Some self employed contractors are not having their applications for a contract with a local authority taken any further as their social media accounts have been looked at by the client. Any with Anti Vac posts are not being considered for the work. It isn’t unusual for this to happen, but it is a first for anti vac.
I suspect it is about context and tone too, rather than just expressing scepticism, but either way that's the way of the world now.
When I was teaching pharmacists at Uni, we taught them to keep all of their social media completely professional and even to be careful what they posted, in private to friends and family, in case it was re-posted in public. They could get in serious trouble for any "inappropriate" posts.
They didn't just start working on a vaccine 10 months ago. There are teams that regularly monitor wildlife, bats particularly, so we have an idea of what viruses are in circulation. After the SARS and MERS outbreaks we knew it was a matter of when and not if the next outbreak would occur, so work on potential vaccines is constantly ongoing. Then when it comes to a specific virus it's a case of tweaking what you have, not starting from scratch.
HCC are now doing a daily COVID-19 update... http://www.hull.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-community-advice-and-support/coronavirus-data-tracker
On line forums are fascinating places - anonymity masks our knowledge of the backgrounds and achievements of many fellow posters. The hint of unworthy sarcasm in your reply is mildly irritating but not especially surprising - enquiring about a potential knighthood or Nobel Prize is a bit like asking Alan Shearer to prove that he was a successful footballer by inviting him to reveal his Word Cup Winners medal. Needless to say that I'm not in line for either a knighthood (although one of my close colleagues was awarded an OBE for our work) or a Nobel Prize. It would be insensitive to recommend anyone who has suffered under the Allam regime to look at a CV but I'd gladly give you more details if you care to PM me. Terry in The Likely Lads used to point to his mysterious "war" injury and say "I don't like to talk about it" and I tend to be with him on that, however, avoiding all pretence of false modesty, I think it might even knock Assam's into a cocked hat. You ask me to cite relevant peer reviewed articles or research findings to underline my low opinion of Innova's lateral flow test - easy enough - BMJ2020; 371doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4469 {Published 17 November 2020). The test kits purchased on our behalf had not, as far as I can see, previously been subject to an extensive trial with results published in a western peer reviewed journal. The results published in the BMJ in November have been widely circulated and I'm surprised you haven't been aware of them. In assessing them Prof. John Deeks (department of biostatistics at Birmingham University) wrote "in a population of 100,000 where 400 are infected the test would show 630 infections but with actually just 230 of these being (true) infections" So, the test would miss 170 of the 400 actual cases - a false negative rate of 42.5% - and it would provide a false positive result in a staggering 400 cases where the people affected and their immediate contacts would now have to (wrongly) self isolate. The effect of such high numbers of false positive tests on work attendance would have a dire effect on economic recovery. Prof Deeks echoes the published findings when he states "The test is thus entirely unsuitable for the claim that it will allow the safe test and release of people from lockdown and students from university." Now concerning Innova, they are basically a distribution company and are marketing tests developed and manufactured in Fujian Province, China. For details of their company structure and rather worrying history of their founders I would cite the article amusingly titled "Innova their heads", page 20 Private Eye issue 1536, December 2020. I fully appreciate the need to make speculative research investments or to pre-purchase tests. There is an obvious need for the urgent access to rapidly developed and developing technology. Spending on vaccine research is certainly an apparent success for this approach. However, these are calculated risks which depend upon the full knowledge of the companies and research institutions' experience and expertise in the field. The emerging concerns relating to Innova are that contracts seem to have been placed without the supporting evidence of relevant experience or expertise and also in the absence of reliable field trials - it appears that we may have been sold an expensive pup on this one.
I was just going to say the same. Excellent post and for the life of me I can’t understand how tc has gone from one of my favourite posters to this poster he is lately.
UK Covid self-isolation period set to be reduced to 10 days Chief medical officers of all four UK nations expected to formally announce change later on Friday https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/11/uk-covid-self-isolation-period-reduced-10-days
Covid, and especially our different attempts to control it, has definitely resulted in polarised opinions. TC seems to hold different views to mine on this but I don't have any reason to criticise him/her for that. I generally enjoy his/her posts but, on this specific topic, we may have to agree to disagree.
I throw into the ring this... Please take the time to read this preview. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ziOcDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT5&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y
Cheers for that, 'More or Less' is a cracking listen. Not quite in the same vein, but there's a book that has used official data to demonstrate spurious relationships. It goes to show that no matter what you read, you need to always double check. Here's a graph from it. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
My Granddaughter is studying psychology at uni and statistics is an area that she is looking to go into. This week we have been discussing the need to ask the right questions. I told her that the money isn’t in finding out the right answer, but in making the wrong answers appear to be right. Two nurses (?) Have had an allergic reaction to the Covid vaccine injection isn’t the same as two nurses have had an allergic reaction to the Covid vaccine. The reports are failing to tell the whole truth, because there isn’t a story in for instance “Two people have had very mild reactions to the vaccine” or “ It appears that there may be a 1/4000 chance of slight reaction in some people injected with the vaccine.”
There's also the issue with it being a combination of specialisms, where each has to give a simplified version of their thoughts, and then the whole combinations of messages have to be distilled into a soundbite that civil servants can pass to politicians. Each line of that will have a bias and an emphasis based on the beliefs, understanding and views of the person that passes that part of the message on. Then the media try to reassemble the cracked egg with their own ignorance and bias.
It's a good read and I also love the More or Less programme. I'm no statistical expert but did apply Doll and Hill's technique for the calculation of relative risk on a couple of projects. Very straight forward calculations and reliable results - what's not to like?
With the allergic reaction reports my focus went straight to the wording. My immediate thought was, why did they say nurses? Why would that mattter?
Sadly it's the nearest thing I have to a peer reviewed source on commercial issues. Colemanballs has certainly been an influence on me but I must point out that it has been updated to Commentatorballs since David Coleman's death.
Perhaps it 'reads' better than 'patients' had an allergic reaction & the nurses had known allergy issues and carried epi-pens, so explains it and it was' them' not 'us' (patients) - your granddaughter might be able to base her dissertation on the them / us devide...
I am fully aware that there is ongoing research into vaccines and how throwing money at it could and has shortened the time to develop a new one. However much of the process that means new things take so long to be approved is the testing and waiting to see any effects a new drug or vaccine may throw up later.
