What if “the impact of the programme on morbidity & mortality among vulnerable persons” is slight or not detectable?
Priority groups for coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 2 December 2020
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-2-december-2020/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-2-december-2020
The impact of vaccine delivery on non-pharmaceutical interventions.
In a situation of constrained vaccine supply, population level protection will not be achievable immediately.
Once we have evidence of the impact of the programme on morbidity and mortality amongst vulnerable persons, the initial phase of the vaccination programme could allow the subsequent relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions in some sectors of the population.
Government advice on non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be followed.
So, what if “the impact of the programme on morbidity & mortality among vulnerable persons” is slight or not detectable?
I ask in seriousness because I no longer think ‘real covid’ is a public health emergency level event at all.
Of course, some people are still catching the virus & a few still die. But the magnitude of the effect is so slight that, if we weren’t running a large-scale & untrustworthy PCR mass testing system, it’d be impossible to detect anything unusual going on.
This is because there isn’t a large & unusual public health crisis going on. There are a large number of people whose deaths are attributed to Covid19. But this doesn’t make it true.
If it’s not, then vaccination isn’t going to impact it. So back to my question with a horrible sinking feeling.
What if “the impact of the programme on morbidity & mortality among vulnerable persons” is slight or not detectable?
Yardley Yeadon
https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1335548022353244160
the Key Points (referenced at end of post).
You're just proving my point over and over again. You have absolutely no understanding, absolutely no thinking, absolutely no personal input and all you do is copy/paste the same stuff again and again without comment.
You've now ignored my direct questions 3 times so the simple conclusion is you dont understand the slightest bit about the subject to even start to have an informed opinion.
...an informed opinion.
Your posts are consistently insulting, disingenuous and misleading. Anyone can go and look at your posts and see this to be true, not only on this thread but other threads on this forum. Why would I engage with someone who's sole mission is to sow discontent?
The following key points are referenced to an interview with Dr Mike Yeadon, former CSO & VP Allergy Respiratory Research Pfizer Global. I think his opinion carries more weight than yours.
Some Key Points (referenced at end of post).
Reference - Watch the video (Original post also referenced as follows)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FQUmw5QljM
'Stong evidence' of Covid herd immunity in the UK
Dr Mike Yeadon, a former chief scientific adviser with Pfizer, has claimed there is "strong evidence" that the UK has developed some herd immunity against coronavirus.
Speaking with talkRADIO, the lockdown sceptic said it was shown by the "lack" of Covid deaths happening in London.
“It was about 200-250 a day seven months ago. I checked three days ago, it was nine - so about 95-96% lower".
Dr Yeadon also voiced concerns over the mass roll out of the newly approved Pfizer and BioNTech jab, because it was "too early" to know the long term safety or effectiveness.
Watch the Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRLnM8DsLLM
Hi, Splatt, I would like to answer your questions, the best I can.
1.How do you explain the increase in the percentage of positive tests along with the increase in overall positive tests that rises ahead of any changes in test capacity with NO other variables changed ?
a) The season. The increase of corona virus related infections - not THE current coronavirus, our epidemic culprit.
b) Flu inoculation is a possibility
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/
2. Why do you insist on carping on about false positives when you fail to realise you need symptoms to get a standard test so its a confirmatory diagnostic.
Theoretically, on paper, you have to have symptoms to test. This is what gov.uk tells us. In reality, the people tested en masse in Liverpool did not have symptoms.
In work places: with each positive test there is an avalanche of testing. Because among managers and Public Health the science we see on paper dissolves.
Real life situation: worker gets a cold. She is told to get a test although she does not have THE symptoms, but the symptoms of a seasonal cold. She tests positive, because the test is sensitive. The rest of the building is told to take a test although nobody has symptoms.
Same as the above in a school. Boy gets a cold. Proactive hypochondriac mother freaks out, orders a test. The boy has some corona of some sort. The test is positive. The whole year group isolates. Because of a stupid, expensive and stupid toy called track and trace other parents are alerted, their work places are alerted, there's more testing with NO symptoms and, implicitly, a few more positives which further ramificate.
I've seen both situations happening. Personally, I was coerced into testing although I had no symptoms. It does happen all the time.
The article below explains in more clever wording what I experienced and tried to share with you. Basically "problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely, case finding, mass screening, and disease surveillance". https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3699
Thank you for reading.
