Covid - Plan B & Omicron

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is worth a listen if you're in two minds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0b98hzl

Really interesting. I have always been convinced that vaccination was the right thing to do, and if it takes 2, 3 or 4 doses to achieve the maximum benefit that the current vaccine technology can give, then so be it. Covid 19 is a fast moving target which we may never catch up with, so it makes sense (based on current knowledge and understanding) to give yourself the best chance of a satisfactory outcome.

The audio clip also demonstrated just how easy it is to "cherry pick" data, and how difficult it is to design realistic clinical trials with no built-in bias, particularly when the world wants (and needs) information quickly.
 
You folks don't trust the BBC? What's a better source?

Some people think the BBC is secretly run by the government and they only tell us what they want us to know, the rest of us are not that stupid!

This government couldn't even manage to keep an alleged illegal Christmas party secret how the **** do these people think they kept the fact they run the BBC secret for all there years.

You really couldn't make it up.
 
Some people think the BBC is secretly run by the government and they only tell us what they want us to know, the rest of us are not that stupid!

This government couldn't even manage to keep an alleged illegal Christmas party secret how the **** do these people think they kept the fact they run the BBC secret for all there years.

You really couldn't make it up.
It's more about their selective news coverage that adds to panic and fear. Not just for covid but everything. They only ever print/broadcast one view point. You do find some good investigative journalism if you dig around their site but more of it is poor.
 
The means by which you receive information (any information) is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the validity of the original (source) data. And to be scientifically valid it must be peer reviewed. Only after critical analysis by other experts in the field can the data be trusted, and even then mistakes are sometimes made. However, the audio clip reveals just how easy it is to cherry pick the information that you want to use or pass on to others. I believe that this is what psychologists call "myside bias", and is one of many reasons why conspiracy theories proliferate.
 
The means by which you receive information (any information) is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the validity of the original (source) data. And to be scientifically valid it must be peer reviewed. Only after critical analysis by other experts in the field can the data be trusted, and even then mistakes are sometimes made. However, the audio clip reveals just how easy it is to cherry pick the information that you want to use or pass on to others. I believe that this is what psychologists call "myside bias", and is one of many reasons why conspiracy theories proliferate.
I will stick with Twitter and of course, The Snug.
 
Some people think the BBC is secretly run by the government and they only tell us what they want us to know, the rest of us are not that stupid!

This government couldn't even manage to keep an alleged illegal Christmas party secret how the **** do these people think they kept the fact they run the BBC secret for all there years.
Our countries have a lot of similarities, good and bad. Case in point: we also have the "secretly run by the government" jazz.
I've been following the party scandal here. That makes them "conspiracy-challenged" maybe.

My wife worked for a large corporation here in Michigan and there was this big financial thing going on that was very unfair to stockholders. After reading the article about it, she said it was about half true. She was on the inside and knew everything that was actually happening. Whether untruths in the news are errors or intentional doesn't really matter.
 
The UKHSA weekly reports are pretty clear on this - a booster makes a huge difference to your response to omicron, particularly after AZ. 2 AZ has almost zero effectiveness against symptoms from omicron (although they give OK protection against Bad Stuff), a booster gets that up to 70% or so, and gives a useful bump to the effectiveness against Bad Stuff.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...41593/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-50.pdf

Ta for the link - I can see the benefits of a 3rd *** after 2 previous jabs. Have I missed the figures about 2 jabs plus natural infection which seems to be the unanswered question?
 
I will stick with Twitter and of course, The Snug.

Like I said "The means by which you receive information (any information) is irrelevant." The important issue is to keep an open mind, question everything, and maintain a healthy dose of scepticism of any source of data/information/news until it is verified beyond reasonable doubt. Just because "my mate's girlfriend's hairdresser read it somewhere" doesn't make it true, no matter how many people choose to believe it. If there is no hard evidence then remain sceptical.
 
What never ceases to amaze me about the BBC (and I by no means think it's flawless) is that it's accused of both being a socialist trojan horse and only aiming to prop up an eternal Tory government.
 
What never ceases to amaze me about the BBC (and I by no means think it's flawless) is that it's accused of both being a socialist trojan horse and only aiming to prop up an eternal Tory government.

Flawed at times, yes . . . . . But perhaps not quite so selectively single minded after all 🤔
How one perceives the BBC will be heavily influenced by what you choose to believe. Fortunately we live in a tolerant and free society where we are not told what to think.
 
Ta for the link - I can see the benefits of a 3rd *** after 2 previous jabs. Have I missed the figures about 2 jabs plus natural infection which seems to be the unanswered question?

The trouble is that we're not entirely clear how good the protection is from a simple dose of natural infection against pre-omicron variants, so we're a long way from knowing the answer to your question. It's not as obvious an answer as you might think - there are viruses that give zero protection after infection whereas vaccines against that virus give near 100% protection. I get the general impression that the virology people think that Covid infection gives some protection, but you get better and broader protection from a vaccine, see egBozio et al, which specifically looked at lab-confirmed infections in hospitalised patients and found :
the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).
Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized ...

There's been some attention paid to the opposing view put forward by Gazit et al, which has been a preprint awaiting peer review since August - as such it should be approached with some caution until it goes through the full review process :
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
But on the basis that infection probably helps immunity, then one might imagine 2 jabs plus a subsequent infection should be better than 2 jabs, but probably not as good as 2 jabs + booster.
 
This could have gone in the "You couldn't make it up" thread. :laugh8:



The UK's top civil servant has stepped aside from his role leading an inquiry into Downing Street lockdown parties, after it emerged an event was held in his own office.
Simon Case had been due to report on claims Covid rules were broken at events for staff last year.
But his role was put into doubt after reports a party was held in his office while London was under Covid rules.
No 10 said the probe would be concluded by senior civil servant Sue Gray.
Ms Gray is the second permanent secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
A spokesperson for No 10 said: "To ensure the ongoing investigation retains public confidence the cabinet secretary [Simon Case] has recused himself for the remainder of the process.
They said Ms Gray would "ascertain the facts and present her findings to the prime minister".
The BBC understands a quiz was held for members of Mr Case's private office on 17 December 2020, and invites were sent out titled "Christmas Party!"
About 15 people were invited to the gathering at 70 Whitehall, near Downing Street, although it is understood not everyone turned up.
Responding to the claims, a government spokesperson said: "Staff in the cabinet secretary's private office took part in a virtual quiz on 17 December 2020.
"A small number of them, who had been working in the office throughout the pandemic and on duty that day, took part from their desks, while the rest of the team were virtual.
"The cabinet secretary played no part in the event, but walked through the team's office on the way to his own office.
"No outside guests or other staff were invited or present. This lasted for an hour and drinks and snacks were bought by those attending. He also spoke briefly to staff in the office before leaving."

'Corruption and sleaze'
The party was first reported on the Guido Fawkes website on Friday afternoon.
Mr Case, who has been cabinet secretary since last September, had been asked by Boris Johnson to investigate gatherings for staff in government buildings last year.
His inquiry was focusing on events in Downing Street on 27 November, 15 December and 18 December, and at the education department on 10 December.
Responding to press reports of the gathering in Mr Case's office, Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner said: "Boris Johnson as prime minister has set the tone for the civil service and the rest of government.
"With each new revelation there is growing evidence of a culture of turning a blind eye to the rules.
"Labour made it clear when the investigation was launched that the person in charge should be uncompromised and able to make a fair and independent judgement. These fresh revelations put that into question."
The SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford urged the prime minister to appoint a judge, independent of government, to lead the inquiry.
Speaking to the BBC he said Mr Case had been allowed to "mark his own homework" and that his position was "no longer tenable".
"This is a government that stinks of corruption and stinks of sleaze," he added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59701369
 
The UK PM has to go out of his way, do a lot of styling, to make his hair look so disheveled. Hair would be a little messy but mostly straight if left to its own devices.
Is he going for this? I don't like the below photo either, whether male or female. It's too "Me! Me! Me!"
A couple of NFL coaches I've notice are now groomed to the nth degree and look like they have $500 haircuts and are ready for the runway
1639773345873.png

Seriously, has the PM said why he chose that style?
 
Because it plays up to "brand Boris". He hasn't always had his hair like that. It seems to conveniently become more disheveled whenever that would be a better focus than what he's defending/blustering over.

In a way it works (along with 'getting stuck' on a zip wire etc), people frequently see Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a person who went to Eton and studied Classics, raised by au pairs and the son of someone who worked at the World Bank as "one of us", yet cite Kier Starmer, son of a nurse and a toolmaker as "upper class and out of touch".

The Great British public :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top