advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XIX

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seanm said:
Context is important. That article is clearly framed as a “rapid response” to a live issue and as a letter to the editor: nobody is claiming it has the weight of a peer reviewed article.

Context of sharing and comments here is important too: Mandryka is using it to illustrate the fact that scientific discussion involves disagreement: one can’t expect a consensus on everything all the time, that can then be opposed to “politics” or whatever.

I shared it initially to point out that there is a debate specifically about vaccinating children and that it’s dishonest of Scully to pretend otherwise: you don’t have to assume that the JCVI is corrupt or incompetent to explain their decision, and in fact you need a very, very good reason to make the insinuation.
Click to expand...

No problem with that at all. Even a 'rapid response' needs to be valid and this one hints/suggests/draws at a concluion that is not valid. The BMJ might see it as a valid point to raise as a discussion point, but any regulatory agency would throw that out in an instant. The data he presents has only one possible valid inference - no statistically valid difference between serious events in vaccinated vs placebo groups. If one of my (clinical research) team had written that letter iot would have been covered in red ink and sent back for re-writing.

Just to show I have checked the numbers, for the assertion to be valid, the study would have required close on 3 times the number of observations.
 
You won't be surprised to know that Johnson got his stats wrong too

stuart mcdonald (@ActuaryByDay)

Oh Boris!

There’s a lot wrong with this. For one thing he compared median to mean, but crucially he’s wrongly using life expectancy (LE) at birth.

LE at age 80 is 9yrs for men and 10yrs for women

LE at age 90 is 4yrs for men and 5yrs for women

ONS https://t.co/CM5WO7hBXV pic.twitter.com/xF2TxlPtvI

July 19, 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...08bb57f5f7a61e#block-60f6a8ac8f08bb57f5f7a61e
 
Now I know that North Cumbria may not be representative of the UK as a whole but I’m quite impressed by how widespread mask wearing etc is. It isn’t not noticeably any different to last week.
 
hc25036 said:
No problem with that at all. Even a 'rapid response' needs to be valid and this one hints/suggests/draws at a concluion that is not valid. The BMJ might see it as a valid point to raise as a discussion point, but any regulatory agency would throw that out in an instant. The data he presents has only one possible valid inference - no statistically valid difference between serious events in vaccinated vs placebo groups. If one of my (clinical research) team had written that letter iot would have been covered in red ink and sent back for re-writing.

Just to show I have checked the numbers, for the assertion to be valid, the study would have required close on 3 times the number of observations.
Click to expand...


I think what's happening is this. The Government is trying to present their position as being reasonable partly through a connection with scientists; those who seek to present the Government in a bad light are trying to present their position as being reasonable partly through a connection with scientists. Both sides are finding the requisite scientists.

One conclusion to draw is that if someone says "this policy is informed by the science" you have to ask "whose science?" -- and then you're smack in the middle of the leading edge of a debate, in an area which is boiling with different opinions, perceptions -- opinions and perceptions which could well be informed by values.

In my opinion, there is no truth. When someone asks "should the UK vaccinate over 12s?", "should the UK have enacted the 19 July measures?" there is no right and there is no wrong. And the appeal to science doesn't inject truth, falsity, right, wrong into the whirl of organism which is the debate, the discussion. The most there can be is consensus, and that may never emerge until it's too late, and when it does emerge it is far from objective: consensus is arrived at through the social institutions - labs, universities, media, SW1 etc -- more or less settling on some point of view for a short while, agreeing not to differ, and moving on (to maybe make it all boil up again later.)
 
mandryka said:
I think what's happening is this. The Government is trying to present their position as being reasonable partly through a connection with scientists; those who seek to present the Government in a bad light are trying to present their position as being reasonable partly through a connection with scientists. Both sides are finding the requisite scientists.

One conclusion to draw is that if someone says "this policy is informed by the science" you have to ask "whose science?" -- and then you're smack in the middle of the leading edge of a debate, in an area which is boiling with different opinions, perceptions -- opinions and perceptions which could well be informed by values.

In my opinion, there is no truth. When someone asks "should the UK vaccinate over 12s?", ""should the UK have enacted the 19 July measures?" there is no right and there is no wrong. And the appeal to science doesn't inject truth, falsity, right, wrong into the whirl of organism which is the debate, the discussion. All there is is consensus, and that may never emerge until it's too late, and when it does it is far from objective: consensus is arrived at through the social institutions, labs, universities, SW1 etc -- more or less settling on some point of view for a short while, agreeing not to differ, and moving on (to maybe make it all boil up again later.)
Click to expand...

I did post a while back about the difficult ethical position for vaccinating children, involving the group ethic vs personal ethic. As part of the adult 'group', vaccinating children is justified because it will significantly reduce the risk to members of my group. For a child in the child 'group' vaccination makes little sense because I won't get very ill (on average) and the side effects from the vaccination could cause me more harm than any benefit from protection from COVID.

The JCVI seem to have come up with a brilliant compromise - vaccinating just children at higher risk from COVID and those living with particularly vulnerable adults. They need to be supported in that.
 
Last edited:
Switch the argument around - should the UK remain the only major economy that is failing to vaccinate teenagers? I think you'll find the decision is actually about availability as the regulator has already decided on the appropriateness - the early advantage has run its course now.

hc25036 said:
The JCVI seem to have come up with a brilliant compromise - vaccinating just children at higher risk from COVID and those living with particularly vulnerable adults. They need to be supported in that.
Click to expand...

Indeed but it's not enough - there are millions of adults in the broader at risk group, beyond the extremely vulnerable, who must send our kids to school.
 
gavreid said:
Switch the argument around - should the UK remain the only major economy that is failing to vaccinate teenagers? I think you'll find the decision is actually about availability as the regulator has already decided on the appropriateness - the early advantage has run its course now.
Click to expand...

In January you could have asked "should the UK remain the only major economy that is failing to give a second dose after three weeks?"

What I'm saying is, the question isn't the right one.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
mandryka said:
In January you could have asked "should the UK remain the only major economy that is failing to give a second dose after three weeks?"
Click to expand...

The was another gamble unsupported by the knowledge of the time - you can't win by playing double or quits all the time.
 
gavreid said:
Switch the argument around - should the UK remain the only major economy that is failing to vaccinate teenagers? I think you'll find the decision is actually about availability as the regulator has already decided on the appropriateness - the early advantage has run its course now.



Indeed but it's not enough - there are millions of adults in the broader at risk group, beyond the extremely vulnerable, who must send our kids to school.
Click to expand...
Why is "major economy" the criterion here? Ireland and others have made the same decision. I don't know if it's the correct one but it's not bonkers or evidence of exceptionalism, which is how it's being framed.
 
Seanm said:
Why is "major economy" the criterion here? Ireland and others have made the same decision. I don't know if it's the correct one but it's not bonkers or evidence of exceptionalism, which is how it's being framed.
Click to expand...

I meant the countries with access to vaccines - it's just shorthand
 
gavreid said:
I meant the countries with access to vaccines - it's just shorthand
Click to expand...

Ireland has access to vaccines (the rollout's going very well), so too do Greece, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Iceland. I'm not sure we can assume all these countries have decided not to vaccinate teenagers solely because of supply issues - although the fact is we're dealing with a finite resource that might be distributed in a more beneficial way.

Anyway, nothing's set in stone, here or elsewhere. I just don't approve of the methods being used to put the JCVI under pressure.

Edit: Germany, Italy also it seems. But all moving quite quickly.

And an example of the pressure I mentioned: Cadwalladr's "The Citizens" publishing a list of individual JCVI members demanding they repudiate the views of Robert Dingwall (which they have misrepresented):

https://twitter.com/allthecitizens/status/1417388785432674304?s=20
 
Seanm said:
Ireland has access to vaccines (the rollout's going very well), so too do Greece, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Iceland. I'm not sure we can assume all these countries have decided not to vaccinate teenagers solely because of supply issues - although the fact is we're dealing with a finite resource that might be distributed in a more beneficial way.

Anyway, nothing's set in stone, here or elsewhere. I just don't approve of the methods being used to put the JCVI under pressure.
Click to expand...

I just knew somebody would make such a comment,

Ireland as far as I know is having to resort to nasal sprays for lack of immediate availability

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release...acies-expanded-to-include-younger-age-groups/
 
Monitor Gold 10 said:
I'm pleased to say that everyone who can wear a face covering on the bus has been doing so. Same in the Café right now too.

Just an observation.
Click to expand...

Not good at all round here. I went to Asda earlier and I’d say at least a third of the staff and customers had no masks or concept of social distancing.

To my mind Tories have succeeded, we are now in the crazy libertarian/Darwinist ‘herd immunity’ strategy they sought from the off. It will obviously impact poor and less educated areas such as the one I live in the most, but I’m sure they fully understand that. I’m double-jabbed and was wearing a proper FFP2 mask so didn’t feel too at risk for the short run I made (I needed to speak to the pharmacist hence visiting at this time, I usually go late at night). It is done. We are Brazil now.
 
Seanm said:
The attack on the JCVI continues:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1417395359211573249?s=21
Click to expand...

In your ill-directed lashing out at Carole Cadwalladr you might inadvertently hit the real issue behind the current Tory ‘were done now, it’s between you and Darwin…’ strategy:

“We only got 40m doses of Pfizer which was never enough once policy changed to not use AZ on <40s. Next order of 60m doesn't start shipping until Sep. Can't admit that, so to not lose face in "vax race against EU" they made it policy to not vax teenagers and go for imm by inf.” (Twitter).

I don’t know the underlying source for that, but if it is true and can be verified it goes a long way in explaining what from any other perspective is clearly a total bonkers and irrational government trajectory. It also explains the otherwise incomprehensible announcement that nightclubs and similar venues will need ‘vaccine passports’ from Sept but the virus is allowed free transmission right now.

Anyone got a good hard source for this? Is the real story here that they’ve run out of vaccine and are deflecting?
 
46 558 cases, 96 deaths and 698 admissions (18th). We're still a good 200 per day beyond 20-day doubling (yellow)



I've gone back to the Warwick model, which was presented as evidence supporting the Roadmap and the lifting of restrictions earlier this year

"Conclusions:
Relaxation to a set of controls that are predicted to cause major waves of hospital admission if they occur in February (mild & moderate) have limited impact if they are delayed to April; but a complete and abrupt cessation of all NPIs is still problematic any time in 2021. [without Delta]"

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/coronavirus-the-new-strain-xvii.252938/page-13#post-4301887
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top