Leaderboard

I get that way when I see folks too lazy to to check their own sources and as a result promote dangerous misinformation. Especially when the claims are ridiculous. PhaseI is never dropped as it is a requirement to recruit a larger cohort (especially if preclinical data is lacking) From your link: How does it square with your claim that: It is bad (but perhaps not fatal) to misunderstand something. But it is worse to spread misinformation and then put in a link that contradicts the assertion, apparently hoping that folks would not read. Heck, here is a graph showing the timeline and the overlap between I/II/III. There is misunderstanding, which I am happy to help clear up and there is willful misrepresentation. This is not an example of the former. I also note that you entirely missed the issue of endpoints and rather seem to develop an own idea how trials should be rather how they are in reality. Edit: It is a bit rich in accusing someone of using outdated data and then present papers to delta. That aside the percentage in the paper refer to the secondary attack rate (SAR), which is basically the ratio between numbers of new cases among contacts to the total number of contacts. A SAR of 25% would indicate one new infection after four contacts, whereas a SAR of 38% would indicate one infection after 2.6 contacts (i.e. vaccination resulted in a reduction by ca. 34%). There are a couple of more studies out there but fundamentally they roughly show that vaccinations in delta reduce transmission roughly by half (some show more, some less). The authors do describe why they had overall SAR, and this is because they measured most of it in household settings, where SAR is higher due to ongoing contact with an infected person. With regard to omicron, studies found that two shots do not confer much of immunity anymore, but a booster shot still reduces transmission by half (i.e. comparable to two-shots with delta). The immunity does go down with time, but is still protective for at least 6 months. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050721/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-4.pdf See page 14. I will reiterate, we are entering a new phase where proper risk assessment is going to be increasingly relevant. Spreading misinformation has contributed significantly to the disease burden and deaths we have seen so far and we have to take a strong stance against it. I do get that being anti-consensus can make one feel like something special, but here we are not talking about something theoretical ideas. Here, our actions have immediate impact on those around us and we have seen that misinformation kills. I am happy to address and discuss things that may be confusing, as frankly the whole mess is not necessarily straightforward. However disseminating outright misinformation is dangerous and should be treated like spread of similar dangerous information. I am pretty sure that at this point more folks died from misinformation related to COVID-19 than from trying to do dangerous experiments, for example, and we have a policy against the latter.

Don't give up now that you have started to do so well. +1 for encouragement. I'm sorry if you feel confused, but remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. And yes, it's complicated. But your last post, in particular, shows that you are now understanding my comments. See below about the application of black bodies.* It's also true that if you want numbers then some mathematics is unavoidable. But a great deal can still be achieved by discussing the principles and their application. It is also worth noting that obtaining something from discussion is two way. I certainly am grateful for the personal clarification I often gain when trying to explain something to others. *I did promise to reply separately to the other point about temperature and I have come to the conclusion that that particular point is so important that it deserves a thread all of its own so watch for further developments. The S_B law is quite precise when it is applied to small bodies which have surfaces at essentially the same temperature. But the Earth is (in this context) a large body with substantial variation of temperature over its surface and in time. In such cases one possibility is to introduce the idea of an 'equivalent black body'. An equivalent black body is a BB with the same heat radiation flux as the Earth's actual flux. This is definable and manageable with the formulae so calculations can be performed using the temperature this equivalent black body must have. This equivalent BB temperature might be (probably will be) different from any of the different ways of averaging measurements over the Earth's surface. What temperature to use and how to arrive at that temperature is therefore of vital importance to climate science and is the proposed subject of my new thread to be. I hope this encouragement helps.

X-post with CharonY's edit Second edit just point out that that the Lancet study did not achieve a statistically significant result, primarily due to the fact they only observed 12 breakthrough transmission events. Even then, as CharonY points out - it demonstrates a 34% reduction in transmission. Also back to a more central point - if your concern is the prospect of acute myocarditis; acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine. So if the claim is that the long term effects of S protein induced myocarditis are unknown, you have a very succinct mathematical risk analysis between the risk of acquiring natural immunity vs vaccine immunity. If the claim is that administration of the BNT162b2 vaccine may cause acute myocarditis months/years after the fact, you should be able to demonstrate mechanism given the constant exposure to microbial mRNA that all humans experience.

IOW, it's a lot easier to bash in the face of a "pedophile" than of some skinny old man in a grey cardigan. It's a lot easier to attach electrodes to the genitals of "a mad bomber" than to listen to a brainwashed teenager scream. It's a lot easier to make up stories and be sure exactly what you would think, do and feel in a simple, made-up situation than to face a complex set of unknowns. The only people who are sure are people who have never been in the same building with that kind of situation. Yeah. We all are. I happen to be aware of it.

I did. You literally just quoted the links to the peer reviewed papers.

That is covered in one of the psychology papers i linked to. Seems to boil down to belief perseverance.

Citation? All the data being shown here is related to extremists, the military, people believed to be extremists, etc. Where is the data on torture regarding people like you and me? If there is none then how can we make the claim that it doesn't work on people like you and me? How much torture is someone willing to endure to avoid giving up the location of their car keys? There doesn't seem to be the data to support the blanket claim that torture doesn't work.

That's the reason torture doesn't work: you'll say anything to avoid more pain, even if you're not guilty. I'll do and say anything to find more pain. How can the torturer tell the difference? It's only in Hollywood that, the good guy's can stoicaly endure the pain for the greater good and the bad guy's can only give it out, but can't take it.

SwansonT, studiot, and joigus, thank you for your responses. I studied all of the references you suggested, but unfortunately, the mathematical equations were beyond my comprehension. I was left with just general impressions. ............................................................ SwansonT, my minor problem in response to a question by studiot, wasn’t an understanding of the 15 degrees C and the -18 degrees C, but the reference to how the -18 degrees C was calculated. You at least gave me a source for that. and I thank you accordingly. I can understand that our atmosphere discharges some heat energy into space and that this probably conforms to some extent to the SB Law. This student is dumber than you imagine, and can only understand the very basics. ...................................................... studiot may have provided a better understanding for me concerning the role of SBL principles within our atmospheric dynamics. He points out that “There are two coefficients called emissivity and absorbitivity which relate to energy in the general case and heat in a particular case...... All bodies are in a state of both continual emission and continual absorbtion.” He suggests that a grey body is an imperfect black body; i.e., a physical object that partially absorbs or emits incident electromagnetic radiation. So, in one sense he seems to be suggesting that the SBL is not restricted to ideal black bodies and that virtually every body at molecular or macro- level can be regarded as an emitter or absorber to some extent, depending on temperature and other factors. Now I may have totally misunderstood studiot, and misquoted him, but it is becoming obvious to me that I’m not going to be able to satisfy my curiosity about climate science matters by persisting in this thread. ..................................................................... joigus spoke about ‘periodicity’ or lack of it, being the aspect that I’m missing in the whole picture. To some extent he re-inforces studiot’s notion when he states “Indeed, the Earth is not a black body, but you can rest assured that the part of the radiation spectrum from any physical body that contains thermal information about that body (that is, excludes reflected light, or light that goes through it) nicely fits that of a black body. A black body does not reflect any light, that way you get to the part of radiation from anything made of atoms that's only due to radiation having been in thermal equilibrium (or bouncing around long enough inside the body) and then started to re-radiate those photons. Most of the light you receive from a rock that's sitting on your desk is reflected light. Certainly the one in the visible frequencies is (at room temperature). But if you were sensitive enough to see the infrared, you would see a frequency-dependent graph that agrees with the black-body spectrum.” ............................................................. My thinking about climate change commences basically with my own mental images initially of temperature-recording devices in Stevenson Screens on land, in ships and buoys, and in satellites. I picture the gases in the atmosphere around the land and sea becoming active due to absorbed energy at the molecular level and transmitting emitted energy to the temperature sensors. To my mind, that is what climate change is all about. If the average global annual temperatures weren’t rising due to increasing energy fluxes at the temperature-sensing device mechanisms, there would be no problems associated with ‘climate change”. I can understand the science of how the the energy reaching the surface from the sun and radiative forcing appears to be calculated as a global average at about 156 Wm-2, and how this results in a change in the Earth’s near surface annual average temperature from 255 K to 288. If it’s mathematically incorrect to equate that 33 degrees K with the 156 Wm-2 affecting the atmosphere near the temperature-recording devices, my question would be whether there’s a more complicated mathematical connection, or is it an indirect association. I’ve not received an answer that I can comprehend. I’m unable to glean that from the answers I’ve received, so my curiosity has turned to confusion. I’ve concluded that I can’t learn any more in this forum about the basics. I concede that the reason is most probably my own inability to comprehend the mathematical equations used in the science you’ve all provided but I thank you for your efforts. I’ve decided to retire from this thread because of my own inability to comprehend the responses you have all made in an effort to satisfy my curiosity. I repeat that I thank you all for your efforts..

20cm Stanley London brass Marine sextant. Antique 10 inch brass & wooden gimbal compass.

Who is doing the torturing is really irrelevant to the discussion. Having the Father doing the interrogation would be a poor choice for a number of different reasons; emotional state, lack of training, post traumatic stress... etc. However I do understand that he may want to and why, since most who have children, especially young vulnerable children will stop at nothing to ensure their safety (myself included). Probably, if a possible real life scenario is to be used, the mad bomber one is a better choice. The question remains, is there any situation when all else fails where, regardless of law, that torture in an attempt to obtain a better overall outcome can be justified?

She heard a noise, thought an intruder was coming in, shot before she looked. I was saying that people make tragic mistakes when they take drastic action without thinking. Isn't exactly detailed information. These "thought-experiments" are made up to have only two facets, instead of the 68 or so a real crime has. I don't make life-and-death decisions on a hunch, or a layman's diagnosis of the mental illness of an anonymous stranger, or a cardboard mock-up. Nobody does. People in the field - any field - deal with the complex, various, messy situations they have to confront, one situation at a time, one decision at a time, based on all the hundreds of facts available to them in that moment, in that situations. The only part of this question anyone can answer truthfully is "What do you believe to be to right/wrong?" The only honest answer to "What would you do if...?" is "I don't know." (Unless, of course, you have actually been in such situations and had to do something - but then you probably wouldn't discuss it in public.)

The science justifies all methods that can help to reduce the spread, from social distancing, wearing masks, and lockdowns where necessary. No one, (as far as I know is held down and been forcibly jabbed), by the same token, mandatory rules about fully vaccinations are most certainly desirable in some industries, such as health workers, store assistants and other areas of concern. Thankfully these mandatory rules do apply in many parts of Australia, and just as thankfully the noisy minority of anti vaxxer nuts is getting less and less and being gradually drowned out.

Might it be helpful to separate out the legal implications of torture (a society that legislates torture as okay) and the realworld implications of some rare and extreme emergency situation. I mean, clearly there's a strong case that a civilized nation should ban torture and not make its citizenry complicit in brutal sadism. But it is also quite sensible to say "this terrorist knows where a nuke is located in Manhattan, which will kill millions of people if detonated, so we will step outside the law in this extreme moment and do whatever it takes to get him to reveal the location." Torture still might not work, but even a low probability of getting an accurate answer, with millions of lives at stake, might be worth it. This action would not be saying that torture is generally right, or that a nation as a legal entity should ever support it. Millions of lives at stake. I feel this example might be less clouded by emotions than pedophile scenarios where the focus tends to be on revulsion for the sicko monsters.

The earth. The earth ultimately loses energy via radiation, and will emit in a blackbody spectrum. There are a number of processes involved in global warming, but that's all modifications of internal processes. You were discussing why were are at 15ºC rather than -18 and the implications for the power involved. Being warmer means you radiate more heat, but the amount goes up as T4. If you use the S-B law, you can figure out why the earth would be at -18C without an atmosphere. It's explained in the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law#Effective_temperature_of_the_Earth You can also see what effect the atmosphere and other processes have by looking at the radiated power at 15C. (note that the number that goes into the equation has to be in Kelvins, as in the link. This impacts some of your calculations) Then we could look at the other errors you made in your analysis. Your linear assumption was just the big one that jumped out at me.

You're view is based on a major misconception: That you can expedite long-term safety testing by simply throwing money and people at the experiment - you can't. The aim of long-term safety testing is to establish safety over, say 3 years, because some long-term side-effects only manifest themselves after a number of years, as may be the case with infertility. For instance, recently Pfizer highlighted there was insufficient data on the myocarditis risk to young children with their covid vaccine, and to fully understand this risk these children would need to be monitored for 5 years. It doesn't matter whether you throw 10,000 people or 1 million people in to a 4 month trial, the data you get will only be for 4 months - adverse effects may not be seen for 2 years in all of these subjects - you cannot expedite human metabolism and latent reactions - time is a standard metric you cannot 'speed up', hence why clinical trials can take up to 10 years, or 6 years minimum. Your analogy presents many fallacies where you conflate a constant (time to reach a destination / time it takes to get long term safety data) with the ability to speed up that constant (police escort in a traffic jam / adding more people and money can speed up time). A better travel analogy would be: In 1066 it would take you 5 days to travel between London and Birmingham by horse on your own (the horse being the fastest mode or transport at the time). Throwing 500 more horse riders at the journey will not make you or anyone else get there any quicker - on average it will still take 5 days. The limiting factor is the fitness of the horse, you may be able to tweak the weight the horse carries (speed of developing a vaccine), but by and large you are restricted by the constant of time and the metabolic requirements of the horse that cannot be changed regardless of money and people thrown at it (this represents the metabolic constant of humans, you cannot increase this rate to reduce the reaction time of the vaccine trial). What exactly is the red herring you are referring to? You haven't rebutted any of my points. In the quote of Arete she does not deal with long-term safety trial data. Please show me the many 'other vaccines' you claim don't have any long term data. The recent Ebola vaccine was rushed through and safety corners were cut, but this still took 6 years to produce. Your claim doesn't appear to have merit. The long-term safety data is usually part of the clinical trial - hence why the PfizerCovid vaccine is still in its trial phase and won't finish till March 2023 - they are actively collating the long-term data because sufficient time has not yet passed to show any long-term data - how then, can it be claimed to be safe, when by Pfizers own admission, through the way in which the trial has been set up (standard trial requirements), the long-term safety part of the trial is still underway? ..."it"... what exactly are you referring to? What is "it" in reference to various vaccines with different efficacy and disease threat ratios?

This is a nonsensical response that lacks meaning or context - odd coming from a 'biology expert'. A phase 3 longitudinal study is designed over several years to establish the long-term side effects of a drug or vaccine - or have you forgotten this? Yes here you go: this is from the FDA website (the link is below the quote, which is on page 11) "The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination. Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis." https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download See my previous response regarding a nonsensical comment and context in terms of phase 3 studies looking at long term safety data.

I've read the thread and can see no evidence or points being made that support your flippant and lazy response of 'false, false and false' to the points I raised in relation to them. I also see that most of your comments are deflections away from dealing with the points raised - hence your unsubstantiated 'false, false, false' claims are followed by your misdirection away from my request for you to justify your position. My assertion is that you can't justify your position with evidence, and you'll likely respond in another dismissive manner, use further misdirection and possibly resort to childish memes again to deflect attention away from my simple request to support the claims you make. "aggressively trolling"... lol... it's called having a discussion. Making incorrect assertions like this only exposes your inability to support your view by reverting to making more incorrect assertions about my intentions and actions. Please justify your 'false, false, false' claims, otherwise your contribution here is pointless - unless its simply to push your bias.

Incoherent and again nonsensical responses, and you've managed to contradicted yourself arguing against your own previous point. You previously stated: " the studies are done after the trials and after they've been authorized fror use. You can only get long term data by putting it out in the field. Phase 3 trials test for acute reactions and efficacy." You were arguing that 11 months to create a vaccine is sufficient for safety - I disagreed stating that Phase 3 longitudinal studies haven't been performed, which take at least 1 year and can span several years. I also confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine trial doesn't end till March 2023. You attempted to conflate Phase 3 trials with data collection performed after the approval and administration of the vaccine in an attempt to falsely support the notion that 11 months provides enough saftey data. I corrected you again highlighting that Phase 3 studies, according to the NHS, last at least 1 year and can be several years. I also highlighted that Phase 4 is the point at which data is collated after a vaccine is 'licensed' and administered, which you seem to have confused with Phase 3. Then contradicting your own opinion, and vindicating my point the link you provided actually states: "Studies for Phase III clinical trials usually take from 1 to 4 years." "in general, completing the first 3 phases of clinical trials can take 10-15 years or longer before starting the approval stage." One would think, that for a novel RNA vaccine never administered before in humans on such a large scale, we should be using the maximum time possible to ensure it is safe long term before unleashing it on the entire global population and speaking of mandating it. A final point - in that same link, it states something critical to this discussion: "If you are thinking of taking part in a clinical trial or an observational study, you should be clearly aware of how long it will last and the time commitment it will require from you. This information should be very clear before signing the informed consent." Informed consent is legally required before submitting oneself to a clinical trial. The current Pfizer vaccine is still in its clinical trial phase (phase III closes in March 2023) - How can this vaccine be legally mandated when it is still in its trial phase and informed consent is removed?

3) Interesting response where you make false statements that make it appear to others that I've misunderstood the subject matter - this is misleading and disingenuous. 1, 2) Phase 1 trials were dropped, already this is questionable. Phase II studies started in May. Phase III started in Aug. Vaccine was approved for use in some countries in December. That's approximately 4 months of data in the Phase III trial before it was approved. As we've already determined, Phase 3 longitudinal studies last at least a year - unless of course you're not bothered about identifying long term complications such as infertility, myocarditis, brain damage for multiple vaccines and their boosters, etc... You are defending the indefensible, why? 4) Even so, this is not a measure of vaccine safety, efficacy nor is it any sort of justification for making these experimental vaccines mandatory. I've also not mentioned the scrapping of the mandate. It's clear that unbiased discussion is not your intent: You did exactly what I expected, again dismissive, making excuses and you've not been able to support your 'false, false, false' claims, instead you've provided a weak, questionable and outdated CDC study against immunity highlighting your confirmation bias. Anyone can cherrypick data to support their opinion. You are quick to pass judgement, but when pressed to support your position, you can't. Which would explain why your appear so aloof in your responses. Here's a detailed analysis of both your chosen CDC study and the Israeli study that shows natural immunity to be 27 times more effective than vaccine induced immunity. Here Martin Kulldorff concludes the Israeli study to be far more accurate and trustworthy. https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

You're unfortunately using old data based upon the alpha and delta variant, we are now into Omicron. A similar study in the Lancet found that transmission in vaccinated was 25% compared with 38% in unvaccinated, this was again with delta https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext Here it was found that the viral load was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v6 Please see previous comments regarding long term studies, and the fact that the current vaccine trail doesn't finish until 2023, highlighting that all the safety data isn't collated yet.

No, the science doesn't justify all methods currently being proposed and used to reduce the spread. I thought this was a scientific forum - none of these claims have any basis in science regarding the current zeitgeist the evidence is quite the opposite of the opinion you just expressed - I get the impression that this forum has devolved into an echo chamber for those who simply want to believe in the official narrative. And rather than using evidence, misguided opinion seems to be the order of the day. How condescending are you? I like how your approach is to a discussion that challenges your perspective is to make it appear as though the other person is misinformed. For your information I used the data presented in the respected medical journal 'NATURE' the link is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1 How can a 'biology expert' be so wrong on so many points? You've made many misconceptions I'm afraid. Each vaccine's efficacy and safety need to be taken in context and on their own merits. Yes vaccination is good, but not all vaccines are made equal, it is naive to assume that all vaccines are good. Vaccinating a child at near zero risk of covid, with an experimental vaccine that has no long-term safety data when that child has already developed natural immunity is immoral, unethical and scientifically unjustifiable especially given the increased risk of myocarditis, and the fact that this risk has not been studied, not to mention over stimulation of the immune system. Since when has it been acceptable to experiment on children? I think you should look up the word logic, because I'm afraid you've not applied it here.

I think the point you are missing is that more relevant / recent data is available - why use old data? Doing so indicates a misinformed view or confirmation bias. Please provide the evidence for these statistics.