Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[bermudashorts] 19/1/2021 13:57

ee

My last post to you and then I'm going to take a leaf out of your book and use the filter button as this is going to go on and on.

1) I have never said nuances don't exist
2) You are free to post whatever you like and it's silly to say I'm trying to deny you the right to point anything out.
3) Your comment about "being right" is at odds with the final line to your 36081

[inanaco] 19/1/2021 13:54

"" The recent emergence of variants with multiple shared mutations in spike raises concern about convergent evolution to a new phenotype, potentially associated with an increase in transmissibility or propensity for re-infection of individuals.""

You now cannot dispute the value of Covidity if it does generate an immune response against the conserved area of the Virus ..........

another very serious Buy Signal

[emptyend] 19/1/2021 13:04

Ps....neither you nor I fully "understand the nuances". But that is a completely different thing to pretending that nuances don't exist (and indeed trying to deny me the right to point them out from time to time).

[emptyend] 19/1/2021 13:01

I've got no interest in "being right". I just ask that you respond to what I ACTUALLY say rather than what you imagine I said. That is all. Its a really simple thing.Is that too much to ask????

[bermudashorts] 19/1/2021 12:26

ee

Apologies, you are absolutely right, I did miss a word out. Will repost below:-

'You feel you have enough information and knowledge to state what is and isn't less sensible/useful - I don't.'

You are right, when it comes to making judgments on vaccine prioritisation, benefits and risks, I do see things in black and white because I'm fully aware that I don't have the knowledge or information to fully understand the nuances. Therefore, I simply have to trust the regulators. If that makes me wrong and you right then that's absolutely fine.

[emptyend] 19/1/2021 11:59

bs, re your #36073Yet again you misrepresent my comments by pretending that a key qualifying word doesn't exist! I wrote "LESS sensible/useful" .....but you pretend (for your own obscure reasons) that I said "not at all sensible/useful" and then try to draw a spurious conclusion based on your own misreading!The reason I qualified my statement by saying LESS.....and the reason I qualified my previous statements about the "extremely elderly or frail" is PRECISELY because these are RELATIVE statements that reflect some level of uncertainty in the data and/or differences in the circumstances of individuals. I am merely trying to indicate that, in a world of grey uncertainties, some greys are relatively dark and others relatively light. You, however, insist in not only seeing the world in black and white (which is ok as far as it goes, though misses all nuances that most people see as greys) but ALSO in asserting that this is the ONLY way to see it and I am wrong to think greys, nuances and qualifications are important.If anyone is wrong here, it is you.....

[inanaco] 19/1/2021 10:23

A reason to vaccinate urgently



Covid and Borders

[goyathlay] 19/1/2021 09:54

Thanks Goosed

Experts vary in their response



There seems to be universal agreement that it would be politic to avoid brown-bagging aviation fuel actually inside one of the vaccination hubs. But apart from that.... ;)

[gooosed] 19/1/2021 08:58

goy - re booze & vaccine....this article is similar to the articles I read - they had a little more detail but you get the gist. Two/three days is ok but weeks presents a real challenge. More research required perhaps.

[oldnotwise] 19/1/2021 08:01

15.5/15.611

[torquayfan] 19/1/2021 01:18

Bermuda 36070 - I suppose the operative words I missed in your 35995 were, 'if it transpires' (that these vaccines cause serious ae's). You have fully explained that you feel that is not decisively the case yet and thanks. .

Your conclusion, "it seems to me that the advice from Norway, that doctors should consider carefully before vaccinating seems very sensible" - one can only agree. Presumably, consideration by the Doctor will result in some people not being vaccinated. So rather than anyone being 'denied the vaccine', some will after consideration, not be given it.

[moljen] 18/1/2021 22:59

Claim copyright :-)

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 20:38

That link i did early ref 47,000 is on BBC news now

[bermudashorts] 18/1/2021 19:58

ee

I was answering the question in TF's post and clearly referenced it in my answer.

You feel you have enough information and knowledge to state what is and isn't sensible/useful - I don't.

[emptyend] 18/1/2021 19:31

I don't think ANYONE has said the very elderly/frail should be "denied the vaccine". But what is happening currently is that they are actively being targeted and encouraged to have it (except in Indonesia and Norway.....now)....and that is less sensible/useful - especially as they are doubtless not getting the full risk picture.

[bermudashorts] 18/1/2021 17:52

TF

I have just read your 36050.

I have no idea - I'll let you know whether I think the 'EXTREMELY ELDERLY/FRAIL' should be denied the choice of being vaccinated when the regulators have investigated and made a decision. How can any of us possibly have the expertise, data or knowledge to judge?

A few points worth noting though:-

1) As of today, over 40 million vaccine doses have been administered. Virtually every country is vaccinating the elderly and most frail first.

2) Every death is bloody awful but it would be a tragedy IMO if anybody is denied a vaccine based on 13 deaths which 'may' have been linked to a vaccine until they have been fully investigated and the evidence considered alongside the safety profile from all countries for this group of patients .

3) The Norwegian Medicines Agency has now issued another statement to confirm that they have found no evidence that the vaccine was directly responsible for the deaths

4) Norway has prioritised vaccination of nursing home residents - a group that in normal times accounts for an average of 400 deaths a week. So far they have administered over 40,000 doses.

So until there are any further statements from any of the regulators, it seems to me that the advice from Norway, that doctors should consider carefully before vaccinating seems very sensible.

[gazza] 18/1/2021 16:06

I posted
Burble listed some specific scientific risks.

You (mis)quoted me..
"Burble considers it High Risk .. (no evidence presented)"

How can you present evidence against a non-existent claim?????

I'm afraid you get..

Reading 0/10
Writing 0/10
Comprehension - 0/10

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 15:40

Pulmonary lesions were found in hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, though only at a short follow-up duration of three weeks post-discharge.[26] Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging revealed myocardial inflammation in German participants who recovered from acute COVID-19,[6] while myocarditis was also detected by CMR imaging in post-acute US college athletes.[27] These studies are suggestive of pulmonary and myocardial involvement in individuals with COVID-19 and, although small sample sizes and highly specific study populations make it difficult to generalise the results, they shed some light on possible pathophysiological mechanisms that underly our own findings.


"""while myocarditis was also detected by CMR imaging in post-acute US college athletes"""

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 15:38

In a more recent study of 1,775 US veterans hospitalised with COVID-19, 20% were readmitted and 9% died within 60 days of discharge;[22] after restricting follow-up time in our study to the same duration, we found similar prevalence rates of 23% and 9%, respectively. The US study did not analyse organ-specific endpoints and was conducted in a specific population; we can thus now add that COVID-19 is associated with post-discharge manifestations in a range of organs in the general population.

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 15:27

study size

Participants 47,780 individuals (mean age 65 years, 55% male) in hospital with COVID-19 and discharged alive by 31 August 2020, matched to controls on demographic and clinical characteristics.

Outcome measures Rates of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and diagnoses of respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, kidney and liver diseases until 30 September 2020.

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 15:22

not sure if that is study size so it could be higher

also

In December, the ONS estimated that one in 10 people who catch coronavirus go on to suffer long Covid with symptoms lasting three months or more.

Overall, roughly 186,000 people in private households in England in the week beginning November 22 were living with Covid-19 symptoms that had persisted for between five and 12 weeks, the most up-to-date ONS data shows.

[goyathlay] 18/1/2021 15:21

from your link

""The current cut-off point for recording Covid deaths is 28 days after a positive test, so it may mean thousands more people should be included in the coronavirus death statistics.""

So another 12,3% of 47,780 more deaths = 5876 ??

EDIT: if that 12.7% can actually be attributed to Covid-induced symptoms, of course!

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 15:15

wow !!

Out of 47,780 people who were discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4 per cent were readmitted to hospital within 140 days, and 12.3 per cent of the total died.

Study author Kamlesh Khunti, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at Leicester University, said: “This is the largest study of people discharged from hospital after being admitted with Covid.

“People seem to be going home, getting long-term effects, coming back in and dying. We see nearly 30 per cent have been readmitted, and that’s a lot of people. The numbers are so large.

“The message here is we really need to prepare for long Covid. It’s a mammoth task to follow up with these patients and the NHS is really pushed at the moment, but some sort of monitoring needs to be arranged.”

The study found that Covid survivors were nearly three and a half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital, and die, in the 140 days timeframe than other hospital outpatients.

Prof Khunti said the team had been surprised to find that many people were going back in with a new diagnosis, and many had developed heart, kidney and liver problems, as well as diabetes.

[inanaco] 18/1/2021 14:03

Title Risk/reward of SCIB1 by Gazza








Blank Page







Notes .... other Bio are Risky

Burble considers it High Risk .. (no evidence presented)


conclusion

High Risk mediocre reward


Thanks Gazza that's more information than I ever expected