On 23 Nov 2020 at 8:08pm Nevillman wrote:
It is good news about the vaccine isn't it? Where are you to tell me why it isn't Tom?
On 23 Nov 2020 at 9:48pm janet street preacher wrote:
Great news that we as a country have managed to produce a vaccine thatís 70% effective?
I feel a bit sad we are overjoyed about coming third so far.
On 23 Nov 2020 at 10:28pm Tom Pain wrote:
You've read the puff pieces to attract the investors. Now read the spec.for the vaccine if you're interested, it's your life.
On 24 Nov 2020 at 10:44am Nevillman wrote:
Sounds a bit early to come to that conclusion Janet but I'm pleased you've found something to dent my optimism. I'm not sure if anyone is intending to attract investors Tom but thanks for the heads up and I'll get straight on to my brokers. Incidentally, would it be particularly unethical, incorrect or in any way wrong if someone did make a living or even a profit out of having developed something that helped people like a vaccine for covid? We live in a capitalist society and people live by providing a service that others want and are prepared to pay for. As long as noone was prevented from getting the vaccine due to their poverty, does it matter?
On 24 Nov 2020 at 3:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
The investment will be a good one if the tests are still successful in spring, but they're not over yet. Usually they take years, but in the sci-fi world of operations "Warp Speed" and "Moonshot" things are much quicker. It won't be licensed by the government,just recommended and the manufacturer has Immunity (ha) from the law. I'll stay in the real world where pharmaceuticals have to be licensed and manufacturers are legally responsible for their products. And of course make a fair profit, I can't see why they shouldn't. I'd say it's obvious that we live in a capitalist society, so I can't think why you brought it up.
As far as the specification of the vaccine is concerned, should anyone be interested- As far as I can discover it can prevent mild to medium symptoms but not severe. So to prevent yourself from catching a cold you can have a skimpily tested vaccine and no redress for any harm it may do you.
On 24 Nov 2020 at 4:59pm Ferret wrote:
As predicted, Tom Pain has shifted seamlessly from pandemic denial, mask refuser, lockdown under-miner to anti-vaxer. Why not cast doubt on the great hope for mankind by suggesting it may not be effective, and may cause serious health risks? By all means take your chances, risking your miserable life, but don't come on here sowing seeds of doubt when you clearly don't understand the processes by which vaccines are developed, tested and certified. The Oxford vaccine is not the "third so far". It is the best so far, as it has a 90% effective rating when dosed in a specific way, and it can be stored in an ordinary refrigerator, so the logistics of its use are by far the simplest. Don't denigrate the UK's contribution in such ignorant and ill-informed comments.
On 24 Nov 2020 at 9:19pm Dreamer wrote:
The 70.4% number is an odd one. The media did a truly bad job with that. Admittedly the Oxford team did muddy the waters substantially. They basically ran two tests with different doses. The first achieved 62% effectivity. The second 90%.
The "soft" results (likely prevention of transmission, no severe cases, etc) are more interesting.
On its own, the Oxford results wouldn't have me massively optimistic, but combined with the other good results, I think this bodes well. More to come.
On 25 Nov 2020 at 7:02am Hyena wrote:
And weíre off again, meanwhile Iím deciding whether to have peanut butter or Marmite on my toast, Iím leaning towards Marmite at the moment.
On 25 Nov 2020 at 9:05am Nevillman wrote:
I hope you resolved your dilemma hyena. Would it be possible for you to stick to the point of the thread though please and maybe start your very interesting point on a new appropriately headed thread?
On 25 Nov 2020 at 2:00pm Hyena wrote:
Potentially yes, thatís probably preferable to seeing you and your sparring partners having the same discussion over and over again.
On 25 Nov 2020 at 3:50pm Nevillman wrote:
I understand that you are indifferent to a discussion on the use of a vaccine hyena but the sensible course of action would be to ignore it. You seem to think it means that you should try to disrupt others from taking part in it. Please try to grow up before going on an adults forum.
On 25 Nov 2020 at 6:35pm Hyena wrote:
Iíll ask my Mum if I can respond .
On 25 Nov 2020 at 9:30pm Tom Pain wrote:
The great hope for mankind? Are you talking about a cure for cancer,heart disease or any of the real heavyweight killers? Or are you referring to an unpleasant version of the common cold that is sometimes fatal to the aged and infirm? I think a sense of proportion is called for, not a bout of mudslinging. Perhaps a discussion on how long vaccines are tested before being unleashed on the public might be useful. Throwing terms from the gutter press around like anti vaxxer might impress the unthinking mob but will be unlikely to impress anyone of mature discernment. If I were to say that Johnson is not fit to be prime minister doesn't mean we should not have a p.m. Keep calm and carry on. The current climate of hysteria is not helping anyone but profiteers and power seekers.
On 25 Nov 2020 at 11:21pm Basil wrote:
Tom Pain wrote: ' If I were to say that Johnson is not fit to be prime minister doesn't mean we should not have a p.m.'
Fortunately there are a few anarchists around in Lewes who would say exactly that.
On 26 Nov 2020 at 10:18am Tom Pain wrote:
And they're going to get their wish. Government is almost privatised already. I get the feeling the anarchists are going to like that even less and neither will I.
On 26 Nov 2020 at 11:13am Nevillman wrote:
Tom. I share your instinctive feeling that there has been an over reaction to covid as for most people it really isn't serious. Had it been allowed to just run them I assume the majority of the population would have been ill to various degrees. Those who were vulnerable and able to self isolate would have done so. The economy would have continued as it was but with more sick days. The problem is that not every vulnerable person can self isolate and it becomes more difficult to do so as a higher proportion of the population gets covid. There would have been a much higher number of vulnerable people dying as the health service couldn't help them.
What number of excess deaths albeit among the vulnerable is acceptable before you think that it is necessary for the government to take the sort of measures that they have? 100,000, 250,000, 1 million? At what point would you and others have said too many people have died, the government should do something or have done something. I don't know anyone who has died of it but if the number was much higher I'm sure I would. What would I think then?
I'm certainly not trying to defend what the government has done as I haven't been following the details of the whole business at all but I now think they had to do something.
You can be cynical about a vaccine but as someone who has been isolating since march, the prospect of something coming that will allow me to properly see my children and friends, go out to the shops, to pubs, cinema, Brighton, London, on a bus or train and go on holiday it is actually quite a big deal.
On 27 Nov 2020 at 12:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
You say the majority of the population would be a bit ill Nev, but would they? It seems that there is a virus season every year, from early to late winter, peaking as the seasons change. There's lots of colds and flu about.
Do you get a severe flu every year, does everyone get it? No, we have immunity because we have coped with that strain of virus before, or one very similar.
Excess deaths- The ONS statistics for excess deaths- show a number for every year which show that many more people die in the winter, we know that anyway, and the number varies wildly every year. This is nothing new.
Running with the word new, we have a new, or novel corona or cold virus this year. Knowing that viruses mutate all the time, we always have a new one, so this is just a newer new one! Doesn't that remind you of the NEW normal they keep banging on about? Doesn't normal slowly mutate? What's normal now would have shocked my grandmother,I can tell you.
You say you're not following the details. Where does the devil lie?
On 27 Nov 2020 at 11:03pm Ferret wrote:
The repeated attempts to dismiss the covid-19 pandemic as just another flu outbreak ignores a key difference. Flu victims feel ill, sometimes very ill, and almost always are too ill to mingle with workmates, friends and relatives, whereas the majority of covid-19 victims have no symptoms at all, or only very mild ones. It is the asymptomatic carriers of the virus who spread it so rapidly. The only instance of a positive test at my mother's care home was a cleaner, who had absolutely no idea that she had it. Luckily she was diagnosed in time to prevent a disaster. If it had been flu, she would have been home in bed, not cleaning old people's rooms.
On 28 Nov 2020 at 11:59am Tom Pain wrote:
A third of influenza cases are UNsymptomatic. Even wiki will fact check that. If you read it you'll notice a lot of "Mays" and "probablys". It's the same with all viruses, they're not well understood. Just as unsymptomatic people don't spread viruses MOSTLY it is thought. So if you want to live in a world in which everyone is terrified of catching some hideous disease and don't mind being tracked and traced every minute of your life by a medical dictatorship with a mandate to vaccinate you without your consent, carry on panic mongering. Meanwhile bacterial pneumonia caused by mould and bacteria collecting in face masks is appearing,you just can't win.
On 28 Nov 2020 at 12:49pm Hyena wrote:
And on and on and on ...............
On 28 Nov 2020 at 4:37pm Ferret wrote:
Only Mr Pain would use a term which does not seem to exist. Such a rebel! And it seems that asymptomic flu does not exist except in the mind of our favourite oddball. You may well not show symptoms for the first day or so after being infected by flu, and therefore you are unlikely to be contagious without extremely close contact. Unlike, of course, with Covid-19. Wrong again TP.
On 28 Nov 2020 at 5:28pm Ferret wrote:
I'll correct myself. Asymptomatic flu exists, unsymptomatic flu does not. Are asymptomatic flu individuals contagious? Certainly not as contagious as those who are coughing and sneezing, or complaining loudly about how ill they feel.
On 28 Nov 2020 at 7:23pm Nevillman wrote:
Do you accept Tom that there have been 65000 more people die in the UK since march than would be expected in a normal year and can therefore be attributed to covid?
Would you accept that notwithstanding any disagreement over flu or whatever, if nothing had been done by the government, then the excess deaths would be higher than that?
What number of excess deaths would be acceptable to you before the government had to do something drastic about it?
On 29 Nov 2020 at 2:33pm Tom Pain wrote:
OK Nev, how many excess deaths due to- cancelled cancer screening, cancelled operations, closed intensive care wards (reserved for covid), untreated heart and stroke problems, non in person diagnoses by doctors, enforced isolation and myriad other cases - do YOU find acceptable?
Ferret, that's very clever, though perhaps a little on the disingenuous side- ""un-" or "a"- symptomatic. Both prefixes mean "not" in my, and I believe most people's experience. Your credibility is sinking from nil to minus and I'm sure you know what that means, relying on cheap semantic trickery like that.
Has anyone else seen the American CDC information that over 90% of covid deaths had serous co morbidities? And I use "co" to mean "with" in case of any duplicitous misunderstanding.
On 29 Nov 2020 at 3:00pm Ferret wrote:
You're confusing asymptomatic with unsympathetic, I think. Understandable, but just as wrong as confusing its with it's, your with you're, there with their or they're. If you can show me one correct use of unsymptomatic somewhere out there in the webosphere (not a new word, by the way), then I'll agree "most people's experience" makes it acceptable (if that's what you meant).
On 29 Nov 2020 at 3:41pm Dreamer wrote:
TP was again displaying that he still does not understand what comorbidities are. Most people would be embaressed to publically show such a level of ignorance, but not TP.
Seriously: take a dictionary and look it up. Rather than whinging that people calling out your (self-imposed) ignorance are being mean to you.
Knowing you won't bother to fijnally take that advice, I'll to explain: If a person is stabbed to death, the knife wound will be listed as a cause of death. Exsanguinanguination will be listed as a comorbidity. If they were stabbed in the lung, so will the collapsed lung and possibly lung oedema, as well as all other results of the stab wound (internal bleeding, etc).
In TPs World, that person would have died anyway due to their "serious comorbidities", with or without the knife kthus is literally what he is claiming in the case of Covid). Everyone else sees that (by definition) comorbidities are additional factors and symptoms found in a death that can explicitly be caused by the main cause of death. This isn't my making things up, this is what comorbidities are defined as and how the term is used.
Indeed, over 90% of the comorbidities in the CDC study were caused by the viral infection.
So please, Tomfoolery (I really can't insult the real Tom Pain(e) any longer by associating his memory with you anti-enlightenment), stop spreading myths, lies and misinformation.
On 29 Nov 2020 at 7:25pm Dreamer wrote:
I can't resist... Just too much Tomfoolery afoot...
"Meanwhile bacterial pneumonia caused by mould and bacteria collecting in face masks is appearing" (any reference for this?)
Let's for a second ignore all the studies that have debunked this myth (as is TP's standard Modus Operandi, anyway) and take this as a valid theory.
How can we check its validity? Let's have a look at professions where people wear face coverings and masks as a standard... Pretty much anyone working in small animal husbandry, most people working in dentistry, crafts people and builders working with different levels of hazardous materials (dust, etc), surgeons, many nurses... Do any of these professions show a significant increase in said forms of pneumonia? No.
Let's ignore that piece of data (millions of data points as it may be strong) and hypothesise further. If TP's theory were true, then we should see an increase in bacterial pneumonia deaths over the past nine months. Let's see... The ONS had a publication on this recently... Oh look: there has actually been a decrease.
OK, so it's possibly due to different types of face coverings than those worn in many professions. In some cases that is true, but the mostly frequently worn type of mask is a simple surgical mask. Which is identical to the single use masks currently being used everywhere. Now, the fabric ones are a bit more challenging: they need to be washed or at least ironed regularly (both kills mould spores and bacteria very efficiently). Now if basic, hygienic laundry practice is a problem, I don't want to think about the state your undies are in.
Let's also be clear on general vocabulary: you had a theory, it was disproven (not by me, it was disproven long before that, see my initial comment). Now, that makes it a rejected theory, a myth, a lie or a fairytale, but not an opinion. Basic vocabulary, but something certain individuals need to be reminded of.
On 29 Nov 2020 at 8:56pm CactusBadger wrote:
Yea!!! This is great news. Read some of the responses though. Haven't laughed so hard for a while. Some people don't let verifiable facts ruin a good piece of antivaxx BS.
On 29 Nov 2020 at 8:59pm CactusBadger wrote:
Would you wear underwear several days in a row? No! Wear a clean mask you numpty!
On 29 Nov 2020 at 9:03pm CactusBadger wrote:
If you don't know how mRNA works, it is used by ribosomes to create proteins. It is an unstable molecule that is quickly broken down by the body. IT DOES NOT MODIFY DNA!
On 30 Nov 2020 at 9:05am IDM wrote:
I hope that this doesn't count as off the thread. "a", the Greek "not", would normally be used for words of Greek origin (such as abiogenesis). However, it is often used by clinicians for other origins, so using "un" might make you sound like a "layman". But we still have "illogical" etc. Using "non-" is safe and simple.
Having said that, "unsymptomatic" does exist. "Asymptomatic" is an absolute, like "unique". "un-" can mean to some extent, as in "unwell". That would lead to "unsymptomatic" meaning " not being completely symptomatic", ie lacking some symptoms; and "unsymptomatic" can take comparatives, like "more unsymptomatic". Of course, only a wierdo would actually say that; it would be "less symptomatic".
On 30 Nov 2020 at 10:55am Ferret wrote:
It's good to go off topic, when the topic is so repetitively tedious. TP's nearly nine month campaign to convince us all that it's all a government plot to turn us into obedient drones has failed miserably. You are of course right about the Greek origin of a- and an- as prefixes meaning 'not' or 'without' or 'opposite to'. The prefix un- seems to be Germanic in origin, as in 'unschuldig' meaning not guilty, famously uttered by Nazi war criminals at the Nuremburg Trials. According to my wonderful Collins English Dictionary, there is no such word as unsymptomatic (Germanic un- with Greek origin symptomatic). I wouldn't be so unsympathetic towards unsymptomatic in speech, but in written English it is wrong. I know that social media comments fall between two stools, so to speak, but maybe TP has started a linguistic shift, and we'll all be saying unomalous, unmoral and unmorphous soon. Science is adept at inventing words, sometimes combining Latin prefixes with Greek words, such as pre-symptomatic and post-symptomatic, both of which I've come across as a result of this discussion. Mind you, they seem to use an unnecessary (or is it anecessary) hyphen as a way of acknowledging the anomaly. Yes, I have got too much time on my hands and I do need to get a life!
On 30 Nov 2020 at 11:14pm Tom Pain wrote:
Thanks for the gift dreamer, your wonderful post telling us all how clever you are, highlighting my ignorance and crowning your endless peroration of self congratulation by admonishing me for my spelling.
"Seriously, take a dictionary and look it up". " Most people would be EMBARESSED to show such ignorance" You're right there dreamboat, I certainly would be, but I doubt if you in your dreamworld have that capacity. But wait, it gets even better- "to PUBLICALLY show such a
level of ignorance."
You said it dreamgenius. As always you're so right about everything. I take to heart your advice that certain individuals need to be reminded of basic vocabulary. "EXSANGUINANGUINATION" is certainly not basic, but is it vocabulary? I'm not a science graduate so how can I tell?
I see you've got a couple of new members on the team, how many do you need? Anyway, such sustained vitriolic abuse as I've neverô seen on any forum this side of hell deserves a round of applause.
On 30 Nov 2020 at 11:30pm IDM wrote:
Thanks for the post Ferret. For "unsymptomatic" go to "un prefix words" on Google. Then Wiktionary. Then "English words prefixed with un-". Choose "sy" from list of two letter options. There we are, proof! Or not; from internal evidence, this is for US English. Bother!
It isn't in the scrabble list, but then neither is "unsympathetic".
I would get out more, but I am still getting through the OED; I'm only up to "aardvark".
On 30 Nov 2020 at 11:52pm Ferret wrote:
A few online "dictionaries" which say it exists are not enough. A word exists not because it's in a dictionary (even my Collins, or the OED, or other reputable organisation) but when it is in use, and published examples are there to be cited. And please don't even suggest Scrabble or Words with Friends as evidence one way or another! Un- is a very useful prefix as it can be placed before many words to negate or reverse the meaning. Everyone would understand un-sexual, but the correct word is asexual, isn't it, or are they different?
On 1 Dec 2020 at 10:28am Tom Pain wrote:
Is verbal incontinence yet another covid symptom? I hope you're self isolating.
On 1 Dec 2020 at 1:01pm Ferret wrote:
You should know, TP, judging by your inane story attempt.