SARS cov2 and Covid 19

Home Forums Discussion Forum SARS cov2 and Covid 19

  • This topic has 1,202 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 5 months ago by Dave.
Viewing 40 posts - 961 through 1,000 (of 1,203 total)
  • Author
  • #64270

    What you state is not true. The following are extracts from the MHRA website on the phase 3 trial

    “In Study 2, approximately 44,000 participants 12 years of age and older were randomised equally and received 2 doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine or placebo with a planned interval of 21 days. The efficacy analyses included participants that received their second vaccination within 19 to 42 days after their first vaccination. Participants are planned to be followed for up to 24 months, for assessments of safety and efficacy against COVID-19 disease.”

    Efficacy against COVID-19 disease
    At the time of the analysis of Study 2, information presented is based on participants 16 years and older. Participants had been followed for symptomatic COVID-19 disease for at least 2,214 person-years for the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine and at least 2,222 person-years in the placebo group. There were 8 confirmed COVID-19 cases identified in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group and 162 cases in the placebo group, respectively. In this analysis, compared to placebo, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 from first COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2 in participants without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was 95.0% (95% credible interval of 90.3% to 97.6%). In participants 65 years of age and older and 75 years of age and older without evidence of prior infections with SARS-CoV-2, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 was 94.7% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of 66.7% to 99.9%) and 100% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of -13.1% to 100.0%) respectively.

    In a separate analysis, compared to placebo, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine from first COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2 in participants with or without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was 94.6% (95% credible interval of 89.9% to 97.3%).”

    So I am not sure what you are on about.
    My main criticism of the rushing through of the vaccines is that long term efficacy and side effects could not be assessed in such a short period of time. But that has to be weighed against the speed with which the disease is progressing, and the failure of the control mechanisms put in place. At the end of the day, if you believe the virus causes trivial infection, then you would agree that the vaccine has been rushed through, but given that this virus is advancing rapidly, and with many unknowns, and given that already about two million have died of the disease in one year, about a tenth of that of Spanish ‘flu, then I think using the vaccine is reasonable.


    The MHRA Public Assessment Report, Authorisation for Temporary Supply – link

    Having read through it (which I hadn’t done before) I am somewhat more reassured. The (non serious) adverse drug reactions are mostly relatively minor though significantly higher in the treatment arm. There is little difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment and placebo arms. Its authorisation has been granted temporarily under regulation 174A of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012. So it will be kept under review and more data will follow from follow up. What the won’t and can’t know are the longer term possible effects until sufficient time has elapsed.

    The one think that slightly bothers me is that the vaccine provokes an antibody directed at the spike protein on SARS-Cov-2, the part that attaches to the ACE2 receptor. Given that receptor-target binding is partly dependent on molecular 3D shapes I wonder to myself how those antibodies might interfere with angiotensin II binding. And is there a possible autoimmune problem in the making?


    SA “What you state is not true.”
    What specifically? I said there were no completed clinical trials. There aren’t. In both the BNT and the Astrazeneca/Oxfords (AZD1222) ones,the extremely limited data from phase one trials is conflated with incomplete and ongoing data collection from the much larger phase two and three trials. This is what you have done too. The impression is given that all trials are complete when in reality not even the phase one trials have been completed properly. The figures are meaningless because a realistic assessment depends on long term effects. You might as well conclude that exposure to lead is harmless because few health effects are reported in the first 3 months.

    By the way, your 95% effective claim is based on a calculation that gives relative risk reduction:
    100(1 – (0.044/0.88)) = ~95%.
    The absolute risk reduction is much more meaningful:
    (0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%


    Clinical trials are monitored by independent observers and the significant end points are determined at the beginning. However the trials do not stop there because monitoring continues to determine long term effects. If the end points are reached the two arms of the trial are unblinded and the interim results published. There is nothing irregular in how these trials were conducted.


    “ You might as well conclude that exposure to lead is harmless because few health effects are reported in the first 3 months.”

    You wouldn’t conduct such a study in the first place. You have to tailor your trials according to the effects you are looking for.

    Pigeon English

    I would strongly suggest youtube video by Psychologist/Psychotherapist Jerry Kroth titled: “Covid 19 and American Collective Insanity“. IMHO applies to UK as well. Explains, from psychologist perspective (non)reaction to Covid. Bit of politics, media and economics addressed as well. Long 1h and 30 min but worth watching. Deals with usual Denial Projection Deflection and other symptoms of mental illness.



    “If the end points are reached the two arms of the trial are unblinded and the interim results published.”

    And what are these end points? …

    First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.

    “There is nothing irregular in how these trials were conducted.”

    You are writing in the past tense as though these trials are completed. They are not.


    Node – “You might as well conclude that exposure to lead is harmless because few health effects are reported in the first 3 months.”

    No. It’s not a comparison between adverse vaccine effects and nothing. The comparison is against a viral infection that is already known to be very harmful and dangerous.

    Node – “The absolute risk reduction is much more meaningful:
    – (0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%”

    You didn’t work this out yourself, did you Node? You just picked someone you “believe” in, right? ‘Cos I couldn’t work out where you got 0.88 and 0.044 from so I stuck the following line of yours into Google:

    (0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%

    and found an article on the conspiracy theory blog, “by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian”; some example article titles:

    – Professor Perronne and the Vaccine: “We Do Not Want to Become, Like Tomatoes or Corn Transgenic GMOs”

    – Humans of the GREAT RESET: what the Future MIGHT Look Like in 2021 – If the Controlling Elites Have Their Way

    – Must-watch Documentary: ‘[email protected] 2: Indoctrination’

    – Klaus Schwab: Great Reset Will “Lead To Fusion Of Our Physical, Digital, & Biological Identity”


    SA “You wouldn’t conduct such a study in the first place.”

    I thought my point was clear, but let me spell it out. You can’t test for long term effects with a short term trial … and even their short term trial was flawed.

    According to the “Current Primary Outcome Measures,” the minimum time frame for Pfizer to assess serious adverse events (SAE’s) is “6 months after last dose.” This is the minimum term for assessing SAE’s in phase one of the trial. Pfizer published the outcome of phase one on the 14th October, 5 months and two weeks after the start date. Most of that period was taken up with recruitment and allocation. Phase 2 and 3 are months and years from completion.


    “I thought my point was clear, but let me spell it out.”

    Quack, quack quack, “I am so great, you are so dumb”; the great conspiracy theorist puts the stupid sheeple in his rightful place!

    Look Node, if you’re so worried about a Great Conspiracy, maybe you should be more concerned about this:

    – Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist

    “However, if I had a nefarious nature, and wanted to ensure that the new SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were rendered impotent, these are a few things I would try…”


    From my link at 20:56

    4. Start a rumor-mill, making full use of social media and other outlets, with topics such as masks are unnecessary or don’t work, that PCR tests are too sensitive or unreliable, that infection-induced ‘herd immunity’ is a reasonable strategy, or even that SARS-CoV-2 isn’t real. Undermining already inadequate public health measures helps keep viral population sizes large.

    Why are you working for the enemy, Node? Just nursing your sense of superiority?


    The cancellation of GCSE and A Level exams “because of the pandemic” for the second year running is a tragedy.

    But from a Tory point of view, it’s great. A consistent Tory line says there’s no point in these exams anyway because why not simply get the schools to point youngsters towards university “admissions tutors” with labels stuck on their backs stating their schoolteacher-determined “rank” or “class”.

    (I put “admissions tutors” in inverted commas here because those with experience of formal “education” structures only outside of the British one may be unfamiliar with the idea that guys from a university are allowed to require different exam results from different applicants for admission on to one and the same degree course. Be aware that this system which reeks so strongly of feudalism is standard practice in Britain. You’ll probably never read any criticism of it in any British newspaper. Calling it what it is will annoy petty bourgeois types something rotten. And bourgeois types too, for that matter. Liberals among them will do some “quick thinking” and say its purpose is actually to help social mobility not to hinder it. Seriously! And the monarchy is really republican. And Britain’s got a wonderful “constitution” even if it doesn’t actually exist and nobody even claims to know what the non-existent thing says – at least if one doesn’t count the stupid repetition of lines written by royalist toadies such as that it falls to the monarch to “be consulted, to encourage, and to warn”. They will say there would be fewer Pot Noodle-eaters among undergraduates if the univerities didn’t operate the “offer system”. It’s all for social mobility apparently. Same as the “queen’s” garden party, which operates on the same principle of “it’s my garden party, so I’ll invite whoever I want”. Of course where a fair system is used instead, universities don’t need or have “admissions tutors” – there simply is such no such role or concept. But just try telling that to a British person whose knee jerks to defend “the system”. There’ll be sneering at you for never saying anything that’s “pertinent” as quick as a flash, rather in the way that a cat can grab a fly without thinking about where the fly is and consciously triangulating.)



    – The absolute risk reduction is much more meaningful:
    – (0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%

    is utterly misleading. The absolute risk reduction isn’t even a percentage. The absolute risk reduction is:

    “From 162 COVID-19 cases among 18,319 people, to 8 COVID-19 cases among 18310 people”.

    The article is full of deception, eg: “It should also be noted that these figures suggest the threat from COVID 19 is vanishingly small.” Yeah, right! A “vanishingly small risk” that has killed 75,000 people in the UK alone and is currently overwhelming the hospitals!

    The deception works by ignoring both infection levels in the test subjects’ environment, and the passing of time – the chance of any test subject becoming infected obviously rises with both.

    Why are you helping the enemy, Node? You should be ashamed of yourself, diligently repeating falsehoods that will increase death and suffering. The conspiracy theory you promote is ludicrous, as if the entire population will be vaccinated in a day, and only after, when it’s too late, will we find that the vaccine cripples them. Absolute rubbish. The vaccine can’t be delivered that fast; it will be administered over the course of months, and outcomes will be monitored. Your / OffGuardian’s scare story isn’t even remotely possible; maybe you sit alone at your computer relaying sensationalism from obscure websites, but most people actually know others, and if vaccination frequently injures people as your favourite websites insist, word will spread and people will refuse to be vaccinated. And the vaccine companies know that! They have people thinking far more critically than you are apparently capable of.



    “The cancellation of GCSE and A Level exams “because of the pandemic” for the second year running is a tragedy”

    No. Only under this politico-economic system that forces everyone to be everyone else’s competitor could it be a tragedy. Is a cleaner or a shop worker worth less than an investment manager or a political pundit? I would say the opposite.

    Only a small minority of this and last year’s exam intake ever stood any chance of getting a decent wage. All the rest were already condemned to low wages, zero hours contracts, poverty and insecurity, no matter what their exam results. There simply are not enough “good” jobs to go round, and there never will be until we rise up and change this unjust system.


    Well done for revealing the source of Node’s knowledge. The Agora blog is a gem of pseudoscientific gobbledegook. I don’t think the writer even realises the shocking level of scientific illiteracy displayed.

    I found that the posters that come and go here appear to get a lot of their points of discussion from OG, which has sadly become so one sidedly obsessed with the great reset. We had those who told us that the PCR false positive rate was 90% and then how the WHO itself admitted that the death rate was very low for the virus and so on. It is worth casting an eye on that website to predict what will come our way next.


    SA: “Well done for revealing the source of Node’s knowledge. The Agora blog is a gem of pseudoscientific gobbledegook.”

    What is the Agora Blog? I’ve never heard of it till now and I’m not aware of ever referencing it. You’ve associated me with it in a very negative way. If you don’t have a reason for doing so, the honourable course would be to retract this false association.

    For the record, my only substantial quote today was from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Blog (“Comment and opinion from The BMJ’s international community of readers, authors, and editors”). You didn’t respond other than to attack me personally.


    “So, to be clear, we just sent 3 million children into primary school FOR ONE DAY, so they could all mix around the virus, and *then* go into lockdown? That’s what’s actually just happened, right? My brain isn’t making this up?”

    Laura McInerney, 8:18 pm · 4 Jan 2021


    Node – “For the record, my only substantial quote today was from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Blog (“Comment and opinion from The BMJ’s international community of readers, authors, and editors”)”

    I don’t believe you. I do not believe that is where you got:

    – The absolute risk reduction is much more meaningful:
    – (0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%

    I think you got that from Iain Davis via Off-Guardian. Possibly someone posted it to the BMJ blog, but if so I expect you found a link to it from one of your favourite conspiracy theory sites; after all, why would you be reading an “official story” site like the BMJ?

    You could prevent this sort of contention by linking your sources.


    Hospitals now getting overwhelmed in “no lockdown” Sweden. Hospital reception rooms and canteens are being converted for covid care.


    Maybe Node is referring to this, which is indeed linked to in Iain Davis’s piece in OffGuardian.

    Had you wished to counter his argument you could perhaps have presented an alternative perspective, as put forward by another bmj contributor here:

    But I realise that ‘Quack, quack quack, “I am so great, you are so dumb”; the great conspiracy theorist puts the stupid sheeple in his rightful place!’ is probably more in keeping with the ‘fruitful scientific discussion’ engaged in on this thread.


    Node, the stuff you post is irrelevant, a distraction. Unbelievably wrong-headed decisions have been and continue to be made by European and US governments, decisions that are killing hundreds of thousands of people, and are likely to promote even worse variants of the virus. But the stuff you post contains nothing remotely relevant, nor even realistic.

    If there were any value in the arguments you promote, they would be being discussed by hundreds of virologists, immunologists and epidemiologists. Many such scientists have Twitter or Facebook streams etc; I link to such sources frequently, and each one has links to others. None of them are discussing the stuff you think is so important. But they’re all either “in on the scam” or stupid sheeple, right? And the Great Wise Node would lead us to salvation if only we weren’t so brainwashed by the MSM, right?

    Look, if we saw any value in OffGuardian, Swiss Propaganda Research or UK Column we could go read their dozen soundbites over and over again for ourselves. But they’ve been proven so hopelessly wrong that they’re irrelevant, so why bother parroting their bunk?


    Steph, it isn’t an “alternative perspective”, it’s deliberate deception disguised as science, just like Yeadon’s stuff, and it should be called out as such. Calling it an “alternative perspective” is like calling armed robbery “alternative employment”. But thanks for finding the link.


    Perhaps it was this link

    Perhaps it was Peter Doshi’s piece his bio here


    Steph, my quote of Node, “(0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%”, does not appear in Allan S. Cunningham’s letter at BMJ, so your comment is consistent with Node getting that from Iain Davis at OffGuardian, rather than the BMJ as Node claimed.

    As hospitals overload, as people suffer die by the droves, as we enter another lockdown that could have been avoided, and has been avoided by more sensible governments, I am sick to the back teeth of the arrogance and dishonesty of conspiracy theorists. Node should recognise that he’s out of his depth and do everyone a favour by either raising his game, or STFU.

    I have repeatedly described the template of conspiracy theory; I do not use the term merely to dismiss politically inconvenient truths. It is a recognisable phenomena wit specific recognisable features, and indeed, learning to recognise it would protect politically inconvenient truths, for when an establishment apologist dismissed a truth as “conspiracy theory”, we could reply “no, that’s not a conspiracy theory, because this is what actual conspiracy theory looks like…”. Learning to recognise conspiracy theory would also protect the public, by unmasking scumbags like Yeadon.


    Yes, Steph and ET,
    If you look again at my post of January 4, 2021 at 18:20, you’ll see I linked to Peter Doshi’s piece at the end of the quote.


    With respect Clark, I think there are important aspects to the vaccine trials that require scrutiny. They have shown they can reduce covid-19 cases but not that they can prevent hospital admissions, severe disease, deaths, infection or even transmission of the virus. You have often pointed to Goldacre’s “Bad Pharma” for a good insight into how Big Pharma massage statistics to sex up their presentations. Absolute risk reduction is an important metric by which to judge some clinical trials data and in this case we are talking about smallish numbers of end points in large numbers in each arm. 119 people need to be vaccinated to prevent one new covid 19 case. (from ARR 0.84%. number needed to treat is it’s inverse). Nor have they shown how long any effect may last for although I realise the time factor is a constraint.

    “Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”

    Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.


    On the other hand, I feel that everyone is trying to find the magic bullet to kill this virus off. Ireland’s case rates have gone from approx 300 a day mid December to over 6100 today. It is shocking and will inevitably translate into deaths and overwhelmed hospitals.
    As I said, I’ll still have either vaccine when it is offered to me but the trial data such as is available publicly merits scrutiny. I agree with Doshi, all trial data on all vaccines (and indeed every trial ever) should be made publicly available.


    ET, I entirely agree with your 00:26 comment. Big pharma and the captured regulators could serve us better, and would inspire trust instead of conspiracy theory, if they were in the habit of full transparency. But such a system is incompatible with and not even possible in a system dominated by capitalism; any fully transparent company would be out-competed and then subsumed by a more deceptive rival, and any political party favouring the public would be defeated, either at the polls due to the capitalist media eg. Corbyn’s Labour, or by financial domination eg. Greece.


    Node, I’m sorry, I see now that you did link to Doshi’s article, but only in your second comment on that subject. But your first quote came from OffGuardian, didn’t it? And by your second, with the link, it was too late, because you’ve long since pissed me off by approaching this from the perspective of conspiracy theory.

    Node, no solution to covid-19 has been acceptable to you, and you have repeatedly promoted false arguments that it is trivial. That means that you side with death and suffering, and until you change that I will oppose you, no matter what username you post under.


    ET, 00:34 – “everyone is trying to find the magic bullet to kill this virus off.”

    And that’s the problem; magic bullets don’t exist. But we don’t need them. All we need is sufficient discipline. Preferably self discipline, which can be inspired by good leadership, but sadly a minority would still need discipline to be enforced. We’re a year into this, but we could have ended it in five weeks, and still could do at any time; we just need to choose to. What are our intelligence and free will worth? It’s only a virus, it has none of either.


    Magic bullet was a poor choice of phrase. Workable soluton would better fit.


    A workable solution exists in choosing to temporarily change our behaviour.

    Pause all unnecessary meeting. Compartmentalise into zones, restrict travel between them and grade them red, amber and green. Move activity outdoors where possible, and where not possible, ventilate as much as we can stand. Reorganise into closed community groups, and make larger groups of groups. Use group testing, eg. waste water testing. Use temporally segregated closed teams for essential activity. Take some windows out in each bus and train carriage. Etc, etc; I shouldn’t be the only one promoting ideas like this.

    It’s doable. Some countries have eradicated it already. Scotland’s restrictions drove two strains extinct. Done right, it would take under two months, but half measures have already cost us a year. Let’s stamp the damn thing out before more mutations make it even worse.


    And for everyone’s sake, let’s put an end to this pretence that it doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t matter and we should just let it overrun us.


    If we did this, we’d also have a defence strategy against future pandemics, in answer to a question Steph asked a couple of weeks ago. And even if we couldn’t outright win, we’d gain time to develop and properly test vaccines.


    Oh, and let’s properly regulate virus research, have proper lab inspections, and move the most dangerous research to remote locations, with proper worker quarantine. The first SARS arose naturally once, and escaped from labs at least three times:


    Its seems there is agreement, even among the official conspiracy theorists, that coronavirus-19 came from China, but disagreement whether it came from a meat market or from a Deep State part funded bio-lab in Wuhan.

    As soon as the concerted MSM coverage began it was clear this was the latest assault on Trump, hoping to ruin his re-election chances by wrecking the economy and using the virus to ban political gatherings and allow election irregularities to be introduced under cover of an emergency. I mean in UK you have the farce of a poorly attended mother of parliaments due to a virus!

    Trump had to be removed as a successful populist leader against Globalism, but he’s fighting back, whereas Corbyn was easily pushed aside, and the Globalist Project is now called the Great Reset. This isn’t about serving humanity, albeit there are useful idiots, and hired help, who think so, its about entrenching the power of the existing ruling class and is an alliance between the western bankers, the Chinese communists and the Vatican. I.e. using a virus to impose, in a day, a police state with all protests banned, except violent Deep State backed hate-groups like BLM and Antifa, used to attack patriotic opinion.

    The problem is despite their best events in inflicting health and economic harm, following the communist dictum the end justifies the means, with corrupt democrat and republican politicians well rewarded for just following orders, Trump’s still standing and has heroically exposed the election irregularities to millions of Americans, despite the BBC/MSM censorship.

    And therefore instead of the virus-crisis ending in November, a new mutant, no details provided, has allegedly emerged requiring even greater restrictions to stop its spread, despite the restrictions not stopping the spread of the first deadly virus. In other words the latest national lockdown that makes no medical sense, but has been announced to try and double down on the virus-terrorism to stop Trump, as Congress meets to vote on the Presidency.


    January 4, 2021 at 22:55#64308REPLY

    “What is the Agora Blog? I’ve never heard of it till now and I’m not aware of ever referencing it. You’ve associated me with it in a very negative way. If you don’t have a reason for doing so, the honourable course would be to retract this false association.”

    Yes Node, I acknowledge my error, it was not the Agora Blog by Ian Davis, and for this I sincerely apologise and eat humble pie. However I will amend this to say that the source of the original argument you put forward in your post of January 4, 2021 at 17:10#64276 was actually partly from the article by Ian Davis in OffGuardian

    So let us see why I and Clark have reached this conclusions:

    Your post:

    “By the way, your 95% effective claim is based on a calculation that gives relative risk reduction:
    100(1 – (0.044/0.88)) = ~95%.
    The absolute risk reduction is much more meaningful:
    (0.88-0.044)% = ~0.84%”

    OffGuardian Ian Davis:

    Using Pfizer’s figures, the relative risk reduction is 100(1 – (0.044/0.88)). Which is 95%. Voila!

    Almost a cut and paste I would say. Would you agree?
    That would have been fine if you had then linked the source of this calculation, but as Clark pointed out, it appears from your post that you have independently arrived at these figures.

    Another quote further down from Ian Davis:

    However, this was based upon relative risk reduction. That is the declared percentage difference between the vaccinated group’s 8/18310 chance (0.044%) of developing COVID 19 against a 162/18319 (0.88%) chance of COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine. As this larger group of 43,000 people have yet to be trialled, there is no basis for this claimed outcome. But it is what it is, and we can use these reported figures here.
    This sounds fantastic and is a much better marketing strategy than reporting the absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is supposedly 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%.

    “For the record, my only substantial quote today was from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Blog (“Comment and opinion from The BMJ’s international community of readers, authors, and editors”). You didn’t respond other than to attack me personally.”

    You then later did quote the article by Peter Doshi in the BMJ.
    I did not attack you personally, I just merely mentioned the confusion created between your two different posts.

    The problem here is that I do tend to agree with you to a very small extent, and with Peter Doshi and also with what ET has said. Yes we must be cautious about the vaccine, and yes the data is not mature, how can it be if vaccines have only been developed 6 months ago, of course we do not have long term safety data and so on, but given the gravity of the situation there is a real urgency in breaking this cycle. If you have other suggestions, bolstered by reliable quotes, that naturally acquired herd immunity is the way forward, then let us have this discussion.

    Therein is the problem Node. If we can solve our differences by rational discussion then we need to agree as to what our beliefs are and how we can respect each other. But this is impossible if we jump from one subject to another. If you start with the view point that the virus is no worse than the ‘flu, and that the PCR is meaningless, then of course we cannot take you seriously when you then jump onto why the vaccine is not effective and so on. At some point we may just agree to disagree.


    “And therefore instead of the virus-crisis ending in November, a new mutant, no details provided, has allegedly emerged requiring even greater restrictions to stop its spread,”

    Is this enough detail about the new mutant?


    One thing about the pandemic, right now when England enters “very big lockdown” whereas most of Scotland only goes into “big lockdown”, is as follows.

    SNP types will be wondering whether the holding of the Scottish general election on 6 May can be put into question, with the reason being seen as English people “ignoring Scotland”, or – better still – English people spreading germs. Of course to the hypocritical Hun middle classes in Scotland, this will be couched as English people being incompetent at management – insufficiently Calvinist with the cashboxes maybe. To the majority of the population, though, it will be sold as “They come up here, they think they’ve got a right, and they haven’t washed their hands”.

    Imagine if bubonic plague had arrived and spread out from Notting Hill in 1960. Good news for the Mosleyites or bad?

    I just hope a leading SNP type is caught on camera saying what they really think, namely that the pandemic could be wonderful for their xenophobic cause.

    Another way of looking at this is that the fascism that has reigned in Britain isn’t particularly “imperialist”…and so when fascism is in the air, it’s not only in the air in the “Junker” group in the Union’s capital city.


    Lordy! Lordy! …. I made a pretty uncontroversial post backing up my statement to Dredd that the new vaccines were “poorly tested”, which everybody here seems to agree with, yet it has provoked a barrage of insults, smears and false claims.

    I make no apologies for sourcing Off-Guardian. It is an excellent site (eg see today’s story about so-called Russian hacking which backs up several of Craig’s claims). However I get my information from many other sources too, and I don’t feel the need to provide a link for every fact I post here. In general, when I summarise someone’s point, I don’t; when I post a substantial quote, I do.

    I didn’t post your 2nd quote from Ian Davis so I don’t know why you think it’s relevant. By the way, I notice you haven’t refuted anything he said, just complained about where he said it

    Finally you lay down some rules for “rational discussion” which I’m to abide by if you are to take me seriously. Ha ha, what arrogance! Maybe I’ll take you seriously when you realise calling someone names (covid denier, trivialiser, conspiracy theorist, deluded, etc) has no part in rational discussion.

Viewing 40 posts - 961 through 1,000 (of 1,203 total)
  • The topic ‘SARS cov2 and Covid 19’ is closed to new replies.