Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
is that the whole journal with references or just the abstract?

then you have to understand them enough to process the information correctly.

I deal with scientific journals/peer papers every day at work, I have done for 5 plus years, and I couldn't confidently interpretate the majority
What do you make of this one, coolio?


Choice Abstract quote:
---- "Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines. Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site. Our findings imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines." ----

Note: this paper has an Expression of Concern, and is due peer-review, but the Abstract appears related to comments made by the UK's Weekly Surveillance Report on the N-antibody levels of vaccinated folk: "N antibody levels are lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination." (page 46 here), as well as more general concerns as voiced in the New York Times piece I linked earlier: "a fourth shot in less than a year could actually weaken immunity...too many shots might cause a sort of immune system fatigue, compromising the body’s ability to fight the coronavirus."


I realise I'm being choice with my quotes...for there are no conclusions drawn and no-one behind these links are rubbishing the vaccines. But I am interpreting there being fair questions to be asked, and investigated upon. And that this relates to generally one of the reasons why the unvaccinated remain hesitant (i.e. unknown long-term effects of MRNA-jabs), and should thus not be demonised for their decision.

There's a grey area here, that's at least what I understand.


Not at all, show the data and then tie it to the tweet. Can’t believe you posted her Twitter of all the people you looked to.
I showed you the data, it's in the links. There's graphs breaking down the NHS Data in easily-digestible formats. I even recommended reading in mobile-view to save the headache of DM's desktop-based ads. You're focusing on your dislike of Allison Pearson, when in the same post I listed three links. You can disregard Allison if you don't like her, and check out the other two.
 
I showed you the data, it's in the links. There's graphs breaking down the NHS Data in easily-digestible formats. I even recommended reading in mobile-view to save the headache of DM's desktop-based ads. You're focusing on your dislike of Allison Pearson, when in the same post I listed three links. You can disregard Allison if you don't like her, and check out the other two.

I read the links.

“Daily Mail’s interpretation of NHS data” whilst not showing the actual NHS data to underpin each of the figures except for some very techno graphs that aren’t provided by the NHS.
 
Interesting stuff here:



...and finally, how many Covid patients are actually taking up NHS space, in the middle of a peak-wave of the most epic pandemic of the last 100 years?

6%...just 6%...

FHjDOwbXMAEI_Hf
 
Around 70% of Covid-positives in hospital didn't end up there because of Covid, rather they caught it in the hospital...this is (or should be) huge news:




The Daily Mail is painful to read on desktop mode, but on Mobile with chrome it's a lot easier on the eye....and as rubbish as that site is for other stuff, its pandemic-reporting has been relatively decent.


the Telegraph have reported similar:


Daily Mail and Telegraph?

That's bonus level Tory.
 
Interesting stuff here:



...and finally, how many Covid patients are actually taking up NHS space, in the middle of a peak-wave of the most epic pandemic of the last 100 years?

6%...just 6%...

FHjDOwbXMAEI_Hf
Now so critical care/ICU beds instead of all. Do some research if you need to understand the difference first.
 
Daily Mail and Telegraph?

That's bonus level Tory.

It's really interesting you say that, because how one interprets pandemic-data seems heavily-reliant on whether one identifies as Left or Right.

The Left are generally pro-mandates, pro-rules, pro-vaccines, and like to demonise the unvaccinated.

The Right, or conservative (people, not politicians) tend to be more sceptical of the whole thing, and generally support folk making their own choices.

A quick comparison of highest-rated reader comments from The Guardian vs The Daily Mail confirms this (as it does in other countries, like Germany's Der Spiegel vs Die Welt).



I'm sure Left vs Right didn't use to be so entrenched & predictable. I think Brexit & Trump broke debate, and most people feel the need to choose a side and stick with it, as to associate with the other is to risk banishment from their own. Hence your (and others) dismissing analysis from people or publications you deem to be from the other side, without considering what their analysis is saying.


Regarding the pandemic: the Left are firmly on the side of the Establishment (pro-pharma)...those on 'the Right' feel like dissidents (getting banned, demonisation etc).

If this pandemic had happened in exactly the same way 10-20 years ago, I'd wager there'd be a rough flip in the Left-vs-Right consensus, tho' nowhere near as entrenched.


It's interesting...but also really challenging for those of us who just want to understand stuff without identifying with either Left or Right. A minefield in both directions.
 
It's really interesting you say that, because how one interprets pandemic-data seems heavily-reliant on whether one identifies as Left or Right.

The Left are generally pro-mandates, pro-rules, pro-vaccines, and like to demonise the unvaccinated.

The Right, or conservative (people, not politicians) tend to be more sceptical of the whole thing, and generally support folk making their own choices.

A quick comparison of highest-rated reader comments from The Guardian vs The Daily Mail confirms this (as it does in other countries, like Germany's Der Spiegel vs Die Welt).



I'm sure Left vs Right didn't use to be so entrenched & predictable. I think Brexit & Trump broke debate, and most people feel the need to choose a side and stick with it, as to associate with the other is to risk banishment from their own. Hence your (and others) dismissing analysis from people or publications you deem to be from the other side, without considering what their analysis is saying.


Regarding the pandemic: the Left are firmly on the side of the Establishment (pro-pharma)...those on 'the Right' feel like dissidents (getting banned, demonisation etc).

If this pandemic had happened in exactly the same way 10-20 years ago, I'd wager there'd be a rough flip in the Left-vs-Right consensus, tho' nowhere near as entrenched.


It's interesting...but also really challenging for those of us who just want to understand stuff without identifying with either Left or Right. A minefield in both directions.

Excellent mate.

See you in the New Year yeah?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top