Covid-19 response

Bruce Stephens said:
Sure, and I'm not at all sure how strong those factors are. I think the basic problem is that transmission is hard to measure observationally or experimentally (ethically, anyway), so there was (and still is) lots of uncertainty.

And there was (and is) lots of rather confused public health messaging. The idea that venues (including workplaces) would accept either being vaccinated or a negative test that morning doesn't really make a whole lot of sense (and adding the option of having recovered from infection within a few months doesn't help). Nor is it the case that hand hygiene is significant for this virus (it's generally important for public health, but just not that important for this virus, whatever UKHSA and others like to say, as far as I'm aware anyway).
Click to expand...
Yeah terrible badly explained, mixed messaging, that backtracked and side stepped all over the place caused mass confusion and disbelief. Along with the genuine reasons for decisions not being explained (eg masks in short supply for medics was a huge factor in advising no masks for the public in the early days) and I’m still staggered how aerosol transmission was ignored for so very long in public discussions by officials in favour of surfaces and hand washing.

Trouble is the first message on a subject sticks with many people. Then no matter what you present they still default back to that first message. And in this case it was hand washing, surfaces, and masks not required. There are still places boasting of wiping surfaces whilst you get breathed over extensively
 
HSSS said:
Sigh. It’s your opinion that that precaution alone would have been enough. (And yes I know there are others that agree with you as well as the many that don’t).

No one said it wasn’t a sensible precaution in and of itself, more that it wasn’t enough alone in the opinion of many many more. Can I word it say it more times any clearer?
Click to expand...
No, not as a lone strategy, I've not suggested that. I just think given the aim wasn't to stop the virus, but only to reduce pressure on the NHS, advising those with symptoms to stay home instead of locking all the healthy well people in as well would have been a less destructive and a simpler strategy. Instead of a simple message (stay at home if coughing etc) we ended up with 2 years of relentless changing strategies and messages etc.

We don't agree. That's fine.
 
British research facility (same facility that the foot and mouth outbreak occured) looking to develop 100 day vaccines for next outbreak to avoid future lockdowns, but fail to mention a lab leak from a similar facility/lab in Wuhan may have been the source of covid19 in the first place.

www.bbc.co.uk

Porton Down: Can this laboratory help stop the next pandemic?

James Gallagher meets the scientists who work at one of the most secretive research bases in the UK.
www.bbc.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org

2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
but fail to mention a lab leak from a similar facility/lab in Wuhan may have been the source of covid19 in the first place.
Click to expand...
Likely because that's considered to be rather unlikely. It also wouldn't in any way change the fact that the various things mentioned are increasing the likelihood of pandemics so being able to create vaccines quickly in such circumstances would be valuable.
 
HSSS said:
What would you have done with that then? All your previous posts focus on just this which is why I assumed that was all you were suggesting
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I understand one might of drawn that conclusion. I just don't think locking in well people was necessary to help the nhs, hence why I refer to the simpler message of "stay at home if you have symptoms". As soon as rules are made, counter arguments come up, and rules are made to cover these and so on and so forth. We ended up with ridiculous and unmanageable rules changing from one day to the next. We can't expect a country to respond in this way.

People were also free to make their own choices and decisions about their own health and risks, it doesn't always have to be by force or legislation. If one feels they are at special risk, they can choose to change the way they live to protect themselves, we all do this every day. Some people cycle to work, others don't want to take the additional risks that come with it.

The other thing with lockdowns was just about every country in the world followed the same strategy. This doesn't seem logical or scientific in any way. If we all do the same thing, how can we test other strategies? What if (and it did) have serious long term side effects, it would effect every country. There would be no control group or data for any other methods employed.
 
Last edited:
A statement made in an opening report commissioned by Scotland’s official Covid inquiry and written by Dr. Ashley Croft, a public health infection epidemiologist stated.

"In 2020 there was scientific evidence to support the use of some of the physical measures (e.g. frequent handwashing, the use of PPE in hospital settings) adoptedagainst COVID-19.

For other measures (e.g. face mask mandates outside of healthcare settings, Summary – what do we now know? …lockdowns, social distancing, test, trace and isolate measures) there was either insufficient evidence in 2020 to support their use – or alternatively, no evidence; the evidence base has not changed materially in the intervening three years. It has been argued that the restrictive measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in individual, societal and economic harm that was avoidable and that should not have occurred".

www.covid19inquiry.scot

Inquiry publishes commissioned report on the epidemiology of COVID-19 | Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry

The Inquiry has published a commissioned report from an independent expert on the scientific and medical understanding of coronavirus and COVID-19 as it existed up until the end of 2022.
www.covid19inquiry.scot
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
An opening report commissioned by Scotland’s official Covid inquiry and written by Dr. Ashley Croft, a public health infection epidemiologist concluded.
Click to expand...
The views expressed in Dr Croft’s report are his own professionally informed opinions and are provided by the Inquiry to inform core participants, interested parties and members of the public, and to form the basis for future discussion in the Inquiry. The report does not therefore represent the concluded views of the Inquiry on any of the matters included in it.​
 
Bruce Stephens said:
The views expressed in Dr Croft’s report are his own professionally informed opinions and are provided by the Inquiry to inform core participants, interested parties and members of the public, and to form the basis for future discussion in the Inquiry. The report does not therefore represent the concluded views of the Inquiry on any of the matters included in it.​
Click to expand...
Dr Croft is an expert in infectious diseases, epidemiology, healthcare associated infections, travel health, tropical medicine, immunisations and vaccinations. He is a Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians of London and has acted as an invited expert adviser in Parliamentary inquiries.
 
In a testimony given before the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee, Expert says DNA is in vaccines, which isn't unusual in itself.

"In order to upscale the process for large-scale distribution of the vaccine to the population for its “emergency authorisation” supply, Pfizer switched to a different method - PROCESS 2 – to amplify the mRNA.

PROCESS 2 used bacteria to make large quantities of “DNA plasmid” (circular DNA instructions), which would be used to make the mRNA. Hence, the final product contained both plasmid DNA and mRNA.

Pfizer tried to deal with the problem by adding an enzyme (DNAse) to chop up the plasmid into millions of tiny fragments.

“[Pfizer] chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process,”

Normally, low levels of naked DNA in a vaccine would not be a problem because the bits of DNA are chewed up by tissue enzymes before they’ve had a chance to get inside cells. However, the DNA in Pfizer’s vaccine is not “naked.”

It is wrapped up in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) – essentially fat globules - that help transport the genetic material (mRNA and plasmid DNA) inside the cells where the DNA can migrate to the nucleus and insert itself into the genome.

maryannedemasi.substack.com

Researchers “alarmed” to find DNA contamination in Pfizer covid-19 vaccine

A researcher testifies before a South Carolina Senate hearing about the discovery of DNA contamination found in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine
maryannedemasi.substack.com maryannedemasi.substack.com
 
Last edited:
A Covid drug hailed as a game-changer may cause the virus to mutate, scientists warned today.

The antiviral, made by US pharma giant Merck, protects against severe illness by forcing mutations in the virus that fatally weaken it. However, in some cases these mutations do not kill off the virus, say researchers at the Francis Crick Institute and UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

Instead, a patient can remain infected with a mutated version of Covid and pass this on to others, according to the team's analysis of millions of virus sequences.

Experts warned it is now key to find out if mutations triggered by molnupiravir can make the pandemic-causing virus more transmissible or severe, or allow it to bypass immunity from previous infections or vaccines.

Some have even warned that its use could lead to new variants spawning, although the manufacturer has rubbished such fears.

www.dailymail.co.uk

'Wonder' Covid drug can cause virus to mutate uncontrollably

Molnupiravir is dished out to at-risk adults in the UK who have tested positive for Covid, such as cancer , liver and kidney disease patients.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
MP in the house of commons this week discusses the unqualified use of the phrase "safe and effective" used throughout the pandemic.

MHRA Blue guide pg 34.
6.6 Safety messages given in advertising.
Advertising which states or implies that a product is “safe” is unacceptable. All medicines have the potential for side-effects and no medicine is completely risk free as individual patients respond differently to treatment.

Thus; blanket statements must be qualified with; safe for most, safe for many, safe most of the time, safe up until now etc etc etc


 
Last edited:
Covid inquiry told this week, carehome residents left to starve to death. People included these deaths in the first so called wave of the virus.

Shelagh McCall KC said the “blanket ban” on care home visits made it impossible for families to check on the welfare of their loved ones and their phone calls “went unanswered over days and sometimes weeks”.

In a damning opening statement to the inquiry, she said some of them were treated “with disdain” when they managed to contact care home staff and their questions “fobbed off”.

She said families were told a resident was fine “only to get a sudden hurried phone call that they were dying”, with some not seeing their loved ones again following the onset of lockdown.

Other relatives reported “a significant deterioration of their loved ones’ physical and mental health” that “was nothing to do with COVID-19”, she said.

Ms. McCall said that “some suspect that their loved one was suffering from neglect, dehydration and starvation”, and medical records were found to be “missing or incomplete” for those that died.

She also predicted the inquiry would hear that residents were forced into agreeing to do not resuscitate plans, and that the evidence would “point to a systemic failure of the model of care”.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Care home residents ‘left to starve’ in pandemic, Covid inquiry is told

Scottish bereavement groups give evidence about how their loved ones were ‘neglected’ during lockdowns
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Strikes me that it's a waste of our time discussing individual elements of the Covid Inqiury, why don't we wait for their conclusions in their final report?
 
Well if you look at the science that mainstream media refuses to publish you will get your answer. In a latest report soon to be highlighted by the FDA those over 65 who have a combined flu and covid booster are 25% more likely to suffer a stroke.
 
Dave_Z1a said:
Well if you look at the science that mainstream media refuses to publish you will get your answer. In a latest report soon to be highlighted by the FDA those over 65 who have a combined flu and covid booster are 25% more likely to suffer a stroke.
Click to expand...
It's being widely reported, I think (I've seen links to a number of US sources anyway). The stories from more skeptical twitter users point out that the risk (according to the paper, though of course there may be other papers) is independent of whether the person got the covid booster: it was purely whether they'd got the extra strength flu vaccine (given to people over 85).
 
Dave_Z1a said:
Well if you look at the science that mainstream media refuses to publish you will get your answer. In a latest report soon to be highlighted by the FDA those over 65 who have a combined flu and covid booster are 25% more likely to suffer a stroke.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t that over 85yrs, certain flu jabs and a tiny increase (something like 3 in 100000).
 
Dave_Z1a said:
Well if you look at the science that mainstream media refuses to publish you will get your answer. In a latest report soon to be highlighted by the FDA those over 65 who have a combined flu and covid booster are 25% more likely to suffer a stroke.
Click to expand...
Not a particularly obscure source and there are plenty of others doing a quick search https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/health/covid-flu-vaccine-stroke-risk-study/index.html

and this is definitely mainstream https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...ed-2-5-small-risk-seizures-Covid-booster.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top