A new meaning of serious

Denis Mollison says:
February 16 2021 at 10:01 am
The 1-dose strategy is indeed a break from precedent, and needs sceptical examination, but so far the evidence is that it’s a good strategy – see recent papers on the two main vaccines used in the UK below.

I don’t see how you can think I am “praising the success of the governments political programme” – most of which I am bitterly opposed to, and I am generaally very critical of their pandemic management: you may well be right in anticipating that their next error will be to ease up lockdown too soon.
But I am also committed to acknowledging facts, including:
– the vaccine delivery programme has been a success by international standards – https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html – for which credit goes at least as much to NHS staff as to government;
– the current evidence is that the 1-dose strategy makes good sense …

Astra-Zeneca – (Lancet, 1 Feb 2021) –
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268
“Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination programmes aimed at vaccinating a large proportion of the population with a single dose, with a second dose given after a 3 month period is an effective strategy for reducing disease, and may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term.”

Pfizer – (MedArxiv, 1 Feb 2021) –
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.01.21250957v1
” … What our analysis shows is that a single dose of vaccine is highly protective, although it can take up to 21 days to achieve this. The early results coming from Israel support the UK policy of extending the gap between doses by showing that a single dose can give a high level of protection.”

Reply
Richard Murphy says:
February 16 2021 at 2:49 pm
Let’s see

I think you and the sycophants writing this stuff will end up with considerable egg on your face

Of course I could be wrong, but every serious epidemiologist seems to be profoundly worried about this programme

“Serious” here meaning “agrees with me”.

20 thoughts on “A new meaning of serious”

  1. When Spud is in a hole, he calls for the JCB to dig it deeper. It must be fun watching him negotiate a supermarket, bashing his trolley into walls, shelves and random passers-by, haranguing the checkout staff…

  2. From what I’ve seen epidemiologists have a tendency to scaremongering, so Spud is probably right. Whether the epidemiologists are right is another matter.

  3. Look at the gratuitous use of “sycophants” there. He isn’t able simply to disagree with an opinion, he has to gratuitously insult and impugn the motives of those who hold it.

    In this case, the one commenting largely aligns himself with Capt. Potato except on the single jab issue and yet he comes in for a drubbing.

    You have to wonder how repulsive members of the claque must be to countenance such consistent tuberous vileness day in and day out.

  4. It is indeed fortunate for the world that he is so utterly obnoxious, has no charisma whatsoever and gets up the nose of everyone he meets, almost immediately. This renders him mostly harmless.

  5. Pat, apart from Ferguson and everybody who has ever worked with him (which includes Chris Whitty!) , the epidemiologists I follow seem quite reasonable and measured. Prof Spector from the Zoe app is a case in point. Notice that the repulsive tuber doesn’t name any of these “serious” epidemiologists, which is a strong indicator that they don’t exist apart from in his fatuous cesspit of a mind

  6. Of course I could be wrong

    Rilly? Of course we all know that Spud, like his favourite paper, is “always wrong about everything”, but is anyone aware of any occasion on which he has personally admitted to it?

  7. The complete lack of self awareness that allows the spud to write ” think you and the sycophants writing this stuff will end up with considerable egg on your face” is mind boggling.

  8. their next error will be to ease up lockdown too soon

    That seems highly unlikely, unless your definition of ‘too soon’ is ‘any time before hell freezes’.

  9. Bearing in mind that the government seems determined to reclassify the entire population as vulnerable, fuck knows when this lunacy will end. All I do know is that none of the cunts demanding we prolong the insanity will be paying for it.

  10. Well, there does seem to be a division of opinion. The BMJ very recently published a piece which was perhaps critical but certainly cautious about a delayed one-dose strategy.

    But as usual, Spud has started from “the government are doing it so it is wrong” and therefore labeled anyone who agrees with the strategy as a non-serious sycophant.

    If the government were adopting a shorter time period between doses, you just know spud would be criticising that and labelling anyone who supported it as a non-serious sycophant.

  11. But as usual, Spud has started from “the government are doing it so it is wrong” and therefore labeled anyone who agrees with the strategy as a non-serious sycophant.

    That’s rather a mischaracterisation of our favourite triple-professor.

    If you had said, “the tory government are doing it so it is wrong” you might be closer to the truth.

  12. My problem with reading this item and the associated comments is that I have completely lost trust in everyone, and therefore disbelieve ANY statement.

    It used to be the case that I believed reported findings in technical magazines and broadsheets. This started to disappear around 2000. By 2010 I was suspicious of data on sites like Wikipedia, and by 2015 I no longer believed the conclusions of published scientific papers. I still tend to believe the broad body of such papers, but often find that the claimed conclusions are not actually supported by the data and method which has been documented.

    I used to believe the broad statements in political manifestos. Though I was quite prepared to find politicians going back on them, I reckoned that they at least meant them when they were issued. That belief disappeared around 2010, and by now I assume that the statements in manifestos are simply adverts to attract different sectors of society.

    I am losing belief in much of the advice from the medical profession. It used to be the case that a doctors’ skills were built on considerable experience with individual patients. Nowadays GPs are simply gate guardians providing canned NHS advice – often very badly. I do not (yet) have much experience of specialists, but strongly suspect that their high pay and position depends on their uttering the ‘approved’ statements rather than ones they believe in. This also goes for senior administrative staff – particularly on the technical side. No one in charge of our power grid or water supply seems prepared to make apolitical decisions.

    It is odd to see social communication turning from an informative exchange of views into a battleground between the vast majority who parrot pre-digested establishment views, and who turn on the diminishing rump of sceptics with smears and cancellation rather than logical argument. We have seen this happen time and tim3e again in various other human societies, of course. And it never ended well…

  13. Dodgy Geezer

    In the sciences what you are talking about is the Replication Crisis and it has been the subject of much concern for some time.

    Politics was ever thus, so I wouldn’t be any more disappointed today than when Cicero was covering for the corruption of the late Republic with smooth oratory.

    Medicine is less science, more art and practice. Most conditions have a number of, more or less, efficacious ways of being treated: choose your medic and thereby choose his treatment.

  14. Bloke in North Dorset

    Why is Spud calling forth epidemiologists:

    the scientific study of diseases and how they are found, spread, and controlled in groups of people

    to support his criticism of vaccine policy instead of immunologists:

    the study of how the body fights disease and infection

    ?

  15. @MC: “fuck knows when this lunacy will end“. It will end when enough of us realise that it’s not meant to end ever, and start standing up to them.

    Not before.

  16. I’m starting to think the Obergruppenkartoffelfuhrer is really one of us. It’s not enough to promote halfwitted opinions displaying fundamental ignorance of the basics of economics, tax and accounting. But when you add extraordinary pomposity and spite, you’ve guaranteed that anyone who might feel inclined to agree with his opinions will think “do I really want to be on the same side as this person?”

  17. @resusant

    “……In the sciences what you are talking about is the Replication Crisis and it has been the subject of much concern for some time…….”

    No, I am not. I am talking about the straight fraud and suppression of dissenting views which is endemic in Climate Change studies, and is moving into other fields – notably ecology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *