Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Exile]

Originally Posted by longjonsilver

Is this for real? Seems to contradict stats showing that most people admitted into hospitals as a result of Covid are unvaccinated.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this for real? Seems to contradict stats showing that most people admitted into hospitals as a result of Covid are unvaccinated.

The numbers are in percent of cases, and NOT RATE/100000, the more appropriate comparison.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by longjonsilver

Oh but does it speak for itself! The link shown on the graph which allegedly is at Public Health Scotland is a non-existent page. I'm going to guess it was either photoshopped, with the "Unvaccinated" and "Vaccinated" switched, or may be simply made up. Public Health Scotland does not appear to provide this data.



As far as "Dr Simon" on Telegram here's one of his posts:

Again, just like the Telegram gem-post on “Uniting America“, here is one “Dr. Simon, with a prescription for ending the pandemic:
______________________
How to end this “pandemic”.
� stop testing healthy people
� delete the word “asymptomatic” from the vocabulary
� get back to the “stay home when you feel sick” principle
� arrest corrupt politicians, journalists, and scientists
� ban the use of masks and face shields
� reform and defund biased MSM
� bust up big pharma and big tech
� run health campaigns focused on healthy diet and sports
� prohibit the use of models to enforce policies
� correct the population’s vitamin D and Omega-3 deficits
� administer evidence-based drugs such as Ivermectin and melatonin.
� dismantle the UN, WHO and powerful philanthropic organisations (e.g. Open Society and Gates Foundation)
� restructure the domain of science to regain some credibility
� prohibit gain of function research
Enjoy your weekend, and don’t forget to smile now and then. Life is good! ☀️
Cheers,
Dr Simon

Honestly, we really do need our members to do a better job of curating what we share, and to post articles and links that have at least a modicum of scientific value and acceptance. Real links should be provided as many of us really do visit them. Telegram unfortunately is a haven for far out conspiracy and fake news posters for those who have been kicked off other media.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...ntent-n1254215

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Oh but does it speak for itself! The link shown on the graph which allegedly is at Public Health Scotland is a non-existent page. I'm going to guess it was either photoshopped, with the "Unvaccinated" and "Vaccinated" switched, or may be simply made up. Public Health Scotland does not appear to provide this data.



As far as "Dr Simon" on Telegram here's one of his posts:


Honestly, we really do need our members to do a better job of curating what we share, and to post articles and links that have at least a modicum of scientific value and acceptance. Real links should be provided as many of us really do visit them. Telegram unfortunately is a haven for far out conspiracy and fake news posters for those who have been kicked off other media.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...ntent-n1254215

Good catch!



Interestingly, the most recent Public Health Scotland report DOES indicate a HIGHER INFECTION RATE among 2-dose compared to non-vaccinated. The report suggests this was due to inclusion of the frail >70yrs group. Infections, hospitalizations and deaths in 2-dose (and 3-dose) groups <70yrs were all much lower than same-age unvaccinated.
https://www.publichealthscotland.sco...-january-2022/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Good catch!

Attachment 251440

Interestingly, the most recent Public Health Scotland report DOES indicate a HIGHER INFECTION RATE among 2-dose compared to non-vaccinated. The report suggests this was due to inclusion of the frail >70yrs group. Infections, hospitalizations and deaths in 2-dose (and 3-dose) groups <70yrs were all much lower than same-age unvaccinated.
https://www.publichealthscotland.sco...-january-2022/

This makes more sense, and is line with recent stats. Whether or not the vaccines remain effective against infection, they surely seem to be working to offset severe illness/hospitalizations.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Perhaps you misunderstood. Of course vaccines are important, but only if people take them and I assumed that those who actually believed in science have already done so, and will be getting boosted as soon as it is possible ...

It may be less about belief in science, than about a different way of perceiving/valuing rewards [delay discounting*].
See ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3557023


* Delayed reward discounting refers to a person's preferences for smaller immediate rewards, versus larger delayed rewards.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Exile

This makes more sense, and is line with recent stats. Whether or not the vaccines remain effective against infection, they surely seem to be working to offset severe illness/hospitalizations.

That is indisputable , here in Ireland we have one of the highest case rates of Omicron in the world, almost twice the US !! But we have 85 people in icu , we have 94 % vaccination and everyone over 50 has been boosted

68 % of icu are currently unvaccinated , those that get seriously ill are either unvaccinated or have co-morbidities. Boosted healthy adults are mainly presenting with minor cold like symptoms ( man flue )

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[RE VACCINATION] It may be less about belief in science, than about a different way of perceiving/valuing rewards [delay discounting*].
See ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3557023

* Delayed reward discounting refers to a person's preferences for smaller immediate rewards, versus larger delayed rewards.

This may account for the rapid increase in sales of Hershey Bars with Almonds among the unvaccinated. Of course this will open me up to your argument that bagged candies do even better, lol...


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ndy-in-the-us/

[Zippee]

If we can tear ourselves away from our Hershey chocolate bars and Guiness pints for a tad, here's a really great and current discussion of Vaxx vs Unvaxxed in terms of Omicron, etc., from the World in Data. In another thread Gord well made the same point in his own inimitable way...



https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

[Exile]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That is indisputable , here in Ireland we have one of the highest case rates of Omicron in the world, almost twice the US !! But we have 85 people in icu , we have 94 % vaccination and everyone over 50 has been boosted

68 % of icu are currently unvaccinated , those that get seriously ill are either unvaccinated or have co-morbidities. Boosted healthy adults are mainly presenting with minor cold like symptoms ( man flue )

Originally Posted by Zippee

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Thanks for posting this, as it is consistent with other statistical and anecdotal information being presented from around the world. It is also much more compelling and therefore persuasive than the sort of disparaging comments we often hear about people who decline or remain hesitant to get vaccinated. Publicizing the benefits of such decisions rather than stereotyping them all as "nonbelievers in science" or other such nonsense is not only inaccurate for the most part, but will be unlikely to persuade.

While I believe, like most, that the benefits of vaccination are all too obvious, it wasn't that long ago in this thread that a study (Imperial College) was posted concluding that an Omicron infection would confer no natural immunity. This appears to have now been proven incorrect, with high infection rates resulting in fairly quick peaks. And more recently, a study was posted showing that the common cold (another type of Coronavirus) could confer some natural immunity against Omicron. This was vigorously condemned for not being peer-reviewed, and for the posting linked to what some deemed a dubious source. Turns out these attacks on the validity of this study were also misplaced, and not only was it peer-reviewed, it has now been widely reported as likely correct.

Citing the "science" in support of one's own preordained views seems to me to be the antithesis of the objectivity required to be "scientific."

[Baronkrak]

Originally Posted by Exile

This makes more sense, and is line with recent stats. Whether or not the vaccines remain effective against infection, they surely seem to be working to offset severe illness/hospitalizations.

WHO orders pharma firms to update their COVID vaccines so they provide stronger immune responses

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...stainable.html

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Exile

And more recently, a study was posted showing that the common cold (another type of Coronavirus) could confer some natural immunity against Omicron. This was vigorously condemned for not being peer-reviewed, and for the posting linked to what some deemed a dubious source. Turns out these attacks on the validity of this study were also misplaced, and not only was it peer-reviewed, it has now been widely reported as likely correct.

Citing the "science" in support of one's own preordained views seems to me to be the antithesis of the objectivity required to be "scientific."

When I see such undefined descriptors as "...vigorously condemned... dubious... attacks... misplaced..." attached to a claim that an unnamed and here uncited study was indeed peer-reviewed and "widely reported" - such a strong conclusion simply begs for confirmation. This is a case where links to the original source seem almost mandatory.


I would only add that an intermediate source that accompanied that claim - quoted - was that "97% of all tests are positive" - completely fake, and only intended to support the proposition that Covid is somehow faked. The "all peer-reviewed" issue was another matter, disproven then and not relevent here.


We certainly agree that scientific source material is important, with the proviso that even an outlying "peer-viewed" study does not overcome the great bulk of likewise peer-viewed studies, which by consensus may disagree. This is when we turn to "meta-studies" as it's fair to say the tail does not wag the dog...


Thanks again for the kind words...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

When I see such undefined descriptors as "...vigorously condemned... dubious... attacks... misplaced..." attached to a claim that an unnamed and here uncited study was indeed peer-reviewed and "widely reported" - such a strong conclusion simply begs for confirmation. This is a case where links to the original source seem almost mandatory.


I would only add that an intermediate source that accompanied that claim - quoted - was that "97% of all tests are positive" - completely fake, and only intended to support the proposition that Covid is somehow faked. The "all peer-reviewed" issue was another matter, disproven then and not relevent here.


We certainly agree that scientific source material is important, with the proviso that even an outlying "peer-viewed" study does not overcome the great bulk of likewise peer-viewed studies, which by consensus may disagree. This is when we turn to "meta-studies" as it's fair to say the tail does not wag the dog...


Thanks again for the kind words...

Nobody's been harping on the "97% positive test claim." But the obvious falsity of that has nothing to do with the validity of a different type of Coronavirus (common cold) conferring natural immunity. As has been pointed out by others, this is the pitfall of over-reliance on the source of particular information in forming a conclusion about content contained therein. Not to be conflated with a source's good or bad reputation for credibility or bias which should always be factored in. But dismissing information that is otherwise credible on its face solely based on the type of publication it appears in is folly.

As best I can gather, the relevant studies showing natural immunity from the common cold have been peer-reviewed and are valid. The early Imperial College study showing no natural immunity from Omicron now appears to be incorrect. That doesn't make it any less "scientific," and neither would a future study showing no immunity from the common cold. On the contrary, it's part of the scientific process. But forming a conclusion about a message based solely on the messenger clearly is not.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Exile

Nobody's been harping on the "97% positive test claim." .

I wish that were true... have you seen recent posts in Cdn thread claiming (falsely) 97% PCR tests are positive?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

I wish that were true... have you seen recent posts in Cdn thread claiming (falsely) 97% PCR tests are positive?

Haven't been following any of the other Covid threads for awhile now. Seems like these sorts of obvious falsities are quickly debunked on this one. Cannot control this sort of thing on the internet, so the next best thing is to counter it with accurate information. More credible when it's not accompanied with personal disparagement, imho, but that's probably (and unfortunately) unrealistic.