So, coronavirus...

[JM2K6]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-cor ... 1585088464


It really isn’t controversial.

...

...

I don't think you can provide a link to an article written by Bhattacharya in a discussion of how fringe and dubious Bhattacharya's views are as any kind of defence (although it's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about: an article he wrote in March that did not hold up to scrutiny). Do you read posts or just glaze over them?


Here's a fun takedown of the handful of scientists who keep cropping up with these things: https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/23/scam ... in-the-uk/

[JM2K6]

Some expert reaction to these guys and their work

excellent thread:



Director of Clinical Operational Research Unit at UCL:

reminds me so much of the climate change "debate"

[Slick]

Gupta still trying anything to get some attention.

But over half our population had likely been infected by March, she claimed!

Yeah crazy “Oxford “ professor.

Yeah, I imagine most "Oxford" professors have their own web page where they describe themselves as first and foremost a novelist http://www.sunetragupta.com/biography.asp

[Tichtheid]

Here's a fun takedown of the handful of scientists who keep cropping up with these things: https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/23/scam ... in-the-uk/

Very interesting, thanks, there were a few "FFS!" moments in there.

[robmatic]

Gupta still trying anything to get some attention.

It's amazing how much attention she gets considering she was demonstrably wrong about the UK already having achieved herd immunity in the spring.

[Northern Lights]

Here's a fun takedown of the handful of scientists who keep cropping up with these things: https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/23/scam ... in-the-uk/

Very interesting, thanks, there were a few "FFS!" moments in there.

More a "is that all you've got moment from me" tbh, that is pretty pathetic if that is supposed to be a "takedown", no suprise that the death by a million posts from the usual suspects swells the number of pages on this thread. They really dont like their view challenged that there might just be a better way forward in dealing with this.

[Northern Lights]

Gupta still trying anything to get some attention.

It's amazing how much attention she gets considering she was demonstrably wrong about the UK already having achieved herd immunity in the spring.

I'm more amazed that Neil Ferguson, the discredited wonk is still getting asked for comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5d3s3sf2k

He told the BBC that “hospital beds occupied with Covid patients and deaths are all tracking cases, they are at a low level but are basically doubling every two weeks and we cannot have that continue indefinitely, [or] the NHS will be overwhelmed again”.

But because he continues to push this agenda he is ok im sure.

[Biffer]

Gupta still trying anything to get some attention.

It's amazing how much attention she gets considering she was demonstrably wrong about the UK already having achieved herd immunity in the spring.

I'm more amazed that Neil Ferguson, the discredited wonk is still getting asked for comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5d3s3sf2k

He told the BBC that “hospital beds occupied with Covid patients and deaths are all tracking cases, they are at a low level but are basically doubling every two weeks and we cannot have that continue indefinitely, [or] the NHS will be overwhelmed again”.

But because he continues to push this agenda he is ok im sure.

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

[JM2K6]

Here's a fun takedown of the handful of scientists who keep cropping up with these things: https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/23/scam ... in-the-uk/

Very interesting, thanks, there were a few "FFS!" moments in there.

More a "is that all you've got moment from me" tbh, that is pretty pathetic if that is supposed to be a "takedown", no suprise that the death by a million posts from the usual suspects swells the number of pages on this thread. They really dont like their view challenged that there might just be a better way forward in dealing with this.

I'd be very interested in a better way forward. However, hitching your wagon to these grifters probably isn't it. Their plan makes no sense and the wider scientific community clearly thinks they're bonkers.

I appreciate that you and I will never agree on this - I simply cannot get behind your repeated insistence that we shouldn't be locking down because it's mostly old and frail people that will die and they don't matter as much - but I am approaching this in good faith. I post these things precisely because I would like any discussion of alternative plans to come from a good place, not from bonkers lobbyists with an agenda and a history of dubious behaviour.

[Northern Lights]

It's amazing how much attention she gets considering she was demonstrably wrong about the UK already having achieved herd immunity in the spring.

I'm more amazed that Neil Ferguson, the discredited wonk is still getting asked for comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5d3s3sf2k

He told the BBC that “hospital beds occupied with Covid patients and deaths are all tracking cases, they are at a low level but are basically doubling every two weeks and we cannot have that continue indefinitely, [or] the NHS will be overwhelmed again”.

But because he continues to push this agenda he is ok im sure.

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

Or you could also include his other pieces of spectacular work:

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

[Bimbowomxn]

It's amazing how much attention she gets considering she was demonstrably wrong about the UK already having achieved herd immunity in the spring.

I'm more amazed that Neil Ferguson, the discredited wonk is still getting asked for comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5d3s3sf2k

He told the BBC that “hospital beds occupied with Covid patients and deaths are all tracking cases, they are at a low level but are basically doubling every two weeks and we cannot have that continue indefinitely, [or] the NHS will be overwhelmed again”.

But because he continues to push this agenda he is ok im sure.

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

Ferguson was wildly wrong on Foot and Mouth, bird flu and now covid.

Nothing to do with his “personal life”

[Bimbowomxn]

It's amazing how much attention she gets considering she was demonstrably wrong about the UK already having achieved herd immunity in the spring.

I'm more amazed that Neil Ferguson, the discredited wonk is still getting asked for comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5d3s3sf2k

He told the BBC that “hospital beds occupied with Covid patients and deaths are all tracking cases, they are at a low level but are basically doubling every two weeks and we cannot have that continue indefinitely, [or] the NHS will be overwhelmed again”.

But because he continues to push this agenda he is ok im sure.

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

The ‘Let It Rippers’

That misrepresentation alone is worthy of ignoring the article.

The by line times is proper hat stand end of journalism, no better than the Canary.

[Northern Lights]

Very interesting, thanks, there were a few "FFS!" moments in there.

More a "is that all you've got moment from me" tbh, that is pretty pathetic if that is supposed to be a "takedown", no suprise that the death by a million posts from the usual suspects swells the number of pages on this thread. They really dont like their view challenged that there might just be a better way forward in dealing with this.

I'd be very interested in a better way forward. However, hitching your wagon to these grifters probably isn't it. Their plan makes no sense and the wider scientific community clearly thinks they're bonkers.

I appreciate that you and I will never agree on this - I simply cannot get behind your repeated insistence that we shouldn't be locking down because it's mostly old and frail people that will die and they don't matter as much - but I am approaching this in good faith. I post these things precisely because I would like any discussion of alternative plans to come from a good place, not from bonkers lobbyists with an agenda and a history of dubious behaviour.

Ah they are grifters now

I actually listen to what they say rather than dismissing it out of hand because it is contrary to your views, granted i have sympathy with their viewpoint as it makes a lot more sense to me than the course of action our governments have taken which I firmly believe and said at the outset was a mistake.

They propose shielding the more vulnerable for example by having the care homes staffed by those that have already had the virus and are regarded as having built up a degree of immunity and no longer infectious and by massively increasing testing of the staff who havent had it in in these settings so that rather than doing the scattergun approach of testing the whole bloody population when they feel a bit ill or in some cases just want a test the limited resources are actually focused on where they will make the most difference.

Herd immunity is not a strategy, it is a result and only those desperately trying to discredit them and their viewpoint think they are advocating no strategy at all and just letting it rip, they are not pushing that but hey they are just grifters hanging out in dodgy instituions like Oxford, Harvard, Stanford etc etc if that makes you sleep better at night go for it.

Gone again.

[JM2K6]

I'm more amazed that Neil Ferguson, the discredited wonk is still getting asked for comment

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -5d3s3sf2k



But because he continues to push this agenda he is ok im sure.

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

Or you could also include his other pieces of spectacular work:

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

This is weird cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind, that gets repeated by all the usual suspects.

Consider the BSE quote. "up to 50,000 people would likely die"?

“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case ovine BSE scenario examined.”

That is not the same thing. 177 deaths lies comfortably within this range.

The Bird Flu quote: he did not predict that up to 150m could be killed from bird flu. The discussion was about if bird flu mutated into a form easily transmissble from human to human.

Swine flu: I mean, without even looking at it, the term "reasonable worst-case scenario" is the giveaway here, no? We didn't get the worst-case scenario. That... is normal. We usually don't. As it happens, this was also based off very early data from the Mexico outbreak, and this was revised downwards at a later date. This is pretty normal behaviour.

[Northern Lights]

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

Or you could also include his other pieces of spectacular work:

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

This is weird cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind, that gets repeated by all the usual suspects.

Consider the BSE quote. "up to 50,000 people would likely die"?

“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case ovine BSE scenario examined.”

That is not the same thing. 177 deaths lies comfortably within this range.

The Bird Flu quote: he did not predict that up to 150m could be killed from bird flu. The discussion was about if bird flu mutated into a form easily transmissble from human to human.

Swine flu: I mean, without even looking at it, the term "reasonable worst-case scenario" is the giveaway here, no? We didn't get the worst-case scenario. That... is normal. We usually don't. As it happens, this was also based off very early data from the Mexico outbreak, and this was revised downwards at a later date. This is pretty normal behaviour.

This is not wild cherry picking, 177 deaths lies comfortable within the range of 50 to 50,000, get serious, more like it is at the absolute bottom end of the range and the upper end was fucking miles out. Yeah his analysis was fucking spot on but the others are grifters

He was clearly absolutely terrified of Corona given his personal actions that has driven bad government policy.

His opinions hold absolutely no weight as far as i am concerned.

[JM2K6]

I'll be sure to rejig my anomaly detection system so that values within the expected bounds are considered bullshit.

edit: Honestly, the reaction to "50 - 50,000" should be "christ, there's a lot of uncertainty in that prediction, I wonder why" rather than "HE PREDICTED 50,000 DEATHS AND WE ONLY GOT 177 WHAT A FRAUD" but people are bad at stats work I guess.

[JM2K6]

More on track for this thread:


plus:

[robmatic]

I'll be sure to rejig my anomaly detection system so that values within the expected bounds are considered bullshit.

edit: Honestly, the reaction to "50 - 50,000" should be "christ, there's a lot of uncertainty in that prediction, I wonder why" rather than "HE PREDICTED 50,000 DEATHS AND WE ONLY GOT 177 WHAT A FRAUD" but people are bad at stats work I guess.

There is basically a ready market for these grifters with the mathematically illiterate.

[Bimbowomxn]

More on track for this thread:


plus:

Little miss Clinton foundation has a good personal pandemic,

If the first bit about herd immunity is true then there ain’t no vaccine ......

No vaccine then current policy is a waste of resources.

[Northern Lights]

More on track for this thread:


plus:

Oh good I am absolutely fascinated to hear what Sridhar has to say, her of the elimination strategy that Sturgeon was promoting in June, how did that work out, she who is highly politicised, yep i definitely give a shit what she has to say. But yeah the others are grifters

[Bimbowomxn]

I'll be sure to rejig my anomaly detection system so that values within the expected bounds are considered bullshit.

edit: Honestly, the reaction to "50 - 50,000" should be "christ, there's a lot of uncertainty in that prediction, I wonder why" rather than "HE PREDICTED 50,000 DEATHS AND WE ONLY GOT 177 WHAT A FRAUD" but people are bad at stats work I guess.

There is basically a ready market for these grifters with the mathematically illiterate.

Well that won’t be Northern lights for sure.

[JM2K6]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

[robmatic]

When you describe someone who has a respected academic career of 30+ years, who made a really fucking stupid mistake in his personal life as a discredited wonk, I think you show your true colours again.

Or you could also include his other pieces of spectacular work:

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

This is weird cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind, that gets repeated by all the usual suspects.

Consider the BSE quote. "up to 50,000 people would likely die"?

“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case ovine BSE scenario examined.”

That is not the same thing. 177 deaths lies comfortably within this range.

The Bird Flu quote: he did not predict that up to 150m could be killed from bird flu. The discussion was about if bird flu mutated into a form easily transmissble from human to human.

Swine flu: I mean, without even looking at it, the term "reasonable worst-case scenario" is the giveaway here, no? We didn't get the worst-case scenario. That... is normal. We usually don't. As it happens, this was also based off very early data from the Mexico outbreak, and this was revised downwards at a later date. This is pretty normal behaviour.

I see flu in this argument is no longer an illness that kills tens of thousands and is comparable to covid but is something that is relatively harmless. Good to know.

[Northern Lights]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

Given that is the strategy that we are following, how is that working out for us? Must be going brilliantly.

[JM2K6]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

Given that is the strategy that we are following, how is that working out for us? Must be going brilliantly.

I don't think there is a perfect solution. Their point is that this particular alternative being espoused is unworkable.

[Northern Lights]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

Given that is the strategy that we are following, how is that working out for us? Must be going brilliantly.

I don't think there is a perfect solution. Their point is that this particular alternative being espoused is unworkable.

But the current solution is of course workable, which it patently isnt and definitely not in the long term.

[JM2K6]

Or you could also include his other pieces of spectacular work:

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

This is weird cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind, that gets repeated by all the usual suspects.

Consider the BSE quote. "up to 50,000 people would likely die"?

“Extending the analysis to consider absolute risk, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future vCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human deaths considering exposure to bovine BSE alone, with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst-case ovine BSE scenario examined.”

That is not the same thing. 177 deaths lies comfortably within this range.

The Bird Flu quote: he did not predict that up to 150m could be killed from bird flu. The discussion was about if bird flu mutated into a form easily transmissble from human to human.

Swine flu: I mean, without even looking at it, the term "reasonable worst-case scenario" is the giveaway here, no? We didn't get the worst-case scenario. That... is normal. We usually don't. As it happens, this was also based off very early data from the Mexico outbreak, and this was revised downwards at a later date. This is pretty normal behaviour.

I see flu in this argument is no longer an illness that kills tens of thousands and is comparable to covid but is something that is relatively harmless. Good to know.

I missed the foot & mouth one. Quite remarkable how they don't seem to grasp that "mass culling" is actually one major reason why we didn't get near 150,000 deaths. I don't have easy access to what Ferguson wrote however so I can't be certain what the bounds were or what they were trying to model.

[Bimbowomxn]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

That they’re might not be a vaccine...


Me too.

[JM2K6]

Given that is the strategy that we are following, how is that working out for us? Must be going brilliantly.

I don't think there is a perfect solution. Their point is that this particular alternative being espoused is unworkable.

But the current solution is of course workable, which it patently isnt and definitely not in the long term.

Well: It's better than doing nothing. And the alternative under discussion is apparently worse than what we're currently doing. That's the gist of it.

Edit: I should be clear - what we're doing is not exactly what Germany's doing. It's largely the same approach in theory but the UK govt's handling of it has been poor and confused. I wouldn't want to blithely compare the two countries' approaches without at least acknowledging that.

[JM2K6]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

That they’re might not be a vaccine...


Me too.

Huh? That's fake news - they don't say that at all.

[Bimbowomxn]

It was the german scientists' view that was of interest there, but heyho.

That they’re might not be a vaccine...


Me too.

Huh? That's fake news - they don't say that at all.

If full infection doesn’t leave people protected then the vaccine will have to act unlike any other vaccine ever.

[JM2K6]

That they’re might not be a vaccine...


Me too.

Huh? That's fake news - they don't say that at all.

If full infection doesn’t leave people protected then the vaccine will have to act unlike any other vaccine ever.

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

[Bimbowomxn]

I missed the foot & mouth one. Quite remarkable how they don't seem to grasp that "mass culling" is actually one major reason why we didn't get near 150,000 deaths

Well if the trick keeps working.


There’s no doubt at all now that the idea of 150,000 deaths was for the birds.

[Northern Lights]

I don't think there is a perfect solution. Their point is that this particular alternative being espoused is unworkable.

But the current solution is of course workable, which it patently isnt and definitely not in the long term.

Well: It's better than doing nothing. And the alternative under discussion is apparently worse than what we're currently doing. That's the gist of it.

Edit: I should be clear - what we're doing is not exactly what Germany's doing. It's largely the same approach in theory but the UK govt's handling of it has been poor and confused. I wouldn't want to blithely compare the two countries' approaches without at least acknowledging that.

Sigh, which yet again no one unless they are absolutely barking is suggesting doing nothing but that of course is the willful misrepresentation of an alternative strategy.

Doubling down that, yeah that is what we are doing but we are shit at it doest cut it i am afraid, if we are shit at it we need a new strategy because i certainly dont see the health authorities, civil service or politicians dramatically improving things no matter the billions that have been thrown at this and the wider impact it is having on us all from the economy to the tunnel vision over this virus to exclusion of other health issues such as cancer screening etc.

[Bimbowomxn]

Huh? That's fake news - they don't say that at all.

If full infection doesn’t leave people protected then the vaccine will have to act unlike any other vaccine ever.

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

So the vaccine producing the “antibody lesson” works but the infection producing the “antibody lesson “ doesn’t ?

[JM2K6]

But the current solution is of course workable, which it patently isnt and definitely not in the long term.

Well: It's better than doing nothing. And the alternative under discussion is apparently worse than what we're currently doing. That's the gist of it.

Edit: I should be clear - what we're doing is not exactly what Germany's doing. It's largely the same approach in theory but the UK govt's handling of it has been poor and confused. I wouldn't want to blithely compare the two countries' approaches without at least acknowledging that.

Sigh, which yet again no one unless they are absolutely barking is suggesting doing nothing but that of course is the willful misrepresentation of an alternative strategy.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying this approach is working better than doing nothing, so it's by default "working" to an extent. The alternative approach under discussion appears to be worse. Better alternatives would be great and I hope countries continue to investigate their viability.

Doubling down that, yeah that is what we are doing but we are shit at it doest cut it i am afraid, if we are shit at it we need a new strategy because i certainly dont see the health authorities, civil service or politicians dramatically improving things no matter the billions that have been thrown at this and the wider impact it is having on us all from the economy to the tunnel vision over this virus to exclusion of other health issues such as cancer screening etc.

Any new strategy would still have these incompetents in charge of it, so I'm not sure that logic holds.

[JM2K6]

If full infection doesn’t leave people protected then the vaccine will have to act unlike any other vaccine ever.

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

So the vaccine producing the “antibody lesson” works but the infection producing the “antibody lesson “ doesn’t ?

In most cases people are getting a weak infection, right? So there's a weak response.

A vaccine can be made that provides a stronger response than what would happen naturally; the more salient point is you can have vaccine boosters to cope with the fact that the immune response might not hang around for very long.

The Germans are not claiming that a vaccine will not happen (which is of course a possibility!). They are simply stating that reinfection is a possibility and that the way we generate immunity via our antibodies is not conducive to getting herd immunity without a vaccine.

[Bimbowomxn]

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

So the vaccine producing the “antibody lesson” works but the infection producing the “antibody lesson “ doesn’t ?

In most cases people are getting a weak infection, right? So there's a weak response.

A vaccine can be made that provides a stronger response than what would happen naturally; the more salient point is you can have vaccine boosters to cope with the fact that the immune response might not hang around for very long.

The Germans are not claiming that a vaccine will not happen (which is of course a possibility!). They are simply stating that reinfection is a possibility and that the way we generate immunity via our antibodies is not conducive to getting herd immunity without a vaccine.

Yes, this super clever vaccine for a corona virus (there’s never been a vaccine succes for a Corona virus) will act by creating a stronger response (without infection) than the actual virus.

Is there any science on even “weak infections” yet let alone this amazing vaccine.?

The idea that a vaccine will be produced that is more infectious than the actual virus does seem odd. But hey these are the hoops we leap through.

[Northern Lights]

Well: It's better than doing nothing. And the alternative under discussion is apparently worse than what we're currently doing. That's the gist of it.

Edit: I should be clear - what we're doing is not exactly what Germany's doing. It's largely the same approach in theory but the UK govt's handling of it has been poor and confused. I wouldn't want to blithely compare the two countries' approaches without at least acknowledging that.

Sigh, which yet again no one unless they are absolutely barking is suggesting doing nothing but that of course is the willful misrepresentation of an alternative strategy.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying this approach is working better than doing nothing, so it's by default "working" to an extent. The alternative approach under discussion appears to be worse. Better alternatives would be great and I hope countries continue to investigate their viability.

Doubling down that, yeah that is what we are doing but we are shit at it doest cut it i am afraid, if we are shit at it we need a new strategy because i certainly dont see the health authorities, civil service or politicians dramatically improving things no matter the billions that have been thrown at this and the wider impact it is having on us all from the economy to the tunnel vision over this virus to exclusion of other health issues such as cancer screening etc.

Any new strategy would still have these incompetents in charge of it, so I'm not sure that logic holds.

A new strategy whereby they are not trying to deal with the entire population and that is more targetted might be within their capability but just dismissing it out of hand because alternative, in your opinion, appears worse does not help move us forward especially when the current strategy is so bad.

[Biffer]

Please read this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=30508&hilit=vaccine#p30508

Additionally, the Germans are saying people are protected when infected by the virus, but not for long enough for herd immunity to happen "naturally".

So the vaccine producing the “antibody lesson” works but the infection producing the “antibody lesson “ doesn’t ?

In most cases people are getting a weak infection, right? So there's a weak response.

A vaccine can be made that provides a stronger response than what would happen naturally; the more salient point is you can have vaccine boosters to cope with the fact that the immune response might not hang around for very long.

The Germans are not claiming that a vaccine will not happen (which is of course a possibility!). They are simply stating that reinfection is a possibility and that the way we generate immunity via our antibodies is not conducive to getting herd immunity without a vaccine.

I'm not sure why you're bothering. NL and bimbo have their small coterie of experts that they pay attention to because of their predisposition to agree with them, as NL admitted in an earlier post. Everyone else is ignored and then they just wail at you and attack sources, as per a fair number of the posts on this page. They then pick some detail to scream about until they can claim victory. Unscientific, poor understanding of the subject matter, and the more you answer them, the more they'll bang on with their borderline conspiracy theory nonsense *and they don't even realise they're lining themselves up with the conspiracy theorists).