Coronavirus (2022) thread

Bluewonder said:
And less than 2 months since those clowns on SAGE were trying to ruin everyone's Christmas with their prophecies of disaster. I hope the public inquiry looks heavily into the advice they've provided and the apocalyptic prophecies they've leaked.
Click to expand...

www.thetimes.co.uk

Did the Covid modellers get it wrong?

‘When I say they were not predictions,” Graham Medley says, with more than a little feeling, “I mean they were not predictions.”Medley is professor of infectiou
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

Worth a read of that.
 

Game, set and match for vaccines​


Well, it looks like it is game, set and match for COVID-19 vaccines.
There’s now good evidence they don’t just protect you from going to hospital with COVID-19 and going on to die from it, they also help prevent long COVID too.
This latest analysis by the UKHSA reviewed 15 UK and international studies and found people who had received two doses of COVID vaccine were around half as likely to develop long COVID symptoms as those who had received one dose or were unvaccinated.
And this finding is likely to be a significant underestimate. These studies of long COVID patients could, by definition, only include people who had had COVID – not the thousands of people who will never develop long COVID because the vaccine protected them from getting the disease in the first place.
Some studies even suggested that getting vaccinated could help people who already had long COVID.
 
BlueHammer85 said:

Game, set and match for vaccines​


Well, it looks like it is game, set and match for COVID-19 vaccines.
There’s now good evidence they don’t just protect you from going to hospital with COVID-19 and going on to die from it, they also help prevent long COVID too.
This latest analysis by the UKHSA reviewed 15 UK and international studies and found people who had received two doses of COVID vaccine were around half as likely to develop long COVID symptoms as those who had received one dose or were unvaccinated.
And this finding is likely to be a significant underestimate. These studies of long COVID patients could, by definition, only include people who had had COVID – not the thousands of people who will never develop long COVID because the vaccine protected them from getting the disease in the first place.
Some studies even suggested that getting vaccinated could help people who already had long COVID.
Click to expand...

The only people who aren’t vaccinated now are the thickos who will never be convinced IMO.
 
meltonblue said:
www.thetimes.co.uk

Did the Covid modellers get it wrong?

‘When I say they were not predictions,” Graham Medley says, with more than a little feeling, “I mean they were not predictions.”Medley is professor of infectiou
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

Worth a read of that.
Click to expand...
They can dress it up as much as they like, the scenarios they have presented have been wrong every time.
 
ctwrd said:
They can dress it up as much as they like, the scenarios they have presented have been wrong every time.
Click to expand...

Did you read the link? I’m just wondering whether it’s worth the explanation or not. And no they haven’t been, not even the recent ones given what we now know about the impact of the booster rollout (which is exactly the kind of thing the models are produced for).

Also, if you think that they are predictions then the moment they are released, they automatically significantly reduce the likelihood of that prediction being true. Admittedly, they’ll probably see that as worthwhile in itself, but it must be frustrating too.
 
meltonblue said:
Did you read the link? I’m just wondering whether it’s worth the explanation or not. And no they haven’t been, not even the recent ones given what we now know about the impact of the booster rollout (which is exactly the kind of thing the models are produced for).

Also, if you think that they are predictions then the moment they are released, they automatically significantly reduce the likelihood of that prediction being true. Admittedly, they’ll probably see that as worthwhile in itself, but it must be frustrating too.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of the “oh they’re not predictions their projections” semantics. It’s nonsense. Trying to blind the public with “science”. It’s the lack of honesty and not admitting they are wrong that has undermined vaccine rollouts etc… rather than any minority anti-vax movement.z
 
ctwrd said:
I’m aware of the “oh they’re not predictions their projections” semantics. It’s nonsense. Trying to blind the public with “science”. It’s the lack of honesty and not admitting they are wrong that has undermined vaccine rollouts etc… rather than any minority anti-vax movement.z
Click to expand...

And yet we’ve just gone through one of the quickest booster rollouts in the world.

I do agree with the sentiments of that to an extent though. The difference I think is I don’t blame the modellers for that, I do those that deliberately misconstrue them for public consumption. All the models say is if x, y and a happens then this is the impact. Releasing the model in itself makes the worst case completely unrealistic if judged as a prediction straight away.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.