Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

Here is a paper I just finished.

Less Restrictions = More Virus

More Restrictions = Less Virus

I can furnish you with 3 recent examples from the actual country you live in if you like?

But surely you do realise that a point comes where restrictions become counter productive?

Or is that an alien concept?

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

Pre existing resistance, probably through exposure to other coronavirus relatively recently probably plays a part in mild / a symptomatic infection. Kidd especially have an immune system trained to novel coronaviruses as all variants are novel to their immune system. If you don’t have any residual T cell resistance though, the only way to develop it is to catch the virus or get vaccinated

Exactly. And for that reason alone, even if we let the virus run rampant without any measures in place, the death toll would never reach beyond 10m. Worldwide that is.

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But surely you do realise that a point comes where restrictions become counter productive?

Or is that an alien concept?

Hold on Fintan, 4 vaccines about to come online.

The last thing we want to do at this stage is this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4nZUEkAsw8

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Wow. That is batshít.

Those herd immunity loons are churning out some amount of bollix.

I read one of their "papers" last night, they championed South Korea's mitigation strategy without mentioning masks once.

Looney Tunes!

On what grounds do you claim that the authors and consequently independent peers in their field that reviewed this publication are “loons churning out some amount of bolix”?

You do understand that in that statement you have done to yourself just what you accuse them of?

mandrake04

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I can’t open the link...! What is it? And why if more effective than antigen is it not being used? Havnt the EU recommended RA testing be used alongside PCR?

Try this
https://www.globalpointofcare.abbott/en/product-details/id-now.html

Sure if Ireland have approved antigen testing then they should be used, but have Ireland approved antigen testing?

Boggles

walus wrote: »

On what grounds do you claim that the authors and consequently independent peers in their field that reviewed this publication are “loons churning out some amount of bolix”?

You do understand that in that statement you have done to yourself just what you accuse them of?

All ready covered it below.

Boggles wrote: »

There is no argument left, they have been debunked repeatedly.

Have you read any of their papers Fintan? because I unfortunately have.

It's a vain and misguided attempt at validation of their continuously wrong assumptions throughout this whole pandemic.

Any fúcktard pushing for herd immunity when 4 vaccines are about to come online is a dangerous fúcking simpleton that should be confined to the cesspit on the fringe side of Twitter.

Kermit.de.frog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is the only argument left now reduced to petty insults?

You were calling people names only yesterday...:rolleyes:

walus

Boggles wrote: »

All ready covered it below.

If that is so, why has it not be picked on by the peer review? Are they loons as well?

walus

mandrake04 wrote: »

Try this
https://www.globalpointofcare.abbott/en/product-details/id-now.html

Sure if Ireland have approved antigen testing then they should be used, but have Ireland approved antigen testing?

Why would Ireland approve antigen testing? To actually use it? There is so much hassle and preparation to be done to get this going...

mandrake04

walus wrote: »

Why would Ireland approve antigen testing? To actually use it? There is so much hassle and preparation to be done to get this going...

It’s a IVD medical device comes under legislation and must be approved by HPRA

walus

walus wrote: »

Exactly. And for that reason alone, even if we let the virus run rampant without any measures in place, the death toll would never reach beyond 10m. Worldwide that is.

That’s a massive leap. Only 10% or so of the population have been exposed. Current deaths and assuming it takes 70% for herd immunity gets to around 25million. Residual immunity does not prevent infection just inhibits severity. Lots of very mild and a symptomatic in the current infection numbers and no evidence of neutralising immunity inherent in any significant numbers

walus

walus wrote: »

If that is so, why has it not be picked on by the peer review? Are they loons as well?

Peer review decides only on the scientific merit of a study and were the methods data etc appropriate. The wider scientific community assesses the validity of the study through replication, discourse and rebuttal.

Ionnidas has jumped the shark on this

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

Peer review decides only on the scientific merit of a study and were the methods data etc appropriate. The wider scientific community assesses the validity of the study through replication, discourse and rebuttal.

Ionnidas has jumped the shark on this

As an author and reviewer of publications I'm aware of how it works. But thank you for a book standard definition. That however is beside the point.

If the said authors have managed to publish something that is of questionable scientific merit, I'm sure that you agree with me on this, we should leave the scientific community to decide on that.

Instead one cannot accept that we should take an opinion of an anonymous boards.ie member as a gospel. Especially of such a low merit as this:

Boggles wrote: »

There is no argument left, they have been debunked repeatedly.

Have you read any of their papers Fintan? because I unfortunately have.

It's a vain and misguided attempt at validation of their continuously wrong assumptions throughout this whole pandemic.

Any fúcktard pushing for herd immunity when 4 vaccines are about to come online is a dangerous fúcking simpleton that should be confined to the cesspit on the fringe side of Twitter.

Instead it would be much better to get a link along the lines of: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

Which gives a more balanced view on the matter on hand. It would be even better to see other scientists publications that prove and show where those authors mentioned are wrong. Especially, they are not alone in saying what they do - i.e. Michael Levitt and many others is of a similar opinion.

Being right ahead of your time oftentimes looks like being wrong. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Way to early to say that for sure now.

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

That’s a massive leap. Only 10% or so of the population have been exposed. Current deaths and assuming it takes 70% for herd immunity gets to around 25million. Residual immunity does not prevent infection just inhibits severity. Lots of very mild and a symptomatic in the current infection numbers and no evidence of neutralising immunity inherent in any significant numbers

Only 10%? How do you know that?

walus

walus wrote: »

As an author and reviewer of publications I'm aware of how it works. But thank you for a book standard definition. That however is beside the point.

If the said authors have managed to publish something that is of questionable scientific merit, I'm sure that you agree with me on this, we should leave the scientific community to decide on that.

Instead one cannot accept that we should take an opinion of an anonymous boards.ie member as a gospel. Especially of such a low merit as this:



Instead it would be much better to get a link along the lines of: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/

Which gives a more balance view on the matter on hand. It would be even better to see other scientists publications that prove and show where those authors mentioned are wrong. Especially, they are not alone in saying what they do - i.e. Michael Levitt and many others is of a similar opinion.

Being right ahead of your time oftentimes looks like being wrong. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Way to early to say that for sure now.

I will accept that Ionnidas had some credentials in the area, however the preponderance of scientific opinion is going the opposite direction. Can you accept that?
Also - Levitt - he told us we had herd immunity on April. Any credibility he ever had on the subject is well and truly gone.

What Levitt, Cummings, Yeadon and other have in common is the ability to shift the goalposts as data emerges that disproves their initial contention. All the "PCR, With not from, Already approaching immunity" etc etc comes from this group and as data emerges that refutes their original contention, they shift slightly to muddy the water elsewhere with half baked theories based on no more that crude correlations. Why do they do this you may ask - grift - none of these charlatans are the experts in the fields of epidemiology, virology, public health, vaccines etc. so no one is going to pay them for their opinion, however if they take the contrarian view they can cut out a nice little niche for themselves among those looking for easy answers. I would say its often a cognitive bias rather than outright lying as well that leads some of them down their paths, with only those snippets that can be spun to the view they already hold making it into their theories. There is also no cost to this cabal for going down this path. They are not making any decisions so can express opinions without consequence, safe in the knowledge that if anyone ever followed their guidance, blame would be placed at those governments and agencies and not them

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

I will accept that Ionnidas had some credentials in the area, however the preponderance of scientific opinion is going the opposite direction. Can you accept that?
Also - Levitt - he told us we had herd immunity on April. Any credibility he ever had on the subject is well and truly gone.

What Levitt, Cummings, Yeadon and other have in common is the ability to shift the goalposts as data emerges that disproves their initial contention. All the "PCR, With not from, Already approaching immunity" etc etc comes from this group and as data emerges that refutes their original contention, they shift slightly to muddy the water elsewhere with half baked theories based on no more that crude correlations. Why do they do this you may ask - grift - none of these charlatans are the experts in the fields of epidemiology, virology, public health, vaccines etc. so no one is going to pay them for their opinion, however if they take the contrarian view they can cut out a nice little niche for themselves among those looking for easy answers. I would say its often a cognitive bias rather than outright lying as well that leads some of them down their paths, with only those snippets that can be spun to the view they already hold making it into their theories. There is also no cost to this cabal for going down this path. They are not making any decisions so can express opinions without consequence, safe in the knowledge that if anyone ever followed their guidance, blame would be placed at those governments and agencies and not them

What I find amusing about this rather well structured piece is that it could also be applied to NPHET

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What I find amusing about this rather well structured piece is that it could also be applied to NPHET

Of course the members of NPHET have to live with the consequences of their decisions - they run the system, do the work, are accountable to government etc.

Captain_Crash

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What I find amusing about this rather well structured piece is that it could also be applied to NPHET

I actually read the bolded part first and thought it was about NPHET haha

Boggles

walus wrote: »

Michael Levitt and many others is of a similar opinion.

Being right ahead of your time oftentimes looks like being wrong. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Way to early to say that for sure now.

Time has told.

I listened to that loon tell us Ireland had reached Herd Immunity back in the summer and their would be no second wave.

The pertinent question is, why are you championing such charlatans?

walus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What I find amusing about this rather well structured piece is that it could also be applied to NPHET

Leaving the scientific capability aside, nphet should have been disbanded long time ago as it is a completely dysfunctional body when decision making process is concerned.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Time has told.

I listened to that loon tell us Ireland had reached Herd Immunity back in the summer and their would be no second wave.

The pertinent question is, why are you championing such charlatans?

I'm not championing anybody. In fact I'm skeptical with regard to both extremes.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

I'm not championing anybody. In fact I'm skeptical with regard to both extremes.

You mused in your post that time will tell when people opinions or right or wrong while causally dropping in Levitt's name.

He has been consistently and comically wrong.

Time has told.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

You mused in your post that time will tell when people opinions or right or wrong while causally dropping in Levitt's name.

He has been consistently and comically wrong.

Time has told.

I used his name only for the purpose of showing that there are others, like the authors of the said publication(s), are of a similar opinion. Nothing less, nothing more.

While, as you say he might have been wrong on Ireland reaching immunity in April (I did not see or read him say that), equally he might have been right on other things. Again, it is beside the point.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

I used his name only for the purpose of showing that there are others, like the authors of the said publication(s), are of a similar opinion. Nothing less, nothing more.

While, as you say he might have been wrong on Ireland reaching immunity in April (I did not see or read him say that), equally he might have been right on other things. Again, it is beside the point.

Ireland reaching herd immunity in the summer is a pretty big fúcking thing to be wrong about, don't you think?

:pac::pac::pac:

Honestly, going forward if you are on any other forums trying to make your "point", leave that charlatans name out of it, he has about as much credence at this stage as a flat earther.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Ireland reaching herd immunity in the summer is a pretty big fúcking thing to be wrong about, don't you think?

:pac::pac::pac:

Honestly, going forward if you are on any other forums trying to make your "point", leave that charlatans name out of it, he has about as much credence at this stage as a flat earther.

I'm not sure if he had enough relevant information to stand over that claim. He probably did not realize how much the country has shut down in that period and suppressed the spread of the virus. If he extrapolated from other countries (i.e. UK) I could see how he could have made such a statement.

I'd suggest you'd be careful who you call charlatan or worse. May pay off in a long term.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

I'd suggest you'd be careful who you call charlatan or worse. May pay off in a long term.

He is an absolute charlatan and his consistent nonsensical ramblings if adopted would have got an awful lot of people sick and dead.

So, on top of that he is a dangerous idiot.

Now there is a lot worse things I can call him but I suspect there may be something wrong with home, so I won't.

It wouldn't be unique that a Noble Prize Winner turns out to go batshít in later life.

walus

walus wrote: »

I'm not sure if he had enough relevant information to stand over that claim. He probably did not realize how much the country has shut down in that period and suppressed the spread of the virus. If he extrapolated from other countries (i.e. UK) I could see how he could have made such a statement.

I'd suggest you'd be careful who you call charlatan or worse. May pay off in a long term.

Time has told for the UK also, so even if extrapolating for Ireland from other countries, the claim was equally false

Captain_Crash

So there is a clear timeline in place now and everyone will be pricked by September! How long before the first delay? And will anyone actually be held accountable when come September this target isn’t met!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40207484.html

Quick maths in my head means ave. 125K a week from now! But they only expect to be hitting more than 100K a week by Feb!

CIARAN_BOYLE

Captain_Crash wrote: »

So there is a clear timeline in place now and everyone will be pricked by September! How long before the first delay? And will anyone actually be held accountable when come September this target isn’t met!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40207484.html

Quick maths in my head means ave. 125K a week from now! But they only expect to be hitting more than 100K a week by Feb!

Deliveries will increase as production comes on line. In q2 we are supposed to be getting twice as much Pfizer vaccine as we are at the moment for example.

As to accountability it all depends on why there is delays. Who can we hold accountable if the new pfizer plant doesnt finish on time or if Oxford Astra Zenaca is not approved by the ema.

Captain_Crash

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Deliveries will increase as production comes on line. In q2 we are supposed to be getting twice as much Pfizer vaccine as we are at the moment for example.

As to accountability it all depends on why there is delays. Who can we hold accountable if the new pfizer plant doesnt finish on time or if Oxford Astra Zenaca is not approved by the ema.

I’m presuming any fcuk ups will be on the DOH/HSE’s end. Let’s call a spade a spade here, they will be!