Covid 19 - counter arguments

[sussexrob]

Was driving just behind a cyclist yesterday and suddenly he veered into the centre of the road to avoid pedestrian just walking along the pavement. An example of the perverted sense of covid risk vs general day to day risk that has been generated.

Was he wearing a mask ? The paranoia is unbelievable in some, especially cyclists wearing a mask but no helmet what is wrong with these people?

 

[raefil]

Was he wearing a mask ? The paranoia is unbelievable in some, especially cyclists wearing a mask but no helmet what is wrong with these people?

cyclist, rob, theyre well known for being a breed of their own

 

[pnewortham]

I'm not especially enamoured by many of those in SAGE. Call me cynical but I'm always sceptical of people who have financial stakes in such things.

As I said I'm happy to listen to his views on the vaccines and treatments as therapeutics are his area of expertise but not when it comes to virus modelling they are two vastly different sciences.

I have no axe to grind, but I just don't like this . It's doing disservice to a person who's spent a career in the treatment of communicable diseases. Whilst his specific area of expertise may not be in viral modelling, he's operated in a world far closer to it than many others who have been charged with actually running this show. But like I say, I have no axe to grind. And I'm not defending him. But like you I absolutely defend his right to a view and I disagree with censorship just because it doesn't fit a narrative.

Regarding SAGE, you're dead right, but I doubt you'll find a single man or woman who hasn't worked for large biopharma, or who doesn't still hold a commercial position or have some financial stake. It's just the way it has to be - if you want the experts, they come from industry. Much of academic research is financed by industry. As is drug discovery. As is NHS training at many levels. As are clinical trials. Industry runs the show.

 

[paddysr]

I have no axe to grind, but I just don't like this . It's doing disservice to a person who's spent a career in the treatment of communicable diseases. Whilst his specific area of expertise may not be in viral modelling, he's operated in a world far closer to it than many others who have been charged with actually running this show. But like I say, I have no axe to grind. And I'm not defending him. But like you I absolutely defend his right to a view and I disagree with censorship just because it doesn't fit a narrative.

Regarding SAGE, you're dead right, but I doubt you'll find a single man or woman who hasn't worked for large biopharma, or who doesn't still hold a commercial position or have some financial stake. It's just the way it has to be - if you want the experts, they come from industry. Much of academic research is financed by industry. As is drug discovery. As is NHS training at many levels. As are clinical trials. Industry runs the show.

I get that many of them will have come from big pharma im just not sure about the ethics of those who run their own companies competing in the market being the ones making the decisions.

For example my boss sits on multiple boards for our industry but she isn't a stakeholder so the way I see it is she is better placed to offer a balanced view as an employee. Does that make sense?

 

[sliper]

Do I sense sarcasm😄 All conspiracy theory nonsense!

Possibly !

 

[pnewortham]

I get that many of them will have come from big pharma im just not sure about the ethics of those who run their own companies competing in the market being the ones making the decisions.

For example my boss sits on multiple boards for our industry but she isn't a stakeholder so the way I see it is she is better placed to offer a balanced view as an employee. Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense but I'd suggest is pretty rare. Usually your expertise & experience leads to a career of promotions, which leads to the exposure and recognition to become a leading voice in your field. With all the commercial baggage that entails. Salaries, bonuses, shares, stock options, executive compensation packages. (and bias... and conflict of interest...)

Funny though how we're all happy to see Prof Sahin from BioNTech to be splashed all over TV telling the world how all 7 billion of us need 2 of his jabs in the next 12 months.

 

[paddysr]

Makes perfect sense but I'd suggest is pretty rare. Usually your expertise & experience leads to a career of promotions, which leads to the exposure and recognition to become a leading voice in your field. With all the commercial baggage that entails. Salaries, bonuses, shares, stock options, executive compensation packages. (and bias... and conflict of interest...)

Funny though how we're all happy to see Prof Sahin from BioNTech to be splashed all over TV telling the world how all 7 billion of us need 2 of his jabs in the next 12 months.

I get that.

I just believe that in order to sit at the top table you should give up commercial endeavours that have any relation to it.

I feel the same way about all areas of politics and government so it isn't exclusively around this.

The problem is it is the same with everything; PHDs, research papers etc. You always need to look at who has paid for them.

Co-sleeping was considered dangerous and was actively discouraged based on a study that was funded by cot manufacturers. There are daily examples of this and it is a nightmare trying to to get to the bottom of the bias.

By removing commercial influence it makes it far easier to understand. No issues with commercially led study but the people who decide which study is the most relevant to society need to be as free from bias as is humanely possible.

 

[TSR2]

The long term effects don't really concern me. Scientifically speaking we're on very safe ground - it isn't a live virus, it doesn't contain egg products, it's inserting a tiny fragment of genetic code which is harmless enough in biological terms.

If we do somehow manage to unleash a monster, then the whole world's a bit knackered anyway. So not worth worrying about.

 

[pnewortham]

I get that.

I just believe that in order to sit at the top table you should give up commercial endeavours that have any relation to it.

I feel the same way about all areas of politics and government so it isn't exclusively around this.

The problem is it is the same with everything; PHDs, research papers etc. You always need to look at who has paid for them.

Co-sleeping was considered dangerous and was actively discouraged based on a study that was funded by cot manufacturers. There are daily examples of this and it is a nightmare trying to to get to the bottom of the bias.

By removing commercial influence it makes it far easier to understand. No issues with commercially led study but the people who decide which study is the most relevant to society need to be as free from bias as is humanely possible.

Hancock was at great pains tonight to say how he couldn't influence the MHRA's vaccine review, even if he wanted to. Such is the level of skepticism going around at the moment.

You're right Paddy, but who are those people, if they aren't allowed to have a finger in the commercial pie? If it's not Whitty, Hancock, Van-Tam, Farrar, Harding, and so on. All the purely academic lot would never be allowed, it's not their remit. So who do you put up there?

 

[paddysr]

Hancock was at great pains tonight to say how he couldn't influence the MHRA's vaccine review, even if he wanted to. Such is the level of skepticism going around at the moment.

You're right Paddy, but who are those people, if they aren't allowed to have a finger in the commercial pie? If it's not Whitty, Hancock, Van-Tam, Farrar, Harding, and so on. All the purely academic lot would never be allowed, it's not their remit. So who do you put up there?

Unfortunately I don't have the answer to that

 

[Regardless]

Unfortunately I don't have the answer to that

You need your socialist world order to come in. Where everyone is equal and their roles are allocated by the state

 

[paddysr]

You need your socialist world order to come in. Where everyone is equal and their roles are allocated by the state

The dream 🥰

All jokes aside though I'd like to think that if I got to the top of my profession and had made my money I would gladly take a public service role consulting on a normal public sector salary. We aren't talking minimum wage lets be honest it would still be high 5 figures at the very least

 

[pnewortham]

I get that.

I just believe that in order to sit at the top table you should give up commercial endeavours that have any relation to it.

I feel the same way about all areas of politics and government so it isn't exclusively around this.

The problem is it is the same with everything; PHDs, research papers etc. You always need to look at who has paid for them.

Co-sleeping was considered dangerous and was actively discouraged based on a study that was funded by cot manufacturers. There are daily examples of this and it is a nightmare trying to to get to the bottom of the bias.

By removing commercial influence it makes it far easier to understand. No issues with commercially led study but the people who decide which study is the most relevant to society need to be as free from bias as is humanely possible.

The bold bit. Academics spend a lifetime arguing the toss via their peer-reviewed papers. There's massive one-upmanship, which nobody outside their particular field ever gets to see. It can be like the world's slowest game of chess. But now we're seeing their arguments being played out in public. I was in that game. There's always some other geek who's got you in their crosshairs, waiting for their moment to embarrass you on some conference stage or other. And all the time, you're dismissed as being in someone's pocket.

 

[paddysr]

The bold bit. Academics spend a lifetime arguing the toss via their peer-reviewed papers. There's massive one-upmanship, which nobody outside their particular field ever gets to see. It can be like the world's slowest game of chess. But now we're seeing their arguments being played out in public. I was in that game. There's always some other geek who's got you in their crosshairs, waiting for their moment to embarrass you on some conference stage or other. And all the time, you're dismissed as being in someone's pocket.

I'm that geek 🤓

 

[pnewortham]

The dream 🥰

All jokes aside though I'd like to think that if I got to the top of my profession and had made my money I would gladly take a public service role consulting on a normal public sector salary. We aren't talking minimum wage lets be honest it would still be high 5 figures at the very least

Just think how much rhubarb gin you could afford 🕺

 

[paddysr]

Just think how much rhubarb gin you could afford 🕺

Blackberry and Violet this week!

 

[pnewortham]

The dream 🥰

All jokes aside though I'd like to think that if I got to the top of my profession and had made my money I would gladly take a public service role consulting on a normal public sector salary. We aren't talking minimum wage lets be honest it would still be high 5 figures at the very least

Does the 5 figures include decimal places?

 

[paddysr]

The bold bit. Academics spend a lifetime arguing the toss via their peer-reviewed papers. There's massive one-upmanship, which nobody outside their particular field ever gets to see. It can be like the world's slowest game of chess. But now we're seeing their arguments being played out in public. I was in that game. There's always some other geek who's got you in their crosshairs, waiting for their moment to embarrass you on some conference stage or other. And all the time, you're dismissed as being in someone's pocket.

You know I spend more time researching the information behind the studies than I ever do reading the articles. Often I never actually make it to the end of what I was supposed to be reading.

It can be painful

 

[pnewortham]

Cracking hair-do

 

[paddysr]

Does the 5 figures include decimal places?

In my job it does