Covid

[Bitter_Dave]

It's not the climate scientists that making any claims. It's the politicians...dont mix them up.

There is the science part of the IPCC report authored by scientists and presents the current state of the science in an unbiased way as science should. This report gives a range of temperature affects based on how CO2 might influence the climate...because they don't know so they present several scenarios. That is the science right there and to say anything more than that is to introduce non-scientific opinion and biases into the discussion.

Then there is the 'Summary for policy makers', a completely separate unscientific IPCC report, which is a summary of the science with a bunch of recommendations specifically for bureaucrats and politicians who can't be bothered to read the science report, couldn't understand it if they did, and wouldn't know how to process the information because most of our politicians are a bit thick these days. So they read the summary report and take it on face value without question. It is in that report where the 'conclusions' are drawn up as interpreted by the authors of the summary report. The rub is who are the faceless, unaccountable authors of the summary for policy makers report? and what are their motivations and agendas? This is where the 'interpretations' and biases comes in that is carried through to political rhetoric and policy. The politicians are just the useful idiots who blindly implement the recommendations and rattle off a standard pseudo-scientific script to back it up.

The science is not settled. It never is. Science is a journey not a destination. 97% of scientists don't agree. And peer review of a scientific paper is not just another scientist 'picking holes' in your work...they have to back it up with science. Only science can defeat science, there is no room for opinion when it comes to peer review.

If you want to know what the actual scientists are saying and what they think then go and see for yourself. You don't need to take anybody else's word for it, certainly not politicians. They're all over the Internet with lectures, pod casts, interviews. they're totally open about the science they're working, what their findings are and their own personal opinions (not to be mixed up with science) and more importantly what science doesn't know yet. If you do that you will see that there is a huge variation of scientific and personal opinions out there amongst the scientists about what drives climate change and what to do about it.

I wasn't mixing up politicians and climate scientists. Most climate scientists as far as I can tell think politicians under-play the significance of man-made climate change, even if they debate things like the magnitude of its impact.

It suits certain groups who want (man made) climate change to go away as a political issue to emphasise ambiguity, so nothing gets done. These climate scientists seem pretty freaked out:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s said they had,at the University of Tasmania

 

[Chippy_Tea]

But it seems like another 'co-morbidity' thing, people were getting hit by a bus and their death certificate had Covid listed as a contributing factor.

If you are going to post stuff like this please add some figures and evidence how many people who were killed by a bus were labelled as dying from Covid?

 

[Druss]

If you are going to post stuff like this please add some figures and evidence how many people who were killed by a bus were labelled as dying from Covid?

As I said, it's anecdotal, the media reported many such things.

I can't confirm anything, just repeating what I've read/seen/heard etc.

I'm sure I could come up with some kind of study from somewhere that would back up everything I've said so far, but as there's no such thing as 'absolute truth' it's always going to be open to interpretation.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

But it seems like another 'co-morbidity' thing, people were getting hit by a bus and their death certificate had Covid listed as a contributing factor.

As I said, it's anecdotal, the media reported many such things.

So the press make it up and you post it as if its true in a thread about whether vaccines killed people they were supposed to save, can we stick to facts from now on.

 

[Druss]

So they make it up and you post it as if its true in a thread about whether vaccines killed people they were supposed to save, can we stick to facts from now on.

Fair enough.

But, perhaps I'm being a little pedantic, I did repeatedly say it was what I had heard from various media outlets. I didn't purport it to be 'truth' per se, rather, a reason for why i personally believe what i do.

As you say though, every claim should be backed up, I'll certainly do some research the next time I post anything potentially controversial.

 

[Druss]

a thread about whether vaccines killed people they were supposed to save, can we stick to facts from now on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-or-more-astrazenece-covid-19-vaccination-foi

From the article:

In response to Question 3 regarding fatal blood clots in recipients of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, we can provide information from reports received by the MHRA via the Yellow Card Scheme. The Yellow Card scheme is the UK system for collecting and monitoring information on suspected safety concerns or incidents involving medicines and medical devices, operated by the MHRA. We can confirm that 71 reports of venous thromboembolic events that reported a fatal outcome were received between 01/04/2020 and 31/03/2021, and 176 reports were received between 01/04/2021 and 31/03/2022.

In response to Question 4 regarding reports of non-fatal blood clots in recipients of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, we can confirm that 623 reports of venous thromboembolic events that did not report a fatal outcome were received between 01/04/2020 and 31/03/2021, and 2762 reports were received between 01/04/2021 and 31/03/2022.

 

[Rodcx500z]

So now we know why they, withdrew/recalled it, i bet the lawyers are busy

 

[Rodcx500z]

So i was lucky i had 2 shots of that

 

[Davegase]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-or-more-astrazenece-covid-19-vaccination-foi

From the article:

In response to Question 3 regarding fatal blood clots in recipients of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, we can provide information from reports received by the MHRA via the Yellow Card Scheme. The Yellow Card scheme is the UK system for collecting and monitoring information on suspected safety concerns or incidents involving medicines and medical devices, operated by the MHRA. We can confirm that 71 reports of venous thromboembolic events that reported a fatal outcome were received between 01/04/2020 and 31/03/2021, and 176 reports were received between 01/04/2021 and 31/03/2022.

In response to Question 4 regarding reports of non-fatal blood clots in recipients of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, we can confirm that 623 reports of venous thromboembolic events that did not report a fatal outcome were received between 01/04/2020 and 31/03/2021, and 2762 reports were received between 01/04/2021 and 31/03/2022.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8944169/