid? Would it not be beneficial for bike shop owners to push vaccine hesitancy because if covid sticks around longer their shop would make more money? Hey, I'm just asking questions, why so aggressive?

I'm sorry JT, I know you mean well but this is possibly the most ridiculous comment I've read for a while. 

[AdamR28]

52 minutes ago, JT! said:

...says every person who thinks the Earth is flat.

I don't mean that as harsh and insulting as it sounds, but I just wanted to point out the absurdity of that statement.

It's perfectly fine to question things, like, how much money are GPs making from covid booster shots? That's a perfectly reasonable question. Another perfectly reasonable question is how much more money are bike shop owners making because of covid?

The problem is that these questions, they find the answers the questions were designed to find, they're not genuine questions, they're implications hidden as enquiry. For example, how much more money are bike shop owners making because of covid? Would it not be beneficial for bike shop owners to push vaccine hesitancy because if covid sticks around longer their shop would make more money? Hey, I'm just asking questions, why so aggressive?

Haha. I get where you are coming from. Its really interesting to see things from new angles, so thanks for making this comment!

In response to this I'd say this year has been far from good in the bike industry - supply of stock is really poor. Another year like this would sink most bike shops I reckon.

I believe natural immunity is the way forward in this case and jabs / restrictions are damaging (both mentally and physically) - and the evidence is there to show this - but we are being sold the current regime very, very forcefully for whatever reason (cynical or incompetent).

[AdamR28]

16 hours ago, monkeyseemonkeydo said:

Just to go a little further on that from a quick glance at the link Adam posted it doesn't seem that the GP personally is remunerated for giving a jab but the surgery/practice. Whether they then just divvy it up and take it home I don't know but chances are some of them will invest that back into the surgery to buy new equipment, carry out renovations, buy better PPE for their staff etc. It doesn't seem to be quite as clear cut as GPs running round singing 'We're in the money'...

Ah, I misread, thanks for pointing that out! So the money goes to a PCN (primary care network?

I think that does change things, but I wonder if the £20-30m that will be spent evey day this month on boosters could be better used elsewhere.

[Ali C]

I just don't understand how questioning a bike shop owners motive is in any way comparable to the motives of those running the country and those selling the vaccines and running the media, they're in no way related. That was also a very passive aggressive reply JT.

I'm with you on the natural immunity Adam.

The vaccines have a very low efficacy rate (unless you believe the tests done which were funded by Pfizer). They also only work in a certain percentage of the population. The risks of side effects are small but in my mind, a small percentage is still too big. I'd rather not risk a virus AND and vaccine especially with reports of heart conditions that stay with you for life. I just see it as two risks instead of one and the more time goes on, the less the risk of covid seems to be. A friend who is overweight and un-vaxxed got covid last week, he was ill for a day and had a rough head for a couple of days after, I also know three other friends who are at least double vaccinated and they're currently down with covid too. 

I just feel like I'm looking at a red wall and everyone else is telling me it's blue.

[JT!]

17 minutes ago, Ali C said:

I'm sorry JT, I know you mean well but this is possibly the most ridiculous comment I've read for a while. 

It was supposed to be... well, depends which part you thought was ridiculous.

10 minutes ago, Adam@TartyBikes said:

In response to this I'd say this year has been far from good in the bike industry - supply of stock is really poor. Another year like this would sink most bike shops I reckon.

That's just what you want us to think.

But yeah in all seriousness I just thought that'd be a fitting example that might trigger Ali. One of my local bike shops actually closed down last year because they simply couldn't get the stock in to remain open.

With regards to natural immunity, if baffles me how that could have ever been implemented with regards to covid. I've heard people talk about it but they always seem to not mention the insane exponential spread, healthcare systems getting overwhelmed and mass death. All you hear is "oh we could all be immune right now, it wouldn't have had chance to mutate and there'd be no need for a vaccine".

What am I missing?

[JT!]

12 minutes ago, Ali C said:

just don't understand how questioning a bike shop owners motive is in any way comparable to the motives of those running the country and those selling the vaccines and running the media, they're in no way related.

They aren't, that wasn't the point I was making.

I was responding to your comment about why people are getting aggressive about "questioning things". I specifically quoted that part only.

[Ali C]

I'm afraid you've lost me in that case.

I don't think we should've just been left to it and hope for the best regarding getting immunity, I think we could've worked more to treating people rather than the virus. Restrictions may have been a good idea but weren't implemented in the best way, I think we should be editing the approach as more data comes out rather than trying to continue to do the same thing over and over again. 

[JT!]

19 minutes ago, Ali C said:

The vaccines have a very low efficacy rate (unless you believe the tests done which were funded by Pfizer). They also only work in a certain percentage of the population. The risks of side effects are small but in my mind, a small percentage is still too big. I'd rather not risk a virus AND and vaccine especially with reports of heart conditions that stay with you for life. I just see it as two risks instead of one and the more time goes on, the less the risk of covid seems to be. A friend who is overweight and un-vaxxed got covid last week, he was ill for a day and had a rough head for a couple of days after, I also know three other friends who are at least double vaccinated and they're currently down with covid too. 

I just feel like I'm looking at a red wall and everyone else is telling me it's blue.

Sorry for the triple post, TF is all over the place right now.

With regards to efficacy rate "very low" doesn't really mean much. We know now that the vaccine wears off over time and doesn't really stop you from getting covid, but lessens the severity and massively reduces the chance of death.

I don't know where you're getting "heart conditions that stay with you for life" from, given that the vaccine is, what barley a year old? How can the vaccine be so new for you to claim that we don't know the long term effects, but you claim that the vaccine has lifelong effects? You can't have your cake and eat it.

The rest of your comment is just anecdotal evidence, I'm sorry but four of your mates getting covid and taking something away from that is just unscientific.

[Ali C]

46 minutes ago, JT! said:

Sorry for the triple post, TF is all over the place right now.

but lessens the severity and massively reduces the chance of death.

I don't know where you're getting "heart conditions that stay with you for life" from, given that the vaccine is, what barley a year old? How can the vaccine be so new for you to claim that we don't know the long term effects, but you claim that the vaccine has lifelong effects? You can't have your cake and eat it.

The rest of your comment is just anecdotal evidence, I'm sorry but four of your mates getting covid and taking something away from that is just unscientific.

Does it? 

I'm getting that from Dr Peter McCullough (please watch the Joe Rogan podcast). The vaccines can cause myocardial injuries which as a entity in it's own right has a lot of history and research.
 

I didn't claim that these friends makes for scientific reasoning but combined with real scientific evidence coming out it's not going against it.

 

[JT!]

You got a timestamp for the podcast? It's almost 3 hours long.

And when you say "does it?" which part are you referring to? Lessening the severity?

https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/unvaccinated-covid-19-patients-in-hospital-nearly-20-years-younger-than-vaccinated-patients - Chances of being admitted to hospital is 17 times lower when vaccinated, 33 times lower to being admitted to ICU.

https://www.startribune.com/metro-minnesota-hospitals-detail-covid-19-patients-by-vaccination-status/600098259/ - Article closer to home for me - A chart provided by Minneapolis-based Allina showed that only 38 of its 150 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 on Sunday were vaccinated — a rate of 25% — and that only eight of 32 COVID-19 patients in intensive care were vaccinated.

 

 

[marg26]

On 12/13/2021 at 1:09 PM, Ali C said:

people I would consider very smart have totally committed to follow what the government has told them and be quite aggressive to those who are questioning things.   

to be honest I've had enough of that too. There's another UK based knobbly tired two wheeled recreational transport forum where this dismissal of anyone who has doubts about the official line is rife. It's probably putting a lot of people off that forum. It's certainly putting a lot of people off from actually discussing their doubts because the moment anyone does they're either a tinfoil hat wearer, or troll. I suspect there's a lot of us who reside somewhere in the middle, who've done what they're told, you know it's meant to be based on science, we may not trust a single word coming out of the mouth of Boris, but the scientific advisors (the people who've actually made it their daily life to work on vaccines and viruses etc) we have our faith in (one of whom does post on the aforementioned forum, and it's worth reading his comments for, but it's wading through the other overly zealous shite that's so wearying). Apparently pharma has announced the sooner-rather-than-later need for a 2nd booster. I've got my two jabs, and I'll probably go for the booster before long, but I'm not rushing to go. The vaccine appears to be working for me however as have been in close proximity with someone who tested positive (LFT & PCR).

Edited December 14, 2021 by marg26

[isitafox]

The whole problem with the natural immunity thing is that if the governments stepped back and said we're not going to do anything, we just need to let the virus run it's course the backlash would be insurmountable. 

As far as the government is concerned every decision is a wrong decision in someone's eyes so they've got to pick what they consider to be the least problematic (in terms of reactions) choice and just grit their teeth. 

[Al_Fel]

The government doesn't lie.

The media doesn't lie.

Science is always 100% correct and doesn't change.

If you don't agree with something then you are a tinfoil hat wearing flat earther.

COVID-19 came from someone eating a bat in Wuhan not far from a Level 4 Bio Lab that studies the Corona viruses.

No one is making a profit from the vaccine.

Jeffery Epstine killed himself.

I find it interesting If you believe any of the above statements.

[MadManMike]

16 minutes ago, isitafox said:

The whole problem with the natural immunity thing is that if the governments stepped back and said we're not going to do anything, we just need to let the virus run it's course the backlash would be insurmountable. 

As far as the government is concerned every decision is a wrong decision in someone's eyes so they've got to pick what they consider to be the least problematic (in terms of reactions) choice and just grit their teeth. 

I agree, but the thing I've found weird through all of this isn't that an experimental vaccine has been offered, it's that it's being pushed to the point of dividing people and in places like Austria, it's being made mandatory. If it was just a case of the government not wanting to look bad, all they'd need to do is say "Hey, here's a vaccine if you want it".

I still believe it's mostly about profit and not our wellbeing. The government doesn't really give a shit about backlash either, they know we all just do as we're told - look at all the senior folks in government breaking all the rules over the last year or so, did we cause a storm? Nope, we made memes to share on Facebook. I honestly feel like the government could do pretty much anything now and we'd just get on with it, with nothing more than a slight complaint on Twitter.

[manuel]

It absolutely is not an experimental vaccine. I don’t think it’s helpful to describe it as such. At a push “new vaccine” but even that is implying something that it isn’t.

 

[MadManMike]

Has it changed now then?

I read that they were all approved "for emergency use" and still considered experimental, but if that's not the case then fair enough - my point still stands though, experimental or not.

[Alyksett]

I think it's worth pointing out that natural herd immunity means that about 2/3 of a given population needs to have had covid so they're immune from it (a conservative estimate. The immunity also wears off which makes it worse.).

This means that at a 1.6% fatality rate (The US's rate) then 5 3.5 million people will die in the US alone. Is that really worth it?

EDIT: 1.6%, 800,000 deaths/50,000,000 cases; 330,000,000*2/3 = 220,000,000 * 0.016 = 3,500,000 deaths

Edited December 15, 2021 by Alyksett

[Ali C]

“Correction, April 30, 2021: An earlier version of this check described the Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and J&J vaccines as being approved for use in the United States. This has been corrected to say these vaccines have been authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Vaccine makers will need to apply to the FDA for full approval to continue use after the pandemic.”

[MadManMike]

27 minutes ago, Alyksett said:

I think it's worth pointing out that natural herd immunity means that about 2/3 of a given population needs to have had covid so they're immune from it (a conservative estimate. The immunity also wears off which makes it worse.).

This means that at a 0.016% fatality rate (The US's rate) then 5 million people will die in the US alone. Is that really worth it?

I haven't suggested herd immunity as the solution.

Is your 0.016% fatality rate based on the number of cases that have led to death? If so, that number is not accurate, as there's probably far more cases than we think which have not been recorded - I know plenty of people that suspect they had it but didn't get tested (working from home during lockdown, so they were isolating anyway, regardless of any tests). When I had Covid there wasn't even tests available, so for those first few months there was probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases that were not recorded, so the fatality rate is not accurate.

[AdamR28]

10 hours ago, Alyksett said:

This means that at a 0.016% fatality rate (The US's rate) then 5 million people will die in the US alone. Is that really worth it?

I may have done the maths wrong here... but I think that would make the US population 31.25 billion.

Assuming a population of 330 million (latest data I can find from 2020), a 0.016% fatality rate would mean 53k deaths. The latest figures I can find show about 800k deaths. Perhaps that fatality rate isn't right? 

Edit: looks like its 800k deaths from 50m cases so far, which is 1.6%. Which would make 5m deaths if everyone in the US got Covid, based on current data, as you said. I am unsure if herd immunity would reach that high a death rate - a high proportion of deaths are made up by the old and infirm. Once they have gone, the rate will drop.

 

**If someone could also look at this and make sure I'm not going made that would be good...!** Official UK government figures appear to show you are less likely to die from Covid if you haven't had any jabs:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf

(Table 10b, page 34)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018416/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_37_v2.pdf

"Between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21 there were 3,070 Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in England, compared to 12,058 deaths among the vaccinated population during the same time frame."

"The official data shows the the vaccinated population have accounted for 56% of Covid-19 cases, 63% of hospitalisations, and 80% of deaths over the past 16 weeks in England."

The UK currently has a 69% double vaccinated rate (and this figure will have been lower on 16th August) - less than the 80% double vaccinated death rate. The report does mention that those more "vulnerable" will have been offered the jab first, which could explain why double vaccinated people have a higher death rate than unvaccinated - but I don't believe this to be a factor now, since every adult has had plenty of time to get jabbed if they want.

 

I think we all agree that the jab doesn't stop you getting it, and doesn't stop you spreading it - this is what the scientists and government officials are telling us, and is currently playing out with another spike in infections. We are also being told that having the jabs reduces the severity of symptoms (which I guess includes death).

However, with government data showing there is little difference in chance of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated - and certainly wildly different from the effectiveness percentages the vaccine makers are claiming - I still don't understand why we are being pushed so hard to have it...

 

Prediction: we'll be allowed a fairly normal Xmas but have to "be alert", then additional restrictions again very soon after.

[Alyksett]

6 hours ago, AdamR28 said:

may have done the maths wrong here... but I think that would make the US population 31.25 billion.

Yep, sorry. I didn't write the percent version in my comment, the fatality rate is 1.6%. At 2/3 population getting it, its 3.5 million deaths and 2/3 is a very conservative estimate of what scientists think would be needed to reach immunity. See edit for my math

6 hours ago, AdamR28 said:

I am unsure if herd immunity would reach that high a death rate - a high proportion of deaths are made up by the old and infirm. Once they have gone, the rate will drop.

So the deaths may be lower, but that's because all of the old people in the country will die? Maybe you're right but I'm not okay with my country letting a generation of people kick the bucket and I'm sure you wouldn't be either. Also there's 15,400,000 people in the US between  75 and 84.

 

As far as your links you sent. This is a great example of why average people without advanced relevant degrees shouldn't be looking into the depths of 40 page scientific publishings.

6 hours ago, AdamR28 said:

"Between 16 Aug 21 and 05 Dec 21 there were 3,070 Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in England, compared to 12,058 deaths among the vaccinated population during the same time frame."

You can't just take the net deaths of vaccinated vs unvaccinated and compare the two. What if the amount of double vaxxed people is 10 times larger than the unvaxxed group? Even if the fatality rate of the vaxxed is 5 times less than the unvaxxed, there would still be way more vaxxed people dying, but it's only because there's way more vaxxed people from the start, you have to take the rates of mortality. Absolute numbers when doing comparisons of rates means nothing. 

You can't just pull a few quotes out of 160 pages of research and draw conclusions from it, especially when in the first link you sent they say 

"Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalisation and death." 

On the very first page....

Edited December 16, 2021 by Alyksett

[Alyksett]

1 hour ago, MadManMike said:

I haven't suggested herd immunity as the solution.

Is your 0.016% fatality rate based on the number of cases that have led to death? If so, that number is not accurate, as there's probably far more cases than we think which have not been recorded - I know plenty of people that suspect they had it but didn't get tested (working from home during lockdown, so they were isolating anyway, regardless of any tests). When I had Covid there wasn't even tests available, so for those first few months there was probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases that were not recorded, so the fatality rate is not accurate.

I was just bringing it up, I see people mention herd immunity when they might not realize the implications. 

and yeah I wrote it wrong, It's 1.6%, I didn't type the percent converted number out, see my edit for the math. Considering the US has given over 750,000,000 tests, I think that it's close enough to do some basic math to figure out that millions will die if we go with herd immunity. Even if the actual rate is 3 times lower at 0.5%, over a million people will die and that's with a conservative estimate, and not even factoring in immunity decreasing over time which would lead to more deaths.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Alyksett

[MadManMike]

There's too many factors involved to throw numbers around imo.

Firstly, the untested cases. That makes up a massive number, I'm sure, but we have no way to quantify it.

Secondly, the way deaths are recorded. Here in the UK it's any positive result in the last 28 days - so a terminally ill patient could have had it a week ago and their death gets marked down as Covid, when it might not have been. Again, no way to quantify it because we're not recording it correctly.

And finally, "Omicron" is very easy to spread but is "very mild" according to doctors - this will end up increasing positive cases massively and lowering death rates, so the percentage drops further. Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not how Spanish Flu gradually died out? It became weaker and weaker but spread faster? (I read this somewhere, it may not be correct, I've not researched Spanish Flu at all).

I don't believe there's a way to publish an accurate percentage.

[Alyksett]

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the UK, but I think we have a generally have a good enough idea of the behavior of the virus and the relevant numbers to, at the least, come to the conclusion that if we went hands off and let the it run it's course then millions would die globally (as they already have), at some point in the future the dominate variant may be mild enough to let herd immunity work, especially when our hospitals can handle it. But at the moment I don't think we're at that stage