benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,636 
Likes: 1,742
|
Post by benaj on Dec 22, 2021 19:56:31 GMT
Slightly optimistic than his previous estimations for limited data? Yes.
Is it convincing? .... to be continued.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 22, 2021 20:27:10 GMT
Slightly optimistic than his previous estimations for limited data? Yes. Is it convincing? .... to be continued. The bit the threw me was the definition of a how the counted hospital visits as any visit 14 days since the positive PCR test. So ISTM trip over the cat while isolating and break your leg ... thats a CV19 hospitalisation but if you go to hospital for a two day stay for a routine op and then catch CV19 (about 30% of cases) that isnt counted even if you stay in hospital longer due to CV19. Die of post-op complications after you get CV19 and you will probably count as CV19 death though.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 22, 2021 21:24:25 GMT
Do you know the people that produced this report? Are they reliable, impartial and knowledgeable in the field of virology?
I haven't heard of any of them so I googled the first 2 on the list. One is a prominent critic of modern drug treatment and the next was expelled from the board of a prominent medical establishment because of an ongoing and consistent pattern of disruptive and inappropriate behaviours ..., taking place over a number of years.
Call me an old cynic, but I think I'll stick with the views of SAGE and JCVI unless you can come up with something more credible
Slightly unfair criticism, I think. "[Prof] Moncrieff is not completely opposed to the use of drugs for mental health problems, but believes that the action of drugs in these situations is misunderstood". She has written books questioning the over-prescription of drugs in mental health, and it's probably a good thing that the subject gets an airing from time to time. It's quite a common view amongst doctors that we over-prescribe in general, so her stance is hardly controversial. In any case, there were 22 prominent signatories on this response to the BMJ article, not just the two you've dismissed rather too readily here. What criteria are you using to describe these people as prominent in the field of virology?
I picked the first 2 names off the list, and given their questionable credentials didn't waste time going any further. However, if I chose a few more at random:
- Professor Gabor Keleman - professor of psychiatry
- Dr Kasha Siubka-Wood - consultant Psychiatrist
- Dr Sammi Timimi - Member of the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Dr Tomasz Pierscionek - Psychiatrist
- Dr Federico Soldani - Psychiatris
Think I can see a common thread here, and not one that would make me value their views on covid.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 22, 2021 21:48:33 GMT
Slightly unfair criticism, I think. "[Prof] Moncrieff is not completely opposed to the use of drugs for mental health problems, but believes that the action of drugs in these situations is misunderstood". She has written books questioning the over-prescription of drugs in mental health, and it's probably a good thing that the subject gets an airing from time to time. It's quite a common view amongst doctors that we over-prescribe in general, so her stance is hardly controversial. In any case, there were 22 prominent signatories on this response to the BMJ article, not just the two you've dismissed rather too readily here. What criteria are you using to describe these people as prominent in the field of virology?
I picked the first 2 names off the list, and given their questionable credentials didn't waste time going any further. However, if I chose a few more at random:
- Professor Gabor Keleman - professor of psychiatry
- Dr Kasha Siubka-Wood - consultant Psychiatrist
- Dr Sammi Timimi - Member of the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Dr Tomasz Pierscionek - Psychiatrist
- Dr Federico Soldani - Psychiatris
Think I can see a common thread here, and not one that would make me value their views on covid.
That's fair comment, except their submission was specifically about justifying mandatory vaccines and the right to informed choice on the matter, as per the title of their piece. I would say a group of psychiatrists are well placed to discuss the ethics and the impact on society's mental welfare if forced down the mandatory vaccine path. I accept they are probably less qualified to pronounce on the benefits and disbenefits of the vaccine itself, although they did provide a bunch of references in support of their argument (presumably covering off the expertise they might lack themselves).
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 22, 2021 22:51:17 GMT
Do you know the people that produced this report? Are they reliable, impartial and knowledgeable in the field of virology?
I haven't heard of any of them so I googled the first 2 on the list. One is a prominent critic of modern drug treatment and the next was expelled from the board of a prominent medical establishment because of an ongoing and consistent pattern of disruptive and inappropriate behaviours ..., taking place over a number of years.
Call me an old cynic, but I think I'll stick with the views of SAGE and JCVI unless you can come up with something more credible
. She has written books questioning the over-prescription of drugs in mental health, and it's probably a good thing that the subject gets an airing from time to time. It's quite a common view amongst doctors that we over-prescribe in general, so her stance is hardly controversial. In any case, there were 22 prominent signatories on this response to the BMJ article, not just the two you've dismissed rather too readily here. It is a completely justified criticism. Moncrieff is in no way objective and her career is based upon being anti-drug. The "not completely opposed to the use of drugs for mental health" is disingenuous in the extreme; to all intents and purposes she is. I would take her opinions on vaccines as being given through the thickest possible cloud of anti-drug bias it is possible to have in a mainstream (just about) academic. Having said all that, I also don't think vaccine mandates are wise!
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 23, 2021 1:05:54 GMT
Slightly unfair criticism, I think. "[Prof] Moncrieff is not completely opposed to the use of drugs for mental health problems, but believes that the action of drugs in these situations is misunderstood". She has written books questioning the over-prescription of drugs in mental health, and it's probably a good thing that the subject gets an airing from time to time. It's quite a common view amongst doctors that we over-prescribe in general, so her stance is hardly controversial. In any case, there were 22 prominent signatories on this response to the BMJ article, not just the two you've dismissed rather too readily here. It is a completely justified criticism. Moncrieff is in no way objective and her career is based upon being anti-drug. The "not completely opposed to the use of drugs for mental health" is disingenuous in the extreme; to all intents and purposes she is. I would take her opinions on vaccines as being given through the thickest possible cloud of anti-drug bias it is possible to have in a mainstream (just about) academic. Having said all that, I also don't think vaccine mandates are wise! That's a pretty forthright view IFISAcava and I'm in no position to dispute it. You could consider editing her Wikipedia entry, from which I lifted the italicised quote above.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 9:51:08 GMT
What criteria are you using to describe these people as prominent in the field of virology?
I picked the first 2 names off the list, and given their questionable credentials didn't waste time going any further. However, if I chose a few more at random:
- Professor Gabor Keleman - professor of psychiatry
- Dr Kasha Siubka-Wood - consultant Psychiatrist
- Dr Sammi Timimi - Member of the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Dr Tomasz Pierscionek - Psychiatrist
- Dr Federico Soldani - Psychiatris
Think I can see a common thread here, and not one that would make me value their views on covid.
That's fair comment, except their submission was specifically about justifying mandatory vaccines and the right to informed choice on the matter, as per the title of their piece. I would say a group of psychiatrists are well placed to discuss the ethics and the impact on society's mental welfare if forced down the mandatory vaccine path. I accept they are probably less qualified to pronounce on the benefits and disbenefits of the vaccine itself, although they did provide a bunch of references in support of their argument (presumably covering off the expertise they might lack themselves). I don't dispute this. However, the article was put forward to justify the statement that there was a negative health benefit for young people taking the vaccine!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 10:27:21 GMT
there seems to be a conflatation of the views that experts in Psychiatry have with any medicine given to help their patients and a vaccine which is a very different medicine, if indeed it is a medicine. A vaccine, as any fool knows, is a targeted single organism missile, most medicine are merely chemicals that have a wide range of outcomes that are given by doctors to generally try and make things better in the illness of your choice after copious research. They are not really the same things. For STIs many country have a mandated reporting system. In this case the unvaccinated are the problem, lets mandate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 23, 2021 14:41:49 GMT
That's fair comment, except their submission was specifically about justifying mandatory vaccines and the right to informed choice on the matter, as per the title of their piece. I would say a group of psychiatrists are well placed to discuss the ethics and the impact on society's mental welfare if forced down the mandatory vaccine path. I accept they are probably less qualified to pronounce on the benefits and disbenefits of the vaccine itself, although they did provide a bunch of references in support of their argument (presumably covering off the expertise they might lack themselves). I don't dispute this. However, the article was put forward to justify the statement that there was a negative health benefit for young people taking the vaccine! Surely nobody yet knows the definitive answer to that. Since it was considered unethical to trial these vaccines on children initially, that particular trial is currently underway in real-time, isn't it? Much like the real-time trial on pregnant women. I guess we'll find out in due course. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,636
Likes: 1,742
|
Post by benaj on Dec 23, 2021 15:13:14 GMT
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 15:57:00 GMT
From the BBC web site
And here's more from Prof Balloux - he says London has probably reached the peak of Omicron infections, and other parts of the UK may soon reach it too. Prof Balloux, from University College London, tells the BBC Radio 4's World at One: "I think in London it has peaked, and in other parts of the country it is kind of peaking or peaking soon. "There's a bit of a lag between infections and the cases - it takes a little while for people to test positive. I would say probably infections have peaked and cases probably not yet."
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 15:58:37 GMT
I don't dispute this. However, the article was put forward to justify the statement that there was a negative health benefit for young people taking the vaccine! . Since it was considered unethical to trial these vaccines on children initially, that particular trial is currently underway in real-time, isn't it? Much like the real-time trial on pregnant women. I guess we'll find out in due course. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4You mean apart from michaelc
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 23, 2021 16:54:19 GMT
Surely nobody yet knows the definitive answer to that. Since it was considered unethical to trial these vaccines on children initially, that particular trial is currently underway in real-time, isn't it? Much like the real-time trial on pregnant women. I guess we'll find out in due course. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01061-4 You mean apart from michaelc can answer for himself, but to be fair he did start out by saying "for healthy, young people that risk may be higher than the risk of serious harm to health from the virus". (My emphasis). Not fair to jump down his throat for that. I imagine he had in mind that nobody foresaw the serious side effects which only emerged after the vaccine trials declared them safe (AZ fatal blood clotting, etc) and none of us knows whether something is yet to emerge at the paediatric level, for this cohort who are barely impacted by the virus itself. It's all a calculated risk and the usual tricky one we have to wrestle with: the very low probability of a very serious outcome.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 23, 2021 17:24:03 GMT
Omicron up to 70% less likely to need hospital care
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 23, 2021 17:30:49 GMT
michaelc can answer for himself, but to be fair he did start out by saying "for healthy, young people that risk may be higher than the risk of serious harm to health from the virus". (My emphasis). Not fair to jump down his throat for that. I imagine he had in mind that nobody foresaw the serious side effects which only emerged after the vaccine trials declared them safe (AZ fatal blood clotting, etc) and none of us knows whether something is yet to emerge at the paediatric level, for this cohort who are barely impacted by the virus itself. It's all a calculated risk and the usual tricky one we have to wrestle with: the very low probability of a very serious outcome. Well while he might have started out saying that, he rather doubled down on the 'is' interpretation of 'may' p2pindependentforum.com/post/442608Moreover, by making the statement that 'if you do your own research' you will find see that it is exactly that, he also was implying that official statements of the risk/benefit were not telling it it is. Add to that the context that the latter - authorities are covering up/giving biased messaging to get these cohorts vaxxed when it isn't to their benefit - is an oft repeated line into which the most recent few posts are woven.
|
|
