If you have friends who are conspiracy theorists/hate masks/vaccines...

[Campfirewood]

I really recommend the Royal Institution Christmas lectures from the BBC... I've really enjoyed (my geek-ery coming out here) learning about why the coronavirus is so successful, why masks work, how we test (why is a PCR more sensitive than LFT) and then how vaccines work. There are over 3 hours of info/tests/experiments but it's really interesting. Including the professor who helped create the AZ Vaccine, Katie Ewer, (bit of a girl crush on her).

As someone who is generally nervous about vaccines (but I've had them all, whilst scared!) it really helped. They are very intelligent people, who cumulatively, have studied their fields for hundreds of years telling me why it's just science and, makes sense has really helped.

Anyway, they're here...

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b00pmbqq/royal-institution-christmas-lectures

I blame the government for this. They have merged the two, either deliberately or because they don't really understand the science, and used the dictum that they are 'following the science' as a way of deflecting so that now a lot of people think it is Chris Whitty's fault that such measures are being introduced. It really isn't. The scientists' messages are much more nuanced and subtle than they are given credit for.

Yes, ‘we’re following the science’ has done so much damage to understanding of science.

And also to transparency - we would be in a much better position in terms of trust if we were able to see full reports on scientific discussions, but there are so many malign actors out there who knowingly misrepresent scientific discussion - and then other extremists who target scientists with some pretty nasty behaviour.

Can we wonder that these discussions end up largely behind closed doors with that kind of behaviour?

For a really objective differing view about mrna listen to this interview by the inventor of many of the first mrna patents. open.spotify.com/episode/3SCsueX2bZdbEzRtKOCEyT

That is of course if people really want to hear a differing opinion by a man who knows his stuff

I think these threads probably attract people with a degree of scientific knowledge - some much greater than mine! And as others have said a lot of scientists are really poor communicators - or suffer from what they are saying for an expert audience being directly communicated to a lay audience and the understanding suffering in consequence.

But there are definitely people - on all sides, really - who would prefer us all to stay bamboozled and to just do what they say.

Thankfully there are very many more who are willing to patiently explain things, share their own findings and others’ and importantly where we just don’t know.

I’ve become a total Covid data nerd during the pandemic and I’ve learned SO MUCH about more advanced maths and statistics than I did before. So grateful to all the people who are sharing their expertise. Even more grateful when they’re open about getting something wrong.

My own rule of thumb is that any ‘expert’ who will never say that they don’t know, or who aren’t honest about the limits of the evidence base or their own knowledge and mistakes, is someone I’m really uncomfortable about putting too much faith in. Big fan of primary sources where they are publicly available.

@Gooddog

For a really objective differing view about mrna listen to this interview by the inventor of many of the first mrna patents. open.spotify.com/episode/3SCsueX2bZdbEzRtKOCEyT

That is of course if people really want to hear a differing opinion by a man who knows his stuff

It’s almost as if this thread hadn’t already discussed Robert Malone in quite some detail, or as if this poster isn’t interested in engaging in the ongoing discussion.

Do you feel better about yourself for saying that @JassyRadlett

@Gooddog

Do you feel better about yourself for saying that *@JassyRadlett*

I don't know why you're so offended by JassyRadlett's post - they are merely stating that the person in the video you have linked to has been extensively discussed already and the major flaws in his credentials pointed out. Why do you have a problem with that?

How interesting that this thread comes with advertising for face masks.
Fancy that.

@pointythings The Great Barrington Declaration has at the current time been signed by over 15k medical and public health scientists as well as over 45k medical practitioners.

Many of these people will have lost their livelihoods for speaking out.

Instead of making fatuous and ignorant statements about something you know absolutely nothing about I suggest you look it up.

You might even learn something.

@KeepingAnOpenMind

How interesting that this thread comes with advertising for face masks. Fancy that.

Mine doesn't, mine comes with anti-virus software for Macs and Pizza Express

[quote KeepingAnOpenMind]@pointythings The Great Barrington Declaration has at the current time been signed by over 15k medical and public health scientists as well as over 45k medical practitioners.

Many of these people will have lost their livelihoods for speaking out.

Instead of making fatuous and ignorant statements about something you know absolutely nothing about I suggest you look it up.

You might even learn something.[/quote]
I have looked it up. I stand by my point: a declaration that does not check the credentials of its signatories reduces its own credibility. The Declaration also, as has been pointed out upthread, dates from before the vaccines. It's a self-indulgent piece of nonsense which has been well and truly overtaken by the science.

And as also mentioned upthread, having a degree in a medically related field does not necessarily qualify you to speak with credibility on the current situation. My GP could say all kinds of things on COVID - but would still be a GP, not an expert in the field.

[quote KeepingAnOpenMind]@pointythings The Great Barrington Declaration has at the current time been signed by over 15k medical and public health scientists as well as over 45k medical practitioners.

Many of these people will have lost their livelihoods for speaking out.

Instead of making fatuous and ignorant statements about something you know absolutely nothing about I suggest you look it up.

You might even learn something.[/quote]
What do you think the signatories of the Great Barrington declaration want to happen now?
Do you have any actual examples of people who signed this and lost their livelihoods?
I thought this was something from 2020, not something anyone is still seriously discussing.

@Gooddog I don’t think Dr Malone is someone many people on this thread take seriously. He’s been widely discredited. Might be worth doing some research?

@KeepingAnOpenMind is that the declaration that anyone could sign? Lots did with fake credentials (Dr Cominic Dummings was one I think?). Homeopaths signed it. I could have signed it and I have no scientific background at all. It’s been totally discredited. 🤷‍♀️

@Gooddog

Do you feel better about yourself for saying that *@JassyRadlett*

I don’t feel any differently. I wonder why you felt the need to (mildly) attack me rather than engaging with the point I made?

Do you feel good about dumping a link without reading the thread acknowledging the context, or engaging in the conversation honestly and in good faith? I note you’ve not addressed any of the points people have raised.

(My ads are Coke Zero, puregym and compare the market. Algorithms, eh?)

I don't know why you're so offended by JassyRadlett's post - they are merely stating that the person in the video you have linked to has been extensively discussed already and the major flaws in his credentials pointed out. Why do you have a problem with that?

Have they? All that's been claimed is that Malone is peddling conspiracy theories. He's a well published doctor who has himself been vaxxed, so he's not anti-vax. It's so easy to dismiss every dissenting view as being a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer with no nuance. Perhaps he just has a different opinion.

As I have said earlier, sometimes things change and that changes peoples (even scientists) opinion on the best way forward.

We were told to trust the science when Albert Bourla (Pfizer boss) claimed that the Pfizer jab is 100% effective (which was obviously not correct). If we are going to discuss "misinformation" does that apply to him as many people will have chosen to be vaccinated believing the jabs were 100% effective against covid or is it simply that sometimes things change and people are allowed to change their opinion and question the science.

@JassyRadlett

(My ads are Coke Zero, puregym and compare the market. Algorithms, eh?)

I also have coke zero. And Leciester university for some reason.

@KeepingAnOpenMind

How interesting that this thread comes with advertising for face masks. Fancy that.

Mine are for National Express and Smiggle.

Strange.

We were told to trust the science when Albert Bourla (Pfizer boss) claimed that the Pfizer jab is 100% effective (which was obviously not correct). If we are going to discuss "misinformation" does that apply to him as many people will have chosen to be vaccinated believing the jabs were 100% effective against covid or is it simply that sometimes things change and people are allowed to change their opinion and question the science.

Again this seems like a case of taking something out of context to try and prove a point.

Bourla said that the pfizer vaccine was 100% effective in a trial of 12-15 year olds. This was correct based on what happened in this specific trial.

If someone tries repeat this statement without those limitators or the relevant caveats, or imply that it means it will be 100% effective in a real word setting, then yup sure, that's misinformation.

First, I’ve got nothing against debate. Healthy debate and discussion is good. It was the dump and run with no manners I objected to. Hate it when people think their uncontextual contribution must be so much more interesting and important than anything that’s come before.

Can you share where Bourla said Pfizer had 100% VE against infection? I can only find where he said it was 100% against severe disease according to the CDC definition (and lower against FDA) and 100% VE within the South African trial subset or within other trial subsets?

I’m not saying that Bourla is above reproach - he’s a company CEO and is obviously going to try to paint his company in a good light and highlight the good data - but I’m having trouble tracking down the primary source.

However I don’t think we should uncritically trust the media statements of company CEOs about their products; that’s why we have clinical trials, peer review, regulatory approval and post-approval monitoring.

We look at what the science tells us, and have a degree of trust in the process, yes. But the process is not the same as a CEO media soundbite; I think it’s a little dishonest to conflate the two.

All that's been claimed is that Malone is peddling conspiracy theories. He's a well published doctor who has himself been vaxxed, so he's not anti-vax. It's so easy to dismiss every dissenting view as being a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer with no nuance. Perhaps he just has a different opinion.

@soredust

Ok so specific examples. His opinions include the following:

-claiming treatments like ivermectin and HCQ are effective in treating/preventing COVID
-claiming more people die due to vaccination than they do from COVID
-claiming the vaccines cause infertility
-claiming the vaccines cause prion disease

• claiming causality for VAERS data (i.e., claiming every report is an adverse event due to vaccination)

And his most offensive (IMO) tweet that was all in caps, along the lines of:

"VACCINE MASS KILLS CHILDREN IN VIETNAM" with a link to a fake news website, no other information.

Is that a tweet that someone truely interested in public health & child safety would send? No advice to parents about what they should do, no guidance for people who had just had their children/themselves vaccinated about side effects to look out for or if they should take kids to ER, no reassurance of what next steps would be. Just a tweet put out to coerce and scare people from vaccination.

All this is repeated on the podcast, with a healthy dollop of anti-Semitism and repeated comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I'm sure we could all argue that some Scientists credentials are better than others or that some have 'questionable' financial links to the different pharma firms.

Go on to this site which is a not for profit completely unbiased table giving loads of information gleaned from the Goverments own statistics.
www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/

I'd be interested to know the numbers for those hospitalised with flu like illnesses during 2018 & 2019. I'd be very surprised if they were massively less than those shown during 2020/2021.

PHE did annual flu surveillance reports didn’t they? Though question is whether the data is directly comparable.

I always think, Fox Mulder in the sense that just because millions may think x, does not mean they are correct about x, same way in the past, earth was the centre of the universe, ect.

@jewel1968

Scientists do disagree. On balance I have had the vaccine and wear masks etc ... but I do know and read scientists that disagree with this approach. I am more persuaded by those that encourage vaccine etc .. doesn't mean I am right. Feels right to me and my limited understanding of what the scientists say.

I saw a epidemiologist on TV yesterday saying that kids wearing masks in school would not do any harm but these was no evidence it made any difference. Later that day I read another epidemiologist say there was evidence and referenced about 4 or 5 pieces of research. Both epidemiologists in the UK. Intuitively I side with mask wearing. I don't have time or skill to read and critique the research links she shared.

Yeah, I do not understand this idea that any questions around various public health approaches are "anti-science". I think you need to be incredibly simple in your understanding of science and how it works to talk that way. I come from a medical family, some directly involved in covid public health response, my spouse is a professional scientist, they all have a variety of views on things around covid. People might also observe that not all countries have made the same choices. Where I live, not all provinces in the country have made the same choices.

The fact that some people are unaware that there are differences in views points to something of a restricted set of information, whether it's some kind of attempts to suppress certain views causing it, or what I think is probably a more important element, people creating their own information bubble.

I read an interesting study out of MIT that touches on this, it was looking at how people who were anti-masking or disagreed with certain other covid measures could be better communicated with - if they would respond to better visuals, or explanations of the data, etc. What they concluded was that no, actually their understanding of data and how to evaluate it was as good or even better, and they were actually less naive about science. The main difference, the study said, from other people was in their attitude - they were more committed as a group to questioning the information they received. Keep in mind the people who did the study were actually looking to change the minds of these people in support of public health.