IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Danoo]

9 minutes ago, momo65 said:

Honesty is fine. Have a debate. Between professionals who know what they are talking about not random people who've done their own "research" (that isn't pointed at you or anyone in particular). Then let parents choose for their child. 

But that is what we are seeing. The JCVI are professionals who advised a precautionary approach due to the very low risk of serious disease in children. They based their decision after evaluating the available evidence, it wasn't based on a 'hunch' as you flippantly claimed in your previous post. Even the professionals are divided. I've done my own 'research' and read their statement and supporting evidence, including the overseas epidemiological data on myocarditis and the vaccine, which influenced their decision for children.

I get that you sit on one side of the fence and me on the other on this. I can see your point of view I just don't personally agree with it. It's only my opinion. It doesn't do your cause any good whatsoever to label other views as 'hunches' while your view is backed by 'science.' The truth is a little more nuanced than that.  

[TheTeapot]

There is an apparent contradiction in the precautionary approach to child vaccination for covid, while at the same time a virus we don't fully understand has just had a rampant wave in school kids. 

It is certainly easy to understand why questions have been raised. 

Some of it though, from supposed experts, dear dear me.

[Ringy Rose]

11 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Yes yes yes. 

Suppression is a disaster, one of the lessons that must be learned is the necessity of transmission of all kinds of viruses, bacteria, MUSHROOMS etc as part of the human microbiome.

We adapt.

You don't adapt if the virus kills you before you can fight it off. For some viruses you simply must suppress. Ebola is a great example. You don't just let Ebola run rampant.

I'd say suppression until we had vaccines was a sensible approach. I think the fact we had normality from June 2020 backs that up. It can't last forever, as Australia are slowly realising, but it buys you time.

The colds will be worse because we've not travelled and so not been exposed to different viruses, and not because of immune system issues. Our lockdowns have only ever lasted a few weeks.

I spent many years working in universities across. The colds this autumn aren't any worse than my experiences of getting Freshers Flu every year. And Freshers Flu is mostly caused by people from different countries all bringing different germs with them.

[Ramseyboi]

6 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

And Freshers Flu is mostly caused by people from different countries all bringing different germs with them.

And sticking their tongues, and worse. In each other’s mouths.

Social distancing and masks would have eradicated freshers flu years ago.

[Ringy Rose]

Just now, Ramseyboi said:

And sticking their tongues, and worse. In each other’s mouths.

Social distancing and masks would have eradicated freshers flu years ago.

I was staff, I didn't snog anyone, and still caught it every sodding year.

Lol about masks.

[TheTeapot]

This is all the more incredible when you consider the size of the wave the UK just had.

[quilp]

It is a good sign, heartening. 

[TheTeapot]

"A dangerous and unethical experiment" don't forget.

[momo65]

8 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Some people who are supposed to be professionals aren't being honest though. 

Based on what evidence? Different interpretation of data is normal in science. So who has lied about what? That's genuine interest not rhetorical question 

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, momo65 said:

Based on what evidence? Different interpretation of data is normal in science. So who has lied about what? That's genuine interest not rhetorical question 

I wouldn't say people like Martin Kuldorff, Professor of medicine at Harvard, or Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of medicine at Stanford, or Carl Heneghan, Professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford have been especially honest, would you?

[momo65]

7 hours ago, Danoo said:

But that is what we are seeing. The JCVI are professionals who advised a precautionary approach due to the very low risk of serious disease in children. They based their decision after evaluating the available evidence, it wasn't based on a 'hunch' as you flippantly claimed in your previous post. Even the professionals are divided. I've done my own 'research' and read their statement and supporting evidence, including the overseas epidemiological data on myocarditis and the vaccine, which influenced their decision for children.

I get that you sit on one side of the fence and me on the other on this. I can see your point of view I just don't personally agree with it. It's only my opinion. It doesn't do your cause any good whatsoever to label other views as 'hunches' while your view is backed by 'science.' The truth is a little more nuanced than that.  

I never said jcvi acted on hunches but there is evidence that did not seem to be included. Myocarditis is much more common with Covid than vac (from memory x30 but certainly over x10). Added to which those cases have been mild & self limiting. That's not the case with the Covid induced cases but I don't know if that's independent of them being generally ill anyway. 

Its quite likely that myocarditis is caused by other viruses too, in a transient way but without the detailed surveillance given post vac isn't detected 

[momo65]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

I wouldn't say people like Martin Kuldorff, Professor of medicine at Harvard, or Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of medicine at Stanford, or Carl Heneghan, Professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford have been especially honest, would you?

The latter has a long standing reputation as a maverick. In general for science go with the middle of the Bell shaped normal distribution of opinions ie ignore the extremes at  either end. The fact that someone has a Chair often says more about their ability to manage the system than ability. Equally US call a lot more folk Prof whereas we use terms like Reader, & Senior Lecturer for similar points in the academic ladder

[TheTeapot]

If we'd followed their plan last year the death toll would have been triple.

[quilp]

56 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

"A dangerous and unethical experiment" don't forget.

I remember. Read a Russian article only last week and in it there is a growing tide of Russian scientists who claim that whilst the vaccines appear to have been effective against the comparably weaker, emergent strain and it's variants, this has facilitated the newer variants to become more transmissible, but not necessarily more deadly. It seems their main concern is the emergence of a super-variant, able to dodge the action of all our current vaccines. I do think the article itself was also a subtle hit-piece on the Pfizer and Moderna products as it compared the efficacy of its own Sputnik V and their other vaccine developments whenever possible. Initially, there were regular reports of bad side-effects with Sputnik which was hindering take-up which they now seem to've sorted. I'll post the link when I find it. Here's the BMJ critique of Russian vaccine development if anyone's interested.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n743

[quilp]

30 minutes ago, momo65 said:

I never said jcvi acted on hunches but there is evidence that did not seem to be included. Myocarditis is much more common with Covid than vac (from memory x30 but certainly over x10). Added to which those cases have been mild & self limiting. That's not the case with the Covid induced cases but I don't know if that's independent of them being generally ill anyway. 

Its quite likely that myocarditis is caused by other viruses too, in a transient way but without the detailed surveillance given post vac isn't detected 

Is this a product of the 'cytokine storm', a term that we don't hear so much about currently? 

Edited November 2, 2021 by quilp
Screenshot