violet wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 12:31 am

grumpygit wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:07 pm Maybe someone who knows what they are doing on here might be able to set up a poll. (Do we still have them?)

Along the lines of. If a new Vax was announced and this time they swear blind it really works and won't fuck you up. Would you....

Believe every word they say and get in line.
or be a little sceptical and wait and see
Or tell them to fuck right off.

I don’t know why anyone cares any more. Move on.

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:23 pm

grumpygit wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 12:47 pm

violet wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 4:20 pm

grumpygit wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:38 pm I must admit this thread has made me smile given the last few years of attempted bullying, travel restrictions, non stop phone calls emails and txt messages urging me to get my free jab (the ones my taxes payed for) and being singled out at work with extra rules for those unwise enough to not to heed the advice of the experts.

Also
Congratulations to Sir Jonathan Van Tam on his new job with Moderna after his stint as the UK deputy chief medical officer. I'm not entirely sure how a person can funnel billions of pounds of tax payers money into a private company, and then leave government and go and work for the company that profited from his actions. But apparently it's all legit and above board so we'll played sir.

Your Also is interesting.

Have you not heard of Curtis wright?
He did exactly the same thing when he worked for the FDA and gave the Sackler family's OxyContin a favourable label for their product leading to untold misery and deaths..and he did this for a nice job at Purdue pharmaceuticals.

watch the new TV series "painkiller" covers all about how big pharma works and Curtis Wright part in making oxy FDA approved

grumpygit wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 4:20 pm Dopesick maybe.

What is the Royal Society?
The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine. The Society’s fundamental purpose, as it has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity.

What are non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)?
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), include any public health measure that is not a vaccine or drug. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, no drugs or vaccines were available to contain the spread of the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2. This meant countries were reliant on NPIs to protect populations and health systems until pharmaceutical interventions were developed.

A wide variety of NPIs were employed (typically as part of packages). The Royal Society report covered six broad categories used during the pandemic:

Masks and face coverings
Social distancing and 'lockdowns'
Test, trace and isolate
Travel restrictions and controls across international borders
Environmental controls
Communications

Why do we need to understand the effectiveness of NPIs?
Scientists and policymakers knew very little about SARS-CoV-2 when the pandemic began. It was not clear what an optimal strategy for NPI implementation looked like, including how outcomes vary for people of different ages, ethnicities, health status and socioeconomic groups. The widespread roll out of NPIs was also economically costly and led to major social disruption with wider impacts on health and wellbeing.

Now is an opportune time learn from NPI implementation during the pandemic and highlight evidence gaps to ensure we are prepared for potential future outbreaks of infectious disease.

What are the main conclusions of the Royal Society’s report?
There is clear evidence from studies conducted during the pandemic that stringent implementation of packages of NPIs was effective in some countries in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

There is also evidence for the effectiveness of individual NPIs, but most NPIs were implemented in packages. Disentangling the effects of one NPI when other NPIs were implemented at the same time presents a significant challenge.

Evidence suggests that NPIs were, in general, more effective when case numbers and the associated transmission intensity of SARS-CoV-2 were lower. NPIs became less effective as more transmissible variants of the virus emerged (eg Delta, Omicron) which were better adapted to spreading between people and evading immune responses.

Stringency of application of individual NPIs and groups of NPIs influenced rates of transmission, eg respirator masks were more effective than surgical masks and two weeks of quarantine were more effective than shorter periods.

What lessons have been learnt to influence how we might approach future pandemics?
One of the most important lessons from this pandemic is that the effective application of NPIs ‘buys time’ to allow the development and manufacturing of drugs and vaccines. There is every reason to think that implementing packages of NPIs will be important in future pandemics.

Standardised protocols for data collection would improve the quality of observational studies when a novel pathogen emerges. National and international collaborations could be established to support this. It is of particular importance to design protocols that can disaggregate the effects of NPIs by different demographic factors.

Future assessments should also consider the costs as well as the benefits of NPIs, in terms of their impacts on amongst other things, livelihoods, economies, education, social cohesion and physical and mental wellbeing.

newkidontheblock wrote:

stevenjb wrote:Did you report this to your GP or Pharmacy (if they jabbed you).?

It’s in the insert as possible effects.

Probably a bit worse now with RINVOQ and low white blood cells.