Coronavirus

KUMB's 24-hour rolling news channel. The Forum in which to discuss non sport-related news and current affairs, including politics.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
User avatar
666 hammer
Posts: 3844
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:49 am
Location: Wondering along...singing a song...
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 22 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by 666 hammer »

Even Starmer has been caught breaking covid rules now. And Labour was happy to host karaoke party's at their conference. Ferguson the scarer in chief, even broke the rules at the start of this when things where scary.
Hopefully now the public will now stop supporting MPs that call for more restrictions of all parties.
Prob
Posts: 2473
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 9:13 pm
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 192 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Prob »

666 hammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:14 am Even Starmer has been caught breaking covid rules now. And Labour was happy to host karaoke party's at their conference. Ferguson the scarer in chief, even broke the rules at the start of this when things where scary.
Hopefully now the public will now stop supporting MPs that call for more restrictions of all parties.
Starmer didn't break covid rules. Its a reharsh story that had no legs when it came out at the time and has been reposted a few times in the past few months even from Corbyn supporters to try and bring Starmer down with little to no affect as he broke no rules. This is the 3rd time the express have try to run with it.

It is a non story where no rules where broken. But its not like Tory MPs and the express to lie now.

Ferguson also resigned when the story came to light.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2628 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by EvilC »

Also, Ferguson wasn't an MP, yet he managed to find the moral backbone to step down.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2628 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by EvilC »

This is quite interesting IMO:
Crouchend_Hammer
Posts: 26349
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
Location: Forest Gate
Has liked: 137 likes
Total likes: 2357 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Crouchend_Hammer »

Of all the things to worry about/ focus on in the world, and all this hulabaloo over a party nearly two years ago
Anyone would think that politicians have always behaved with integrity and a moral compasss
User avatar
Etonhammer
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Laid on the floor seeing 'Jesus saves' painted by an atheist nutter
Total likes: 24 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Etonhammer »

EvilC wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:50 am Also, Ferguson wasn't an MP, yet he managed to find the moral backbone to step down.
He only resigned from one organisation / committee, he stayed on in all the others and he seems to be back in the Sage fold now!

Whilst the No 10 party story is being heavily spun for political purposes no one is asking the right question.

Why did they do it ....on more than one occasion...??

Its not that there was a one rule for us mentality...although their clearly is...its because they knew that the scare tactics and 'risk' was nothing like what they had been telling people.

They knew it, they knew the whole thing was being ramped up beyone 'scientific reason' and they knew statistically the whole thing has not been what had been spun.

Why (is often asked) ...was it for 'the greater good', was it to protect the NHS, or was it that they asked the wrong scientists (with heafty connections to pharmasutical companies) and agreed on a 2 year management plan regardless of the supporting statistics ! They modelled on Spannish Flu without any factoring of the changes in society in a hundred years....very 'scientific. Unless they release the model and data sets and we can all see.????

I can see the restrictions being wound back - especially as the Merkin is in hot water and has to pull something out of the bag - and March will see the return to normal most people want.
I still think the covid passports will be kept, although put on the back burner for a while.

Medical insurance for travel will become mandatory and yearly boosters will become the nnorm - Insurance companies and big Pharma like this!
There is so many people invested in this they wont give up easily and we can alway 'find' another variant when its timely to do so.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2628 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by EvilC »

Etonhammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:15 pmHe only resigned from one organisation / committee, he stayed on in all the others and he seems to be back in the Sage fold now!
That's one more resignation than the Prime Minister has made.
User avatar
Burnley Hammer
Posts: 16455
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: was Colne, Burnley, Hull, Colchester, Norwich, Derby.... Now Nottingham
Has liked: 232 likes
Total likes: 2563 likes
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Burnley Hammer »

Molnupiravir and Ivermectin

A few notes I've made whilst exploring this. This is not to show that expensive patented drugs don't work or aren't very good. I'm sure that they do work, and in some cases have an extremely positive effect. This is just a result of me looking into that fact that just about every non-patented and inexpensive option has been at best ignored, at worst discredited.

Now I know that none of this can be classed as current news - it's just stuff from last year I'm catching up on - but I am starting to get a bit concerned about the sheer power that these pharmaceutical giants have. They have huge resources, have spent billions over the years on lobbyists, and have teams of good social influencers (as all billion dollar industries will). if they want to silence something then they will. This is not fantasy. They have a big reputation (as demonstrated by various lawsuits) for offering big financial incentives for prescribing their drugs. They have a finger in everything - even Facebooks COVID19 fact-checking service!. And any attempt to criticise will result in instantly being labelled a conspiracy theorist. I get the feeling that they actually love the whole conspiracy theory nutjob culture... it makes their job of discrediting people much easier. Anyway...

Ivermectin was a drug produced by Merck that is now out of patent and available very cheaply. It was very publicly discredited last year, and those stories very widespread across internet media sources, amongst concerns about data integrity and poor study designs. Strangely the more recent concerns regarding data integrity and poor study designs with the Pfizer trials have been met largely with silence but anyway, I won't go into that here.

The BBC were heavily involved in the discrediting:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809

A response to the BBC's article:
https://ivmmeta.com/#bbc

Noted is the fact that the main author of the BBC article also thinks there's no evidence for vitamin D, which is a dubious claim against what can be described now as a mountain of evidence.

Responses to other attempts to discredit can be found on the same page:
https://ivmmeta.com/#responses

Dr Campbell has also criticised the BBC's attempted debunking of Ivermectin in his video: Debunking the BBC debunk of ivermectin


A lengthy Twitter thread by GMK (apparently an Epidemiologist and writer for the Guardian and Observer) discredits ivermectin and the ivmmeta.com site. It was quite scathing (it's notable that the author has previously been equally scathing about other cheap interventions)


A rebuttal to this has been published on ivmmeta.com, equally detailed and scathing of GMK.
https://ivmmeta.com/#tp

The back and forth is actually quite interesting.

A further article by the BBC in December promotes discusses the use of expensive treatments (including Molnupiravir) whilst dismissing the alternatives:

"A number of drugs have been heralded as potential therapies for Covid - sometimes with no sign that they actually make any difference. Ivermectin has been controversially promoted for use in many parts of the world, despite no evidence that it works."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52354520

No evidence that it works? This is plain wrong.

There have been a total of 75 studies done on Ivermectin. Even discounting the more dubious, poor quality, and complained about studies, there are still plenty of studies remaining that have shown benefit. Within ivmmeta.com's rebuttal to GMK, they have stated that "60 of 75 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy". After removal of poor quality studies, including studies that the BBC and GMK have criticised, it still leaves 51 studies, 25 of which are randomised controlled trials. Also noted is the fact that Ivermectin has shown benefit in both early treatment and late treatment studies.

https://c19mp.com/meta.html
And an alternative meta-analysis: https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... _of.7.aspx

Molnupiravir in contrast.

Molnupiravir is also produced by Merck. Unlike Ivermectin, it is patented and expensive.

Only 8 studies have been done with Monupiravir. Whilst it has had success with early treatment, it has shown no benefit at all in late treatment studies. The largest study - and the study that has had the best outcome - is the one conducted by Merck themselves. 2 further studies on Molnupiravir and moderate COVID symptoms were discontinued due to poor results and have not been published: https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-10-08/

Now obviously there were flaws with some of the Ivermectin studies, and there are flaws in some of the arguments in favour of it, and equally flaws in some of the arguments against it - hence the back and forth. What I do find suspicious though is the huge amount of effort that went into discrediting it in comparison to the negligible efforts we've seen in bringing concerns to light regarding vaccines or other expensive drugs produced by the pharmaceutical giants. In fact any such efforts to do just that are instantly regarded as conspiracy theorist.

This is one example of a story that went out during this campaign (as I'm convinced it was imo) to discredit: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... d-1220608/
I've picked this one out in particular as it came to light that much of the story may well have been a load b*llocks, and they've since had to retract it (see the update at the top of the article).

So who is ivmmeta.com?

That's a tricky one as it seems as though they're semi-anonymous. The url is ran by a group referred to as @CovidAnalysis. When viewing the ivmmeta.com analysis, you'll see a menu on the right where you can access their analysis of another 32 interventions. Their main page is at c19early.com

The following is from their FAQ section.

Who is @CovidAnalysis?
We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now).

What treatments do you recommend?
We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and current situation.

Why should we trust @CovidAnalysis?
There is no need to. We provide organization and analysis, but all sources are public and verifiable. For the meta-analyses, all data required to reproduce the analysis is contained in the appendix, with direct links to the original source papers.

How do you choose the treatments?
We catalog 422 potential treatments, of which we currently analyze 32 of the most effective, promising, and widely used early treatments. There are also many treatments that are helpful for late stage patients, however we currently focus on early treatment.
User avatar
Burnley Hammer
Posts: 16455
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: was Colne, Burnley, Hull, Colchester, Norwich, Derby.... Now Nottingham
Has liked: 232 likes
Total likes: 2563 likes
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Burnley Hammer »

And now you all know how I've spent my day so far... :)
User avatar
uptonparkhurst
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:01 pm
Location: The World Wide Web - where men are men,women are men,and children are the Metropolitan Police
Has liked: 64 likes
Total likes: 17 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by uptonparkhurst »

Burnley Hammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:49 pm Molnupiravir and Ivermectin

A few notes I've made whilst exploring this. This is not to show that expensive patented drugs don't work or aren't very good. I'm sure that they do work, and in some cases have an extremely positive effect. This is just a result of me looking into that fact that just about every non-patented and inexpensive option has been at best ignored, at worst discredited.

Now I know that none of this can be classed as current news - it's just stuff from last year I'm catching up on - but I am starting to get a bit concerned about the sheer power that these pharmaceutical giants have. They have huge resources, have spent billions over the years on lobbyists, and have teams of good social influencers (as all billion dollar industries will). if they want to silence something then they will. This is not fantasy. They have a big reputation (as demonstrated by various lawsuits) for offering big financial incentives for prescribing their drugs. They have a finger in everything - even Facebooks COVID19 ****ing service!. And any attempt to criticise will result in instantly being labelled a conspiracy theorist. I get the feeling that they actually love the whole conspiracy theory nutjob culture... it makes their job of discrediting people much easier. Anyway...
Indeed.
If there is no double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial to support a drug's efficacy they will always find a way to discredit
it.
The drug companies are usually the ones to fund such studies (as governments don't want to pay for them) and of course they
aren't interested unless there are potential $$$$$$$ to be made - so a D3 trial will never happen,for instance.
It's a vicious circle - they get to choose the direction of research.
Similarly,I also wonder if they have any control/influence over the grants that Professors and their ilk at Universities need to
apply for in order to publish academic papers and retain their tenure.If so this could discourage the academics from speaking out against them - "don't rock the boat".

If Ivermectin had been trialled and found efficacious then there would be no need for Mulnupiravir or Paxlovid,which are in short supply and will need to be rationed to the most needy,such as immuno-compromised folk.
I do remember reading that Oxford Uni (or was it Oxford/AZ?) were trialling Ivermectin but it's all gone quiet on that score.

Fluvoxamine (a cheap anti-depressant) is the only widely-available drug that has been trialled and found to be successful AFAIK.


EDIT: And a cynic might point out how long this has taken since the start of the pandemic!
User avatar
uptonparkhurst
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:01 pm
Location: The World Wide Web - where men are men,women are men,and children are the Metropolitan Police
Has liked: 64 likes
Total likes: 17 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by uptonparkhurst »

Meanwhile -

An international team of experts led by Kings College London have issued a warning that
scientists are creating risky self-spreading viruses that pose a threat to life on planet earth.


https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2022/01/ ... g-viruses/
User avatar
666 hammer
Posts: 3844
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:49 am
Location: Wondering along...singing a song...
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 22 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by 666 hammer »

Prob wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:35 am Starmer didn't break covid rules. Its a reharsh story that had no legs when it came out at the time and has been reposted a few times in the past few months even from Corbyn supporters to try and bring Starmer down with little to no affect as he broke no rules. This is the 3rd time the express have try to run with it.

It is a non story where no rules where broken. But its not like Tory MPs and the express to lie now.

Ferguson also resigned when the story came to light.
There is no defence for Boris. However I suspect MPs knew exactly how dangerous this virus was and saw fit along with SAGE members to risk their life and their family. Or they knew the threat was exaggerated but they where happy to continue scaring the public into submission and making lots of money doing it. Labour would have locked down more as proven in Wales. They have been spineless in interrogating the government over the science.
User avatar
Rays Rock
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:10 pm
Location: Outsider
Has liked: 46 likes
Total likes: 104 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Rays Rock »

Well, you know when a pandemic is properly over when every supposed important piece of news written about it, is entirely of political consequence. And I’m not entirely sure at what point the fear created by political/journalistic over-obsession surpassed the actual risks if the virus. I reckon some time ago ?
User avatar
666 hammer
Posts: 3844
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:49 am
Location: Wondering along...singing a song...
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 22 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by 666 hammer »

Apparently Wales can ease restrictions because of the 'fire break' lock down over Christmas.
This lot are just as bad as the Tories.
User avatar
Monkeybubbles
Posts: 13801
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:00 am
Location: Rumble, Brighton, Tonight.
Has liked: 483 likes
Total likes: 1955 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Monkeybubbles »

666 hammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:14 am Even Starmer has been caught breaking covid rules now. And Labour was happy to host karaoke party's at their conference.
666 hammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:22 pmLabour would have locked down more as proven in Wales. They have been spineless in interrogating the government over the science.
666 hammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:37 pm Apparently Wales can ease restrictions because of the 'fire break' lock down over Christmas.
This lot are just as bad as the Tories.
:asleep:
User avatar
taust68
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:31 am
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 36 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by taust68 »

Crouchend_Hammer wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:40 am Of all the things to worry about/ focus on in the world, and all this hulabaloo over a party nearly two years ago
Anyone would think that politicians have always behaved with integrity and a moral compasss
Yea this and the novak djokovic saga
User avatar
666 hammer
Posts: 3844
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:49 am
Location: Wondering along...singing a song...
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 22 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by 666 hammer »

So you don't believe Labour been enablers. Never asking for less lockdown but more. Never questioning the 'science'. They are not ultimately responsible. But they played a part in keeping the fear going. Many businesses and workers/unemployed will remember how easily they sort to shut businesses down without question.
No one comes out looking good from this.
User avatar
Monkeybubbles
Posts: 13801
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:00 am
Location: Rumble, Brighton, Tonight.
Has liked: 483 likes
Total likes: 1955 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Monkeybubbles »

666 hammer wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:24 am So you don't believe Labour been enablers. Never asking for less lockdown but more. Never questioning the 'science'. They are not ultimately responsible. But they played a part in keeping the fear going. Many businesses and workers/unemployed will remember how easily they sort to shut businesses down without question.
No one comes out looking good from this.
Enablers? Because they didn't act totally in accordance with your unproven personal theory? Even for you that's a stretch.

Notwithstanding that, I fail to see that any of their actions would have much influence on the Tory policy makers.
User avatar
666 hammer
Posts: 3844
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:49 am
Location: Wondering along...singing a song...
Has liked: 55 likes
Total likes: 22 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by 666 hammer »

That is your view. I think it is too early for Labour to celebrate. They have a lot to do to prove they can lead, rather than follow the guidance.
User avatar
Monkeybubbles
Posts: 13801
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:00 am
Location: Rumble, Brighton, Tonight.
Has liked: 483 likes
Total likes: 1955 likes

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Monkeybubbles »

666 hammer wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:29 am That is your view. I think it is too early for Labour to celebrate. They have a lot to do to prove they can lead, rather than follow the guidance.
Clearly, though, it's never too early for the Tories to celebrate, and in doing so they've proved that they can't even follow the guidelines let alone lead.
Post Reply