Corona Virus Treatment

Well absolutely. The scientists have done pretty well so far - if the politicians haven't always quite kept up.

The whole situation is a total nightmare: I've had to cancel work travel plans to Switzerland for tomorrow because the Swiss have introduced a mandatory 10 day quarantine for folks coming from the UK (and Jersey is UK to the continent). But that's just the wold right now. I;m not sick. My family is safe. I'll take it. I seriously hope that the new variant can be controlled - or turns out not to be too serious...

Still: that does mean I've got an extra two weeks at home and can start to lay my new path

 

Definitely @Upsydaisy. We have to read between the lines of everything that's stated as we can't trust the truth to be told.

@Fat Controller - are you splitting hairs young man? I was talking about the news of the new strain being released. Cheeky devil!

 

I agree - the lying and the corruption are just off the scale. The missing £20bn spent on 'Covid' in the UK. I mean - that's a lot of cash!

But I've not seen anything dodgy from the scienstists. Think they've done pretty well really: the reporting on what they've said hasn't always been quite so great of course.

 

You always did strike me as an "odd ball".

 

You're kidding, right? The WHO and CDC - to name two global health authorities - are in 100% agreement, as is the peer reviewed literature. It isn't silencing if non or anti-science conspiracy doesn't make it through peer review. There is no material disent among any peer reviewed epidemiologists. The disease is real. The vaccines and masks are effective at reducing the impact. If there were any evidence at all that any of these things were in doubt, we would have heard through the respected mechanisms - and the person demonstrating it would get a nobel prize.

 

Science is about the best evidence we can get. It is about repeatablity and method. I have worked alongside the WHO and CDC. They are not Pfizer - and I think it is disingenouous to conflate them. I also think it is unreasonable to question the credibility of the scientists involved without some clear evidence.

Among the qualified experts there is no meaningful disagreement on the fundamentals here. Presenting 'opinion' from the unqualified is not science

This is very similar to the situation with climate change. We are presented with exactly the same arguments: that there is debate to be had. There is not a lot there, and not a lot here. There are however, significant financial and political interests playing to ensure that these debates are mired with the suggestion that there is a lack of clarity over the fundamentals - when there is absolutely none. That's all that's required though - here and with climate change: that people believe that there is legitimate disagreement. That's enough and the job is done.

 

Even after all this time they haven't been able to work out the difference between dying with covid and dying of covid.
Until they set that record straight I'm going to be struggling to accept any statistics I'm told about this whole sorry state we are in.

There is lots of money to be made out of a crisis like this and I'm sure there are some people who really don't want it to end and will squeeze it for as long as they can.

Wish I had bought shares in the PPE manufacturers a couple of days ago.

 

Of Chinese origin?

 

Who is 'they'? I can assure you that the epidemiologists are very clear about that distinction.

Yes - there are significant financial interests at stake here - and that is massively corrupting. But I do not believe that it is having a material impact on the base facts of the situation nor the scientific recommendations. There would have to be a corrupt collaboration of epic proportions among the scientists for that to be true.

There are also significant political and financial interests on the other side after all. The Russian bot farms are hard at work ensuring that there is a populist revolt against the restriction of personal freedoms. The 'wellness' industry is making a huge deal out of anti-vaxx conspiracy. The difference between the two sides is peer review.

 

Well "they" are obviously the people who come up with the statistics, and if the epidemiologists are very clear about the distinction between the two then maybe they could inform the statisticians so that "they" can put the record straight.

Yes lots of hype on both sides going on, and has been, best to just make your own mind up who is telling the truth and who isn't.
Some are doing it to make an "honest" buck others for political reasons.

 

Do you seriously think that epidemiologists do not understand that distinction?

The issue is science reporting - which is absolutely woeful. There is also the likelihood that the distinction is not significant in terms of effective response to Covid.

When I get on an airplane, I do not make up my own mind. I trust the aeronautical engineers who have PhDs in keeping aeroplanes in the air.

With Covid, likewise, I trust the epidemiologists not people with "opinions". The epidemiologists are crystal clear. I'll go with what they say rather than conspiracy theories. The 'do your own research' and 'make up your own mind' lines sound very reasonable. They aren't though unless you are academically equipped to do so.