Coronavirus 2020



I think the Eugyppius Substack guy said a while ago that COVID is alive, it always finds a way to survive no matter what “restrictions” we place on society. It makes perfect sense that to ensure it’s survival it would adapt itself to infect the 90% who are allowed freely move around.


I think it makes plenty of sense if you look at it as economic /societal issue.
Papers, digital please. Everywhere you go.
Restrict everywhere to a few places.
Track and trace.
Flood the system with money.
Destroy the economy.
Buy it up.
Oh and you can only wash your pants once a month now.
From a health perspective perhaps no sense this is why I am sure they’re happy for us to be arguing over waning immunity and percentage point difference of safety and efficiency on twitter while they’re playing the real game of crash and burn.

Look at the pictures coming through of Coppers, people are happy enough to queue and show their pass. Why wouldn’t they be? Food in their bellies, money in their account… No change gonna come just yet…


They’re all over in Scotland still getting their story straight and telegramming their talking points back to the peasants yea?

What happens when the fully-vazzed find out they are fully-unvazzed unless they get a booster, then another and another to remain vazzed - how are they selling that one?


That rationale is so programmed that our resident potato bangs the drum for it: the 6th vax prevents serious and death. Vaccines aren’t perfect they never have been. Forget what we said about 95% efficacy.


I wonder so how the Pfizer share price is doing these days


You don’t need to wonder, it’s a laggard:
Up about 17%YTD Vs 25% for the sp500
Up about 40% over 5 years Vs the SP500 up about 120%


But if folk are going to be on it for life, it should be going through the roof?


Define Life.


Yeah get you - it won’t be too long etc


Pfizer is an enormous company, vaccines make up a tink amount of overall revenue. On top of that, I believe deals were struck with certain governments where Covid19 vaccines prices would be kept in check because governments gave assistant in funding research. They were also given indemnity should there be any fuck ups.


So perhaps all priced in


Yeah, Pfizer and a few other vaccine makers had share price spikes about 12 months ago, just before the vaccines were announced. Buy the rumour, sell the news.


It sounds like you are new to the game of reading official statistics that look impressive but actually are full of very deliberate obfuscation, misinformation and straight up BS.

Lets go through that report you posted a link to.

Page 5. Effectiveness against disease.

Those numbers look great but lets look at the original papers cited. All three. Interesting. Lets set aside the invalid case event test and the non representational sample groups used for a moment. And the very short time period for low R0, impaired diffusion networks, making any efficacy calculation effectively invalid. Those high numbers quoted one Page 5 are cherry picking the papers results. The numbers quoted are all age cohort numbers (ignoring the dubious confidence intervals quoted) not the high risk age cohort. According to those three papers the vaccines work great for those at low risk of serious illness but so so at best for the age groups at high risk. Over a short period of time. Possibly. Although when N is quoted in these papers those are very low N’s for the > 65. A big red flag for stats people.

Plus those variant numbers quoted are just a wild ass guess based on what is little more than a hunch. When you parse carefully the explanations given in the papers.

The actual science of HCOV vaccines is that it is clinically impossible for them to have a higher field efficacy than the influenza vaccines. Which is 50% in a good year, but often as low as 20%. So when anyone quotes numbers largest than that you know they are bullshitting. Pure and simple. Aint going to happen. Given that its taken over 100 years to get influenza vaccines as good as they are any HCOV vaccine is not going to even break 20% efficacy. In real life. Because thats how vaccinology works.

Page 24 Hospitalization rates.

So lets have a look. They break out vaccinated v unvaccinated and have lots of tables and graphs but lets see the break down of hospitalization events by condition group, severity, outcome, and length of stay…

I dont see this breakdown. Funny that. Normally when papers discuss comparative hospitalization events the data is broken out into medical condition, severity of condition, health outcomes, and length of stay. The last being most important when in comes to public health resources management. Which is what this is all about. Given that all this data was in the original data source used by the report funny that it was not include. I wonder why.

As for the 3 times the hospital rate for unvaccinted v vaccinated shown in one table. Well there could be a very simple non medical reason for the discrepancy. Different hospital admittance criteria used for the two groups. Last year in most jurisdictions the treatment heuristic for a “COVID case” was - low PSI/PORT score. Out-patent treatment. High PSI/PORT score but young. Maybe in-patent, usually out-patient. Over the age of 70, in-patent treatment. Hospitalization. So a simple change of hospital admittance procedure to age > 70 but vaccinated and with low PSI/PORT, maybe in-patent, usually out-patient, could easily account for the differing rate of hospitalization.

It could be a real phenomenon but without all the usual (and expected) information usually provided in hospitalization rates papers I am very skeptical that its real.

There is one interesting section in the report. Starting P19. It shows that the population penetration rate of the SARs CoV 2 has been so seriously impaired that it has only reached where it should have been this time last year. At 20%. It should be in the low 30’s by this stage. What this means is that a novel new “seasonal flu” HCOV will be dragged out another few years before reaching its equilibrium in the low to mid 40’s. Which it should have reached by next Spring. This will happen sooner or later. Vaccination or no vaccination. Because SARs CoV 2 vaccines work just like influenza vaccines, they dont provide sterilizing immunity.

The first rule of trying to Argue from Authority is it only works if you have enough relevant domain expertise to recognize when an “authority” is bullshitting and when the “authority” actually knows what they are talking about. In this case that report is just typical official government bullshit made to look impressive but actually mostly garbage. Once you know how to see through all the very deliberate the hand waving.


Very good reply jmc, it’s also made me conscious of the fact that I tend to overlook the fact that I have a lot of scientific training as a result I assume that 90% of what I read is complete nonsense in papers/reports of this nature and working from that assumption attempt to extract something of relevance.

It’s an interesting thought that others actually take this stuff at face value, as they simply don’t understand “how the sausage is made”


When did you get your first / last shot or put it another way, when do you think you’ll need the first booster?

Maybe you’re not in the initial eligible categories, so that might add a bit of delay.


Relying on these emotionally manipulative anecdotes and not the actual statistics doesn’t reflect well on you tbh


They could have got it from elsewhere too. Those figures did the rounds on twitter from a bunch of accounts over a few days,


Most viruses do - they generally mutate to become more transmissible but less virulent. The exceptions are things like swine flu, bird flu - zoonoses which pass to an animal reservoir and then jump back to humans, that jump between species lets them mutate into something more dangerous, and I think is how Gain of Function research is done - pushing viruses through difference species cell lines. Only it’s not called GoF research any more. Newspeak now calls it ePPP.


Likewise - reading some of these papers critically is something that takes knowledge, training & experience, especially these days when there is so much money in research and publishing, The reproducibility crisis in psychology is well known, but other fields are still unscrutinised. There is one twitter account I follow that specialises in finding duplicate images within and across papers - it’s staggering. I’ve (I hope critically) read scientific papers for years and still if it’s written to be deliberately opaque or outright misleading, I can still find it hard to spot things. Sophisticated statistics are… complex and easily misused and misinterpreted.

I love reading breakdowns of them by @jmc too!

A lot of doctors aren’t necessarily great at picking them apart either - lack of training and now also lack of time to do so, they really are kept very busy on the hamster wheel. So they take a lot of papers and guidelines presented to them at face value, and regrettably project their own (often very idealistic) values onto scientists & pharma… I know a lot of scientists in STEM. I know what their grant income is… then of course there is IP and potential spin out companies.

Ben Goldacres books (Bad Science, Bad Pharma) are very good introductions to suggest as reading material - most posters here would find them interesting in how they present the various issues as easily digestible arguments, but probably little new information, but they are good for friends/family perhaps.


No, poster said relying on emotionally manipulative anecdotes, and not the actual statistics.

They did not say that they

won’t accept anecdotes

As you have suggested.