Sviesta Ciba |

lasitajs (

lasitajs) rakstīja,
@ 2021-04-22 18:13:00

Lasu lietotāja brooking ierakstus un nevaru saprast, kur ir mana problēma:
a) esmu nepārāk inteliģents, līdz ar to neprotu savilkt kopā A un B, kas citiem šķiet acīmredzami
b) nespēju noticēt, ka ir tik ļoti plaša cilvēku grupa (dažādu valstu valdības, zinātnieki, plašsaziņas līdzekļu darbinieki), kura ir spējusi vienoties par šādu visaptverošu adžendu, tai pat laikā nespējot vienoties par tādām neatliekamām lietām kā klimata pārmaiņas un tmldz.
c) or i, for one, would welcome our supranational overlords.

UPD. Ir protams arī iespēja d), proti, es esmu spējis samierināties ar savu nenozīmību.

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

lasitajs
2021-04-26 13:15 (saite)

Regarding your old people solution:
i think your intentions are noble, but such an operation is logistical nightmare, especially given the demographic stucture of the country. And, in addition to that, it's open-ended.

Vaccines are a solution to a disease problem, i'm sure you would agree (or have been in the past, C-19 mutates fast), so there is nothing illogical, in my opinion, that people in power, technocratic or not, are going down this road. Question is, how do you make a decision about safety? Science consensus, people with PhDs in biochemistry or shady corners of the internet? In my naivety i go with former. Chiefly because it's a tough job to doubt everything. Civilizations are built on trust, when that trust breaks, civilizations fall. I would like this civilization to last a little longer, and this is just pure egoism: i have a nice life.

Of course, i rely on experts (call it subservience, if you wish). So i am subservient when i board the plane, assuming that it has been serviced by experts. I'm subservient, when i drink the water from the tap, assuming good work by water systems experts. Same with food, OTC medicine, roads, you name it.

WEF:
i have never watched any of it, maybe you have some video or article handy, that would summarize your viewpoint?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2021-04-26 17:27 (saite)

Evening - I have got half an hour before I go offline, so I will try to deal with a couple of points you raise: I will try to deal with the other points you raise tomorrow if/when I get some time at work.

Okay ,so about my ideas, which you say are noble (thanks), but logistically nightmarish. Well, first of all, I am still left of centre politically when it comes to the state getting stuck in during emergencies (which this is for risk groups). For me, this is one of its principal raison d'etre(s). I think, although hard, it could be done - certainly in the Public Sector through tripartite social dialogue (Point 3 regarding employees). Distribution of Vitamin D, zinc, etc could be done through chemists or family doctors. Ensuring times for pensioners in food shops doesn't seem outlandishly difficult. All of these ideas are certainly far less ruinous to the economy than the kind of mass restrictions we have been enduring - that is for sure.

Regarding experts, yes, I see your point. I think you are correct when you say that a breakdown in trust leads to a breakdown in civilisation. However, a breakdown in trust - not blind trust.

For example, when you board a plane you are confident because the airline has an excellent safety record. If you were going to board a plane - let's say - in a third world country, and it didn't look in such great condition, you might think twice. I can make the same argument about water from the tap. In fact, here is a story from my life. I complained about the water quality where I live about 10 years ago. At first, I was waved away (my complaint wasn't treated seriously and they denied there was an issue); however, after I had a sample tested at a laboratory, the company (komunāla saimniecība) admitted I was correct, and told me they were going to fix the problem. We have clean water now in the town. I am not claiming it was due to my complaint - I am sure they were going to deal with it anyway; however, the thing is this: I didn't just trust them.

I have the same attitude about these vaccines, but I think it is best if I deal with that tomorrow if/when I have more time to spend on Ciba.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

brookings
2021-04-27 13:24 (saite)

About vaccines:

Where to start: I am going to assume you believe they are safe and they have been thoroughly tested because that is what they are reported as being. You see it on public transport, read it on the portals - why, even the infamous Aizliegtais Paņemiens show didn’t doubt their safety. I have noticed myself how those that doubt this are portrayed as crazy anti-vaxxers, whose opinions are similar to that which would have been made by the now-extinct Dodo (I think it was TVNet who thusly took the piss - the imagery was interesting. What are they trying to say? That those who don’t want to take these vaccines are about to make a mistake that could lead to them being another extinct population on the planet?).

So, about the testing:

These vaccines have, in the EU, got ‘conditional marketing authorisation’ (Source ema.europe.eu). These means their approval has been sped-up so they can be used in health emergencies. This means that companies must continue to provide further data from ongoing and new studies to confirm the benefits continue to outweigh the risks. In Pfizer’s case, for example, this Phase 3 of the trial will continue for a further two years (information form their press release)

I would really appreciate it if this information was given by journalists covering this topic because it is the truth. People who say there has been no testing are lying, and people who say that they have been thoroughly tested to the degree other approved vaccines usually have to prove their safety are also lying.

So what are the results so far regarding safety? If you read most of the press, and the experts that get a say there, you would imagine that the risks are tiny. Sometimes someone who has just had the jab will die, and people will argue whether it was due to the injection or not. Other people will post on social media horrendous images of adverse reactions, while others will say the chance of you having a bad response are 0.000001% or something like that. It is confusing. Thankfully, we have the MHRA (Medical Health products Regulatory Agency) in the UK, and they publish the reported adverse reactions to medications in the UK. Thus far there have been for Pfizer 334 deaths and 143,034 adverse side effects (some minor, some very serious) and For Astra Zeneca 627 deaths and 548,495 adverse side effects.

I haven’t seen any reporting of this, which is a shame because it is real data. On one hand you have people who find it hilarious that people think the vaccines are dangerous, and on the other hand, you have people who think there is something like a 10% chance of dying if you get injected. Both are outrageously ill-informed.

So, as you know, in my opinion coercing people - especially young people - who are at almost zero-risk of dying of covid is ridiculous (and immoral). The only argument I have heard is the ‘herd-immunity’ argument. Interestingly the WHO changed the definition of herd immunity from “the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection” (June 2020) to “a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” They go on to state that “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.”

In 2018, The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation were the second biggest funders of the WHO. The GAVI Alliance came in 4th. But this information is probably best discussed in reference to your last question, which I will deal with on Thursday (regarding the WEF and other conspiracies).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

lasitajs
2021-05-08 12:35 (saite)

It took some time, sorry for that.

Regarding this point you make:

others will say the chance of you having a bad response are 0.000001% or something like that.

It is not 0.000001%, but the deaths you cite, together are 0.0018% of vaccinated in UK (51 million, per OurWorldinData). It is still a very small percentage, don't you think?

I couldn't find the precise data on side-effects on MHRA site, they're burried somewhere deep. Most of them probably include sore arm, that's why i focused on the death numbers you mentioned.

Your points about journalism are fair. There is a certain degradation of the craft, i grant you that, for various reasons. But are they in in some kind of conspiracy? Very hard to imagine, knowing some of the personally. Or is the conspiracy a straw-man from my side, and the accusation is simply for being lazy and taking the main government narrative without any kind of criticism?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

brookings
2021-05-11 11:05 (saite)

Hi, I just looked up the vaccination rate in the UK on Our World in Data and got 52% of the UK population have had at least one shot - 52% of 68,000,000 is about 35 million. But okay, I get your point. I have two things to say in response:

First, what is the chance of a young person dying from Covid? It is also tiny. So much so, that you can't see any increase in all-cause mortality in younger age groups - even in Latvia, which has just experienced a wave of the virus.

Secondly, we don't know about further deaths to be caused by the virus. Actually ADE (Antibody Dependant Enhancement) is a known unknown - it is listed as a possible serious reaction that could be made manifest when the vaccinated person comes into contact with a mutated - or wild - strain of the virus.

About the side-effects of the vaccines on the MHRA site, you can see them all here (for Astra Zeneca): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/983475/COVID-19_vaccine_AstraZeneca_analysis_print.pdf

Thanks for agreeing with me about the journalism. I say thanks, because sometimes it seems we (general 'we'- not us two) don't have conversations anymore - especially on social media. It's more about venting frustration and getting one over others (guilty your honour). I think they (journalists such as the one I mentioned writing for Ir.lv) are - in general and on this issue - unwitting dupes of a conspiracy, and it is down to status and slinkums (check out the response from an academic to my 'investigation' of high Ct-value PCR tests - 'ai slinkums'). They fail, in my eyes, to objectively address the issues for an intelligent but curious (and possibly sceptical) audience, instead relying on parroting an orthodox view unchallenged by curiosity. It is especially damaging to the trust between readership and media when they have a knee-jerk aversion to examining corporate capture of institutions and high-level corruption in general.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	brookings 2021-05-11 11:06 (saite)
	should read "Secondly, we don't know about further deaths to be caused by the vaccines." (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	brookings 2021-05-12 15:35 (saite)
	calculate your risk: https://www.qcovid.org/ Mine is 0.007% I can live with that. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

lasitajs
2021-05-14 20:17 (saite)

Mine is 0.0044%.

I have to say that i see your overall point. The only argument i can provide in return is that old and frail *potentially* could stay in some kind of isolation for indefinite amount of time, if population in general isn't immunized.

How you read anything about how Russia handles it? Because there are practically no Covid limitations currently in force, it seems. Friend of mine, theater director, came back from Moscow couple of weeks ago, he said everything is open: cinemas, theaters, sporting events. It's almost as Covid didn't exist.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	lasitajs 2021-05-14 20:17 (saite)
	How = Have (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

brookings
2021-04-27 13:25 (saite)

Back to herd immunity. Do you remember the AP programme that got so much attention? I don’t really know why it did. All the boxes were ticked after all: oppressive soundtrack, gloomy street scenes, numerous experts interviewed, assumption that the vaccines were safe, and encouragement to get vaccinated. The only crime was that the programme cast a little doubt on the level of antibodies in some of the people who had been injected with the AZ vaccine (to be fair to the critics - a ridiculously small sample size). In the debate/discussion with the experts at the end, there was reference to cell immunity being another method of calculating immunity. It got precious little discussion, which was interesting because (as you can read here in a piece from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/02/t-cell-covid-immunity-present-in-adults-six-months-after-first-infection) “cellular (T-cell) immunity against the virus that causes Covid-19 is likely to be present within adults six months after primary infection, with levels considerably higher in patients with symptoms…. Overall the results offer evidence that T-cell immunity may last longer than antibodies.”

So, that would appear to be really important to me. I mean if T-cell immunity, which can be acquired through contact with the virus, lasts longer than antibodies, then the original definition of herd immunity would seem to be the best, wouldn’t it?

Here’s more about a report published in Nature: “SARS-CoV-2 belongs to a large family of coronaviruses, six of which were previously known to infect humans. Four of them are responsible for the common cold. The other two are more dangerous: SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which ended in 2004; and MERS-CoV, the virus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012. All six previously known coronaviruses spark production of both antibodies and memory T-cells. In addition, studies of immunity to SARS-Cov1 have shown that T-cells stick around for many years longer than acquired antibodies” (https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/07/28/immune-t-cells-may-offer-lasting-protection-against-covid-19/).

Is this kind of information being discussed in the media you engage with? I found it absolutely astonishing that in a programme that dealt with immunity to the virus, T-cell immunity was acknowledged and then dismissed in under three seconds.

I’ll finish with an observation about the ‘expert response’ to the AP programme from an article in ir.lv (https://ir.lv/2021/04/01/zinatnes-paklausana-un-nepiedodama-augstpratiba/). Initially, and without having watched the show myself, I couldn’t really understand what the problem was until I got to this part:

“Mums priekšā sarežģīta vasara, kurā nāksies saskarties ar faktu, ka liela daļa iedzīvotāju atsacīsies vakcinēties. Šobrīd par to šķiet dīvaini runāt (tik daudzi taču sitas vai nost, lai tiktu pie vakcīnas).”

This is the stance of the esteemed science journalist. She wants us to get vaccinated, and she is appalled at the temerity of a programme, whose crime is to have wondered about the efficacy of one particular vaccine. She doesn’t address the arguments for or against: is this the kind of objective science reporting you are happy with? It has started to get - forgive the wordplay - under my skin.

Okay, I have spent way too much time on this. If you get this far, thanks for reading it. If you want, I will have a crack at the WEF et al. But only if you want me to.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	lasitajs 2021-04-28 11:52 (saite)
	Thank you for this, i'm a bit behind with some things i need to finish this week. I'll read this properly a little later. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	brookings 2021-04-28 11:54 (saite)
	No probs - whenever you like. In fact, the later, the better for me. I have fart too much to do to be writing long tortuous posts on ciba :) (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Navigate: