Off Topic Covid 19 restrictions have done one
- Thread starter dennisboothstash
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Only children who had a health condition that put them at high risk from COVID.
Ok fair enough. So at some point, the deciding authorities determined that the risks/cons outweighed the pros of vaccinating a group, who were most likely to be high level carriers and transmitters of the virus. This sounds broadly in line with the conclusion that Yeadon made.
If you really, really think about it... Cheng Tang is an anagram of Covid 19 with some of the letters taken out, some others put in and the possibly mystic number 19 put in, if you think about it, really, really think about it,!it's a prophecy about the end of days, illuminati and...
I've said too much...
Other than those at high risk, the decision on whether to vaccinate U12’s was left to parents, it was available if anyone wanted it (at a third of the adult dose), but I don’t think many took up the option.
It became obvious fairly early on in the pandemic that although children could catch and transmit Covid19 the levels of illness they suffered individually and the short term health implications proved to be mild. (There were exceptions, to identifiable vulnerable groups).
When vaccines were developed they were initially targeted at vulnerable groups and then rolled out across the wider society.
Children could be vaccinated and in some cases had to be, if you wanted to travel, but when viewed through the prism of personal efficacy (which most people default to), there was no need to vaccinate children. If we’d have looked through a wider public health prism then the Government may have felt a greater need to vaccinate children which would have led to a public health campaign; this would have significantly increased the rates of vaccination amongst children.
Of course, if children had have been dying or getting significantly ill, then the vaccination picture amongst the group would have been very different.
As everyone knows, in the present the future is unwritten. It doesn’t pay to disappear too far down the rabbit hole.
When vaccines were developed they were initially targeted at vulnerable groups and then rolled out across the wider society.
Children could be vaccinated and in some cases had to be, if you wanted to travel, but when viewed through the prism of personal efficacy (which most people default to), there was no need to vaccinate children. If we’d have looked through a wider public health prism then the Government may have felt a greater need to vaccinate children which would have led to a public health campaign; this would have significantly increased the rates of vaccination amongst children.
Of course, if children had have been dying or getting significantly ill, then the vaccination picture amongst the group would have been very different.
As everyone knows, in the present the future is unwritten. It doesn’t pay to disappear too far down the rabbit hole.
Under-18s weren't vaccinated where I live, apart from those who were vulnerable.
In my son's sport team, 3 out of 27 were diagnosed with heart issues (2, including my son, were temporary, one is a longer term issue) within 4 months of receiving the Moderna vaccine. Is 10% normal or a statistical anomaly?
The Moderna vaccine usage for under 60s was halted two weeks after and then discontinued in Scandinavian countries, because of its suspected impact on heart issues with boys/men in their late teens and early twenties.
As I read it, Yeadon early on suspected that the type of vaccine being developed would have negative impacts across that age range, warned about it and was declared 'insane'. The medical advisors that suggested an immediate stop to the usage of that vaccine type when certain evidence pointed to it having a negative effect - are they also insane?
Obviously, I don't have any pharmacology education, nor a strong opinion to defend or attack vaccinating the whole adult population, but I have an open mind about whether it was the right thing or necessary to do so. Certainly they prevented deaths in the elderly or those with underlying illnesses by reducing the impact of the virus, but it is now written that they did not prevent the spread, so I think that it's fair to debate whether it was worth it for those not at risk, rather than shut down any post event analysis.
Also worth pointing out that heart problems can linger after catching Covid too.
You could have ironed it, idle git.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
The six lockdown questions this inquiry is failing to answer
The current investigation isn’t doing its job. We need a faster, cheaper rival to actually get to the truth
MATT RIDLEY17 March 2024 • 8:00am
In his excellent 2014 book Black Box Thinking, Matthew Syed begins with the story of an airline pilot, Martin Bromiley, whose wife died because of mistakes made by anaesthetists during an operation. He set out to reform medical safety in the same way that air safety had been spectacularly reformed: by investigating, learning and sharing, rather than seeking to apportion blame or brushing failure under the carpet.
The same lesson needs to apply to Covid. As the letter from over 50 scientists to the Telegraph last week argued, the official inquiry is going about it all wrong: assuming it knows what went wrong – that we locked down too late – and playing Gotcha with witnesses. Rather than abolish this costly Titanic of an inquiry, somebody should shame it by founding a rival, cheaper, faster and more airline-like one. If we did that, I would like to see the rival inquiry try to answer six crucial questions.
First, was it a mistake to deliberately spread panic? “We frighten the pants off everyone with the new strain,” wrote Matt Hancock in December 2020. “Ramping up messaging – the fear/guilt factor vital,” said the Cabinet Secretary. They were dialling up the fear so we would fall into line, but the effect was undoubtedly to cause anxiety, division and eventually cynicism.
Advertisement
Second, did the authoritarian instincts of public-safety bureaucrats backfire? People were already social-distancing before the first lockdown and the rise in cases was faltering. But coercion may not have just been unnecessary, it has also done real harm to the social contract between people and government. And did the closure of schools for months, when children were at relatively low risk of death from Covid, do far more harm than good?
Third, what was the source of the early and wrong emphasis on “hands, face, space”? The evidence suggests it was based on a dogma that flu and similar viruses spread by droplets, not through the air. The source of this myth was eventually traced to a 60-year old experiment on tuberculosis that proved nothing of the kind. “Covid-19 is NOT airborne,” said the WHO repeatedly – and incorrectly as they now admit. So locking us down indoors was wrong. The advice should have been to go outdoors whenever possible, and open the darned windows.
Fourth, why did modelling prove so useless? Again and again the models produced badly wrong forecasts or had huge margins of error that made them practically futile. In the case of the models with which the scientists tried to force us into a lockdown for omicron in December 2021, they managed both, over-estimating the death rate if we failed to lock down by at least an order of magnitude. An honest inquiry would examine whether there is any expertise on the future, either in the form of mathematical models or examination of the entrails of chickens.
Advertisement
Fifth, have vaccine mandates disastrously and perhaps permanently damaged the reputation of vaccines, one of the most miraculously positive of all medical technologies? Vaccine rejection is now common and will result in growing measles outbreaks and worse. The blame for that lies not just with anti-vax hysteria but with our medical overlords who told us to vaccinate children – for whom the risk from Covid was very small – and to get vaccinated or lose our jobs or our ability to travel. Alongside the overclaiming for the vaccines, in particular that they prevented transmission, this meant that when inevitably a few side effects emerged, people became cynical.
Sixth, has lockdown-resisting Sweden proved that our lockdowns – which began four years ago this week – killed more people than Covid? Its overall excess deaths to date remain far lower than ours. People will argue either way but ignoring the issue won’t do
The current investigation isn’t doing its job. We need a faster, cheaper rival to actually get to the truth
MATT RIDLEY17 March 2024 • 8:00am
You must log in or register to see images
In his excellent 2014 book Black Box Thinking, Matthew Syed begins with the story of an airline pilot, Martin Bromiley, whose wife died because of mistakes made by anaesthetists during an operation. He set out to reform medical safety in the same way that air safety had been spectacularly reformed: by investigating, learning and sharing, rather than seeking to apportion blame or brushing failure under the carpet.
The same lesson needs to apply to Covid. As the letter from over 50 scientists to the Telegraph last week argued, the official inquiry is going about it all wrong: assuming it knows what went wrong – that we locked down too late – and playing Gotcha with witnesses. Rather than abolish this costly Titanic of an inquiry, somebody should shame it by founding a rival, cheaper, faster and more airline-like one. If we did that, I would like to see the rival inquiry try to answer six crucial questions.
First, was it a mistake to deliberately spread panic? “We frighten the pants off everyone with the new strain,” wrote Matt Hancock in December 2020. “Ramping up messaging – the fear/guilt factor vital,” said the Cabinet Secretary. They were dialling up the fear so we would fall into line, but the effect was undoubtedly to cause anxiety, division and eventually cynicism.
Advertisement
Second, did the authoritarian instincts of public-safety bureaucrats backfire? People were already social-distancing before the first lockdown and the rise in cases was faltering. But coercion may not have just been unnecessary, it has also done real harm to the social contract between people and government. And did the closure of schools for months, when children were at relatively low risk of death from Covid, do far more harm than good?
Third, what was the source of the early and wrong emphasis on “hands, face, space”? The evidence suggests it was based on a dogma that flu and similar viruses spread by droplets, not through the air. The source of this myth was eventually traced to a 60-year old experiment on tuberculosis that proved nothing of the kind. “Covid-19 is NOT airborne,” said the WHO repeatedly – and incorrectly as they now admit. So locking us down indoors was wrong. The advice should have been to go outdoors whenever possible, and open the darned windows.
Fourth, why did modelling prove so useless? Again and again the models produced badly wrong forecasts or had huge margins of error that made them practically futile. In the case of the models with which the scientists tried to force us into a lockdown for omicron in December 2021, they managed both, over-estimating the death rate if we failed to lock down by at least an order of magnitude. An honest inquiry would examine whether there is any expertise on the future, either in the form of mathematical models or examination of the entrails of chickens.
Advertisement
Fifth, have vaccine mandates disastrously and perhaps permanently damaged the reputation of vaccines, one of the most miraculously positive of all medical technologies? Vaccine rejection is now common and will result in growing measles outbreaks and worse. The blame for that lies not just with anti-vax hysteria but with our medical overlords who told us to vaccinate children – for whom the risk from Covid was very small – and to get vaccinated or lose our jobs or our ability to travel. Alongside the overclaiming for the vaccines, in particular that they prevented transmission, this meant that when inevitably a few side effects emerged, people became cynical.
Sixth, has lockdown-resisting Sweden proved that our lockdowns – which began four years ago this week – killed more people than Covid? Its overall excess deaths to date remain far lower than ours. People will argue either way but ignoring the issue won’t do
What I found interesting throughout the process, was the arrogance of many of those involved, who themselves were not appropriately qualified or experienced for the roles they held. They were high handed with questions from qualified people pointing out what have been shown to be clear errors in the approach and methodology.
One blatant one is the way they used inappropriate methods to try to encourage behaviour change, when almost every behaviourologist would have pointed out the many, many flaws.
Another was (and still is) the very, very poor methods of data collection compounded by poor data management and statistical analysis.
It appears that many governments took very poor advice from organisations such as WHO without questioning it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68762171
Latest study identifying 'inflammation' after Covid as an ongoing issue.
Personally I got Covid last October ( 1 week very ill, 2 weeks functioning though still not well, but by forth okay enough) one thing I've noticed is a lot more joint pain, though what's getting older, me just noticing, mild hypochondriosis and possible symptoms.
Latest study identifying 'inflammation' after Covid as an ongoing issue.
Personally I got Covid last October ( 1 week very ill, 2 weeks functioning though still not well, but by forth okay enough) one thing I've noticed is a lot more joint pain, though what's getting older, me just noticing, mild hypochondriosis and possible symptoms.
Christ on a bike.
1) What's this got to do with Covid?
2) The products are being banned because of worries ****witted Americans will drink them.
As the US Sci Fi author Larry Niven said: "Stupidity is a capital crime"
Darwin award incoming
