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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Should we accept a single, very small study as the basis for a claim of "superimmunity"? Upon reading it, it is found that the study was of only 26 people, not including other issues - from the study itself:





So what have is a preliminary or exploratory kind of very small study. It appears way too early for any real conclusions, but may inspire other much larger and better designed studies in the future. Thoughts?

Agreed, and did not intend to present it as conclusive. It's obviously an early study, just like the Imperial College study indicating that Omicron "largely evades" natural immunity.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Venting, defense, diversion and parsing so noted, and we'll simply agree to disagree. It will suffice to say that your links do not really seem to support your claims. I particularly note your own "shots" at my alleged "shots", lol. Still, you absolutely have every right to argue and opine. I can see you were bothered, and I'm sorry that you were.

If you'd care to carry on, please don't hesitate to PM me, and I'll do my best to respond.

Be well.

Not much bother really, only a familiar pattern I've long noticed from other science-based discussions of people not liking the results of a particular scientific study so, rather than addressing the content they impugn the integrity of the publication or, even worse, the scientists themselves. You rightly pointed out the obvious falsity of this 97% positive test business, and legitimately questioned the credibility of any publication which would opt to propagate it. But then you threw the baby out with the bathwater (if you will) with regard to common cold immunity.

You're certainly not alone so shouldn't take it personally. But I don't understand why you would then ignore the almost immediate follow-up with credible and peer-reviewed sources. This doesn't appear objective to me, and ran the risk of discrediting an important scientific finding. This thread has proven itself most adept at quickly countering bogus and unsupported assertions, and this has been the direct result of open and largely polite discussion. PM'ing would defeat this sort of valuable public discourse so I would respectfully decline your offer. If you can support your derisive & conclusory comments about my post(s) with any detail or substance, I'd be happy to amend them accordingly. In fact, given the complexities of the subject matter, uncertainties in the science, and importance of the overall issue to all of us, I would welcome any such constructive pushback. None of us are free, after all, from personal biases, and I certainly have my own. But this doesn't mean a reasonable level of objectivity cannot be achieved.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Plan B measures to end in England on January 26th.

Boris trying to appease his back benchers so that he can stay in office. I suspect he will fail and be gone in a few weeks.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Anders

Boris trying to appease his back benchers so that he can stay in office. I suspect he will fail and be gone in a few weeks.

Interesting article in the economist about Boris. It claims he’s the most authentic PM in decades. Everyone knows he lies , obfuscates and deceives. He knows he lies.

Straight up kind of sociopath

[laird]

Originally Posted by boatman61

He also said that the need for vaccine passports would be ended along with mandatory vaccines only for NHS staff and other health workers such as Care Homes..
Individual firms will be free to apply their own policies.
Time for all those white collars to come outa their bunkers and re-join the blue collars who've bravely been carrying the nation through this while they were molly coddled..

Well said comrade joking aside we have had our admin staff " working from home" in as far away as Cyprus

[Anders]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Interesting article in the economist about Boris. It claims he’s the most authentic PM in decades. Everyone knows he lies , obfuscates and deceives. He knows he lies.

Straight up kind of sociopath

Can't say I disagree...

[Anders]

Originally Posted by laird

Well said comrade joking aside we have had our admin staff " working from home" in as far away as Cyprus

My boss said I could work from the Caymans if I wanted. Sounded like a great idea but the morning meeting would be at 2.30am!

[poiu]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Time for all those white collars to come outa their bunkers and re-join the blue collars who've bravely been carrying the nation through this while they were molly coddled..

Good point. It is not often said, but those enjoying the work from home regime, living in safety and great comfort and who encourage the endless lockdowns have their existence enabled by those working in less safe environments and for less pay.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by poiu

Good point. It is not often said, but those enjoying the work from home regime, living in safety and great comfort and who encourage the endless lockdowns have their existence enabled by those working in less safe environments and for less pay.

Oh it's been said! It's all the lockdowns you can afford . . . .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Interesting article in the economist about Boris. It claims he’s the most authentic PM in decades. Everyone knows he lies , obfuscates and deceives. He knows he lies.

Straight up kind of sociopath

I've always felt that's a necessary requirement for successful politicians..

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not much bother really, only a familiar pattern I've long noticed from other science-based discussions of people not liking the results of a particular scientific study so, rather than addressing the content they impugn the integrity of the publication or, even worse, the scientists themselves. You rightly pointed out the obvious falsity of this 97% positive test business, and legitimately questioned the credibility of any publication which would opt to propagate it. But then you threw the baby out with the bathwater (if you will) with regard to common cold immunity.

You're certainly not alone so shouldn't take it personally. But I don't understand why you would then ignore the almost immediate follow-up with credible and peer-reviewed sources. This doesn't appear objective to me, and ran the risk of discrediting an important scientific finding. This thread has proven itself most adept at quickly countering bogus and unsupported assertions, and this has been the direct result of open and largely polite discussion. PM'ing would defeat this sort of valuable public discourse so I would respectfully decline your offer. If you can support your derisive & conclusory comments about my post(s) with any detail or substance, I'd be happy to amend them accordingly. In fact, given the complexities of the subject matter, uncertainties in the science, and importance of the overall issue to all of us, I would welcome any such constructive pushback. None of us are free, after all, from personal biases, and I certainly have my own. But this doesn't mean a reasonable level of objectivity cannot be achieved.

Projection, mis/malrepresentation, and declination of PM'ng noted.

Apparently the preference was to vent personal feelings publicly, so be it. The post attacks the messenger - moi - and isn't remotely accurate. One could have addressed the facts without promoting speculations and false characterizations.

I particularly resent the characterizations of my alleged "familiar pattern... derisive and conclusory (sp)... without detail or substance... personal bias etc.". Sure sounds like an attack to and on myself. I will state only that I was not only miscited, this diatribe invented multiple strawman positions I did not take or imply. No detailed citations or quotations, et al. No real scientific debate, simply a grab bag of what I consider unproductive, unnecessary and undeserved messenger bashing.

How this contributes to the purpose of this truly informative thread is a mystery to me.

This seems to me a rather invented diatribe, and the anger and hurt expressed seem equally obvious to me. Again, I'm truly sorry the poster felt that way, and strongly enough to vent openly. Honestly, such postings do not much contribute to our mutual missions of scientific understandings, but perhaps just the opposite - not to mention leading to discomfort of readers who would prefer better.

In closing, this is precisely why I suggested a PM, as I rather doubt that the above posting is of any real interest or value to the readers. We are not here to choose up sides on the playground. Ergo, please feel free to continue at you see fit - but without my participation - as I respect this forum far too much to participate and encourage this any further. Accordingly, the last word will not be mine.

In closing, we will just have to agree to disagree, my friend. I sincerely hope you feel better now. Be well. We're all in this together. So let's all get back to the great science that this thread shares together..

[boatman61]

Sticking to the subject referred to rather than sidestepping to something that was not mentioned would be a great start for all concerned..

[Zippee]

Good point. It is not often said, but those enjoying the work from home regime, living in safety and great comfort and who encourage the endless lockdowns have their existence enabled by those working in less safe environments and for less pay.

I would both agree and disagree. Certainly there are many people whose occupation is such that working remotely was possible. There are others who could do so intermittently. And there were those whose presence was required. There were many companies who found that remote work was costly for them. And there were on-site workers who refused to return because they refused to continue working for slave wages.

However gratifying and easy to assign responsible scapegoats, are we being fair and accurate? Things are not so simple. There are thousands of interactive factors, conditions, people, forces, governments, leaders, diseases, capabilities, medical factors et al - endless! Finding fault is just not that easily determined, and frankly, probably not worth the effort.

It's apparent that no wished for Covid. And I doubt that any actually encouraged lockdowns, as those decisions are well above their pay grade, and are instituted by the heads and governments themselves. And many poorer people and/or single mothers who wanted to work and certainly encouraged funding for day care, etc. did not get their wishes. Employers and corporations suffered as well.

It was the whole world, and everyone and everything in it.

Even those who were able to work remotely still had to deal with food shopping, car repairs, and so much more. No one really enjoyed quarantine or "lock-up" (whatever that may mean), the loss of socialization, cancellation of events, closed restaurants, and on and on.

If we are looking for something or someone to blame the options are many but the causes are either few or too complex and integrated to identify so handily. We are at a point where the pandemic may soon become endemic and more tolerable - and it's at this time we're looking to assign blame?

If there's any real blame, blame the world's governments who knew this would come, and failed to unify and prepare to address it with the highest possible priority. Thoughts?

[boatman61]

I'm pretty sure the folk who were dealing with hundreds of customers every day were at greater risk than the home worker going for his/her once a week shop, but I guess that's easier than blaming the scientists and the WHO who were scared for various reasons of loss of ?Advantages' so Hummed and Haa'd while the the Wuhan Lab cleaned up and passed the buck to a nearby 'Wet Market'.
And for the pandemic to get a really good head start.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-ga...p_4070521.html

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-new...d75085edb85195

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-lab-cover-up/

[laird]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I'm pretty sure the folk who were dealing with hundreds of customers every day were at greater risk than the home worker going for his/her once a week shop, but I guess that's easier than blaming the scientists and the WHO who were scared for various reasons of loss of ?Advantages' so Hummed and Haa'd while the the Wuhan Lab cleaned up and passed the buck to a nearby 'Wet Market'.
And for the pandemic to get a really good head start.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-ga...p_4070521.html

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-new...d75085edb85195

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-lab-cover-up/

I went through manila Philippines in Jan 2020 ,the hotel took my temperature ,at the airport the staff were all wearing masks ,I walked off the plane at Heathrow and there were no measures in sight , I wondered then what do we not know ?