DJBenz

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Yes Covid may excacerbate other health conditions but of course people do die of heart attacks, lung illnesses, strokes, etc, who have no covid at all. So "almost certainly", no you'd have to do an autopsy to know that, but you did not, and nobody else did.

Can you explain how an autopsy would detect that COVID did or didn’t kill someone? I mean, my father in law survived a suspected heart attack and the hospital was able to tell, just by blood work that he’d actually had an angina attack not a full heart attack. And this was 25-odd years ago. Amazing how medical science can detect such things without autopsies. 
 

I trust doctors to make the right call if someone with stable underlying health conditions gets COVID and dies from severe respiratory failure. I even trust them to make the right call if it isn’t as clear cut because, you know, they’re the experts. I’m sure there may be a few outlying cases where a potential wrong call might have been made, but I don’t believe it will skew the figures as much as the “hE tEsTeD pOsItIvE tHeN gOt HiT bY a CaR” crowd would like everyone to believe. 

34 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Well, according to Reuters as of Oct. 15 2020, a total of 1,439 people without an underlying health condition had died with COVID-19 in an English hospital. This compares to 29,304 people who did have an underlying health condition and who also died with the disease in the same setting.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-deaths-idUSKBN27D38A

 

This certainly would suggest that in the UK too, like in Germany, people who die with Covid are listed as Covid 19 deaths, ie dying from Covid.

An underlying health condition in the UK is "a chronic or long-term illness, which in turn weakens the immune system." [Source] Many people with these conditions can and do live full and reasonably normal lives with ongoing treatment. Obviously they are at greater risk of contracting COVID in the first place and dying if they do, as they can have compromised immune systems. 

So almost certainly they die from COVID, even though the infection is with underlying health conditions as they wouldn't necessarily have died otherwise. 

The with/from argument seems ridiculous as it is evident that COVID will exacerbate other health conditions, to the point of death in some cases, where life would have continued without the presence of the virus. 

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

However, it's a mute point

 

Moot. A moot point. 

On 5/5/2021 at 12:36 PM, Magenta408 said:

You are aware that the creator of the PCR test, Dr. Karry Mullis has openly stated that this test is NOT TO BE USED for diagnosis. 

He absolutely didn't state that and the notion has been debunked several times.

https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/

On 5/3/2021 at 2:44 PM, RichardColeman said:

My wife wants to live in England later in life. But it seems her desire for it is more that she wants to walk in the snow than see anything  else

Best we can do is drizzle. 

30 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

So at the very least, there is no definitive evidence that masks work for viruses.

By the same token, no definitive evidence they don't, but a broad consensus that they can help.

1 hour ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Another idiot telling people to wear their masks at home.

Does he not know the scientific evidence, or rather the lack of it, concerning masks?

OK, just send me one link to a scientific study which shows masks work for viruses.

I can post many scientific studies showing they do not.

Here's a systematic review of 172 studies: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Quote

Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty)

And here's another systematic review of 21 studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/

Quote

This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Sounds like justification for a single dose strategy?

Or at least a 12 week between doses strategy like the UK. 12 weeks increased vaccine efficacy from 76% to 82% after the second dose. [Source]

It would give Thailand a chance to protect the majority of its population without initially needing two doses for everyone.

35 minutes ago, billd766 said:

A lot depends on how many people were given the AZ vaccine and in what time period.

61. It says right there in the article. 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

What a dangerous statement to make!! Outrageous to suggest that, we all know and its documented everywhere thats just not true, while the first shot gives good immunity its certainly not 96.7%. Not even with 2 shots! 

I suppose at the end of the day it is simply a scientist reporting data, and I'm sure that in this tiny sample of 61 people there was indeed a 96.7% immunity rate, however it flies in the face of all other data and even Astra Zeneca's own findings. Still, it makes a good headline and it might encourage people to get the jab if they were concerned over its effectiveness.

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sets out in broad terms the human rights that each of us has. It was later protected legally by a raft of international and regional treaties.

Defending freedom of expression has always been a core part of Amnesty International’s work and is vital in holding the powerful to account. Freedom of expression also underpins other human rights such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and allows them to flourish.

It is also closely linked to freedom of association - the right to  form and join clubs, societies, trade unions or political parties with anyone you choose; and freedom of peaceful assembly - the right to take part in a peaceful demonstration or public meeting.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/freedom-of-expression/

Cool story bro, but you're still on a privately owned platform and bound by its rules.

14 minutes ago, Phillip9 said:

 

But coravax is not the rabies vaccine.  He seems to have read that part wrong.  It is based on the rabies vector, but altered specifically for covid.  Any previous rabies vaccination will do nothing to protect against covid.

Yes, seems some crossed wires there. Thanks for the heads up.

14 minutes ago, PEE TEE said:

I am 73 . Not the brightest light in the box . A while back i got a dog bite on a beach walk .  23rd April i have my last rabies jab number 5 at 800thb a go. i googled does rabies vaccine protect you from other viruses. and found a surprising answer . can someone check this and let me know if i read it wrong coravax is the vaccine  

You didn't read wrong, it seems Coravax was studied in some (yet to be peer reviewed) pre-clinical trials in hamsters and it worked well against SARS-CoV-2. However, unless you're a hamster (I'm assuming not, otherwise you're a very sentient rodent), the research is in early stages and hasn't progressed to human trials so may not have the same effect.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.19.427373v1.full

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/vaccines/coravax-covid-19-vaccine

8 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

The main purpose of VAERS is its 'early signalling' function.

Take a look at the graph below, which shows the 'deaths per million vaccinations' since 2006. 

 

A huge spike during a time the country is administering hundreds of millions of vaccines above the normal levels and at a time the anti-vax  movement is trying to have its moment in the limelight on a system we already established is open to abuse isn’t particularly surprising. 
 

One doctor even reported that a flu vaccine had turned him into a giant green monster to illustrate how unreliable the system is. 

Plus, of course, it’s the go-to “proof” for the anti-vax movement that vaccines are bad. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpmp7/anti-vaxxers-misuse-federal-data-to-falsely-claim-covid-vaccines-are-dangerous

2 hours ago, Sumarianson said:

I cannot believe that people are still buying this! Am I the only one who does due diligence research?

I don't know, are you? Have you published this research in any scientific journals for peer review?

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats exactly how the virus are named.  But we don’t understand all those numbers. The media and the general public understand simplified information... i.e. the UK Variant (because 'the variant identified in the UK' is still too many words and doesn’t have quite the same tabloid impact !!!).. 

 

There's the The B.1.351, P.1, B.1.427, and B.1.429 variants in the States. 

 

The UK Variant B.1.1.7 (Strain: 20I/501Y.V1)... 

 

So, do you want to discus the UK Variant with friends in a pub or on this forum, or will you be discussing SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 20I/501Y.V1   ????

 

 

The variants are named on their lineage, identified by their spike protein substitutions, are given a strain. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-surveillance/variant-info.html

 

THANK YOU! At last someone gets it. If you read pretty much any scientific paper, it's referred to as "Variant B.1.1.7" or "Variant B.1.1.7 first identified in the UK". It's the media that have coined the phrase "[country] variant" for exactly the reasons you mention.

Doesn't matter though, it's now inextricably linked to the UK for eternity but there's little point in anyone getting precious over it as it's not going to change.

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The only outstanding question regarding the more contagious variants of SARS-CoV-2 is do more patients present more serious symptoms ?... i.e. do the variants result in more sever Covid-19, greater long term impact, higher fatality rates (per case) ?

As with everything, it's early days for data but it appears in the case of B.1.1.7 that it is not only more transmissible, but also potentially more deadly.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00298-1/fulltext

Quote

NERVTAG concluded that there was a “realistic possibility” that infection with B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of death, compared with infection with the parental virus. The group stressed that its assessment was based on limited preliminary data and even if the results were confirmed, the overall risk of death would still be low.