| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media 11:46 - Dec 21 with 1490 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
See another one sprouting off today about Armageddon.
These publicity seeking egotistical maniacs don't appear to be professional scientists fully engaged and engrossed with their work, just shallow personalities more interested in their own profile and feeding the media frenzy.
Thankfully 99.9 percent of scientists quietly get on with great work without wanting to let everyone know who they are. |  |
| |  |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 11:55 - Dec 21 with 1455 views | Catullus |
Some people have a craving for the limelight, others feel the work is its own reward.
PS<
https://news.sky.com/story/cov [Post edited 21 Dec 2021 12:15]
|  |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:14 - Dec 21 with 1431 views | Professor |
Who this time?
Christine Pagel? | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:27 - Dec 21 with 1412 views | Professor |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 11:55 - Dec 21 by Catullus |
Some people have a craving for the limelight, others feel the work is its own reward.
PS<
https://news.sky.com/story/cov [Post edited 21 Dec 2021 12:15]
|
Gupta's lab are doing some good work Cat, though almost all in vitro, there is good evidence that Omicron behaves differently and is likely to be less of an individual risk, though the sheer numbers may well cause problems. I also agree that there are more restrictions needed, but we can avoid a lockdown. The issue is waiting too long may lead to one. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:37 - Dec 21 with 1403 views | Catullus |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:27 - Dec 21 by Professor |
Gupta's lab are doing some good work Cat, though almost all in vitro, there is good evidence that Omicron behaves differently and is likely to be less of an individual risk, though the sheer numbers may well cause problems. I also agree that there are more restrictions needed, but we can avoid a lockdown. The issue is waiting too long may lead to one. |
A lot of good work has been done in test tubes, Prof. besides, it's the best we have right now, isn't it?
The thing about restrictions is, they have to make sense. if they are nonsensical people don't follow the rules.
too much of what Drakeford has done doesn't really make sense. I agree about waiting though, they prevaricate when they need to act. They take too long to decide then still get it wrong. | |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:47 - Dec 21 with 1382 views | Professor |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:37 - Dec 21 by Catullus |
A lot of good work has been done in test tubes, Prof. besides, it's the best we have right now, isn't it?
The thing about restrictions is, they have to make sense. if they are nonsensical people don't follow the rules.
too much of what Drakeford has done doesn't really make sense. I agree about waiting though, they prevaricate when they need to act. They take too long to decide then still get it wrong. |
No-there is a lot of animal work going on too. Mainly using hamsters and rats (mice are a poor infection model) to understand disease processes and potential new therapeutics. There is a fair bit not in the public domain yet (and obviously I can't reveal what little I know).
Restrictions need to be simple. Mask wearing should have always remained. There is certainly a strong argument for indoor gatherings to have a restricted capacity, limits on household contacts, return to table service in pubs, groups of six or fewer. Perhaps a two week break for pubs is the right thing? Perhaps even delay school return for an extra day or two and allow better provisions to be in place uniformly. I really worry delay is going to lead to a lockdown post Christmas.
We need to keep as much running as possible with sensible restrictions. Far better than another lockdown. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 13:35 - Dec 21 with 1338 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 12:47 - Dec 21 by Professor |
No-there is a lot of animal work going on too. Mainly using hamsters and rats (mice are a poor infection model) to understand disease processes and potential new therapeutics. There is a fair bit not in the public domain yet (and obviously I can't reveal what little I know).
Restrictions need to be simple. Mask wearing should have always remained. There is certainly a strong argument for indoor gatherings to have a restricted capacity, limits on household contacts, return to table service in pubs, groups of six or fewer. Perhaps a two week break for pubs is the right thing? Perhaps even delay school return for an extra day or two and allow better provisions to be in place uniformly. I really worry delay is going to lead to a lockdown post Christmas.
We need to keep as much running as possible with sensible restrictions. Far better than another lockdown. |
The only person on this site who has any Idea what they’re talking about. |  | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 14:34 - Dec 21 with 1283 views | Professor |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 13:35 - Dec 21 by Sirjohnalot |
The only person on this site who has any Idea what they’re talking about. |
Plenty of well informed posters on here John, some with differing views. The problem is that any sensible discussion has been killed by a handful of complete maniacs. When you have people screaming 'clot shot' or think they know better than world leading scientists then any nuance or valid debate is lost. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 16:37 - Dec 21 with 1204 views | A_Fans_Dad |
"Thankfully 99.9 percent of scientists quietly get on with great work without wanting to let everyone know who they are. "
But don't call out the ones making exaggeratted claims though, so only the loud mouths get air time. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 17:13 - Dec 21 with 1191 views | KeithHaynes |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 14:34 - Dec 21 by Professor |
Plenty of well informed posters on here John, some with differing views. The problem is that any sensible discussion has been killed by a handful of complete maniacs. When you have people screaming 'clot shot' or think they know better than world leading scientists then any nuance or valid debate is lost. |
The lunatics will never take Over the asylum, but they will still be allowed to shout.
A bit. |  |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 17:46 - Dec 21 with 1161 views | Flashberryjack |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 13:35 - Dec 21 by Sirjohnalot |
The only person on this site who has any Idea what they’re talking about. |
In your expert opinion. |  |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 17:50 - Dec 21 with 1161 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 16:37 - Dec 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Thankfully 99.9 percent of scientists quietly get on with great work without wanting to let everyone know who they are. "
But don't call out the ones making exaggeratted claims though, so only the loud mouths get air time. |
There are good and bad in all walks of life, wanting to be on the telly is not a trait that most serious professions value
In terms of bad science, slavishly following an hypothesis that is proved to be questionable is undoubtedly bad science as is ignoring data that does not fit your hypothesis or presenting an hypothesis as a conclusion.
We have a problem in our media, in that they are not aware of basic scientific principles so don't ask the right questions. One very small example to demonstrate my point is that you see every day in the media is comparing two data points e.g. today's versus yesterday's data. It's complete and utter nonsense to try to extract any meaning from two data points in a time series.
If you study previous pandemics any claim from a scientist that we can end this one is difficult to believe. All previous pandemics have ebbed and flowed over decades, what has happened is that people moved back to unrestricted life with some level of immunity.
So a basic principle here is research, understanding what has gone before as a platform. So bearing in mind what has happened in similar circumstances the important questions are what can we do to change or improve the system and how will we know if our proposed intervention is successful.
Scientists getting involved in petty media arguments about tactical lockdown issues are not helping us get back to any kind of sustainable solutions. They are playing to the crowd. [Post edited 21 Dec 2021 18:05]
| |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 17:57 - Dec 21 with 1148 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 17:50 - Dec 21 by JACKMANANDBOY |
There are good and bad in all walks of life, wanting to be on the telly is not a trait that most serious professions value
In terms of bad science, slavishly following an hypothesis that is proved to be questionable is undoubtedly bad science as is ignoring data that does not fit your hypothesis or presenting an hypothesis as a conclusion.
We have a problem in our media, in that they are not aware of basic scientific principles so don't ask the right questions. One very small example to demonstrate my point is that you see every day in the media is comparing two data points e.g. today's versus yesterday's data. It's complete and utter nonsense to try to extract any meaning from two data points in a time series.
If you study previous pandemics any claim from a scientist that we can end this one is difficult to believe. All previous pandemics have ebbed and flowed over decades, what has happened is that people moved back to unrestricted life with some level of immunity.
So a basic principle here is research, understanding what has gone before as a platform. So bearing in mind what has happened in similar circumstances the important questions are what can we do to change or improve the system and how will we know if our proposed intervention is successful.
Scientists getting involved in petty media arguments about tactical lockdown issues are not helping us get back to any kind of sustainable solutions. They are playing to the crowd. [Post edited 21 Dec 2021 18:05]
|
Well said Sir. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:31 - Dec 21 with 1126 views | Professor |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 17:50 - Dec 21 by JACKMANANDBOY |
There are good and bad in all walks of life, wanting to be on the telly is not a trait that most serious professions value
In terms of bad science, slavishly following an hypothesis that is proved to be questionable is undoubtedly bad science as is ignoring data that does not fit your hypothesis or presenting an hypothesis as a conclusion.
We have a problem in our media, in that they are not aware of basic scientific principles so don't ask the right questions. One very small example to demonstrate my point is that you see every day in the media is comparing two data points e.g. today's versus yesterday's data. It's complete and utter nonsense to try to extract any meaning from two data points in a time series.
If you study previous pandemics any claim from a scientist that we can end this one is difficult to believe. All previous pandemics have ebbed and flowed over decades, what has happened is that people moved back to unrestricted life with some level of immunity.
So a basic principle here is research, understanding what has gone before as a platform. So bearing in mind what has happened in similar circumstances the important questions are what can we do to change or improve the system and how will we know if our proposed intervention is successful.
Scientists getting involved in petty media arguments about tactical lockdown issues are not helping us get back to any kind of sustainable solutions. They are playing to the crowd. [Post edited 21 Dec 2021 18:05]
|
There is also a problem of false equivalence. Why was Karol Sikora a man eminently unqualified to give a valid opinion on infectious disease allowed to voice opinions for months last year? Only this week we have seen two pieces in the Mail from Professors saying Omicron is not a problem, neither of whom has any expertise in this area. Generally the grandstanding is from those on the periphery.
You also have to remember in a disease outbreak data are largely observational and not set out to test a hypothesis. Now as an experimentalist I always find this a weakness of epidemiology and risk based modelling. Data can apparently show an effect statistically that has no biological basis-even daily large data sets. especially when there are confounding effects that may not be apparent. Ultimately you can only stop infections by reducing transmission or reducing host susceptibility. Lockdowns would have to be far stricter to ultimately work, though they can buy time, as can restrictions that fall short of lockdown. These have bought time to reduce the susceptibility of the population. What we need now are answers based around experimental hypothesis-based science that can produce a second and third generation of more effective vaccines and therapeutics that actually work. SAGE is not exactly flooded with these. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:50 - Dec 21 with 1109 views | 73__73 |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:31 - Dec 21 by Professor |
There is also a problem of false equivalence. Why was Karol Sikora a man eminently unqualified to give a valid opinion on infectious disease allowed to voice opinions for months last year? Only this week we have seen two pieces in the Mail from Professors saying Omicron is not a problem, neither of whom has any expertise in this area. Generally the grandstanding is from those on the periphery.
You also have to remember in a disease outbreak data are largely observational and not set out to test a hypothesis. Now as an experimentalist I always find this a weakness of epidemiology and risk based modelling. Data can apparently show an effect statistically that has no biological basis-even daily large data sets. especially when there are confounding effects that may not be apparent. Ultimately you can only stop infections by reducing transmission or reducing host susceptibility. Lockdowns would have to be far stricter to ultimately work, though they can buy time, as can restrictions that fall short of lockdown. These have bought time to reduce the susceptibility of the population. What we need now are answers based around experimental hypothesis-based science that can produce a second and third generation of more effective vaccines and therapeutics that actually work. SAGE is not exactly flooded with these. |
You don’t have to be an expert to know this omicron isn’t a problem. Listen to what the South Africans are saying.
And I predict that this omicron variant is not as bad as it’s made out to be and will not overwhelm the nhs.
A load of bollocks. | |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:57 - Dec 21 with 1102 views | Scotia |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:50 - Dec 21 by 73__73 |
You don’t have to be an expert to know this omicron isn’t a problem. Listen to what the South Africans are saying.
And I predict that this omicron variant is not as bad as it’s made out to be and will not overwhelm the nhs.
A load of bollocks. |
The South African experience shows it may not have been a major problem in South Africa.
I hope you're prediction is right, if so its down to vaccination. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 19:08 - Dec 21 with 1078 views | 73__73 |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:57 - Dec 21 by Scotia |
The South African experience shows it may not have been a major problem in South Africa.
I hope you're prediction is right, if so its down to vaccination. |
Only about 25% of South Africans are vaccinated, so no it’s not down to vaccination at all.
It’s more to do with omicron is extremely mild. | |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 19:30 - Dec 21 with 1070 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 18:31 - Dec 21 by Professor |
There is also a problem of false equivalence. Why was Karol Sikora a man eminently unqualified to give a valid opinion on infectious disease allowed to voice opinions for months last year? Only this week we have seen two pieces in the Mail from Professors saying Omicron is not a problem, neither of whom has any expertise in this area. Generally the grandstanding is from those on the periphery.
You also have to remember in a disease outbreak data are largely observational and not set out to test a hypothesis. Now as an experimentalist I always find this a weakness of epidemiology and risk based modelling. Data can apparently show an effect statistically that has no biological basis-even daily large data sets. especially when there are confounding effects that may not be apparent. Ultimately you can only stop infections by reducing transmission or reducing host susceptibility. Lockdowns would have to be far stricter to ultimately work, though they can buy time, as can restrictions that fall short of lockdown. These have bought time to reduce the susceptibility of the population. What we need now are answers based around experimental hypothesis-based science that can produce a second and third generation of more effective vaccines and therapeutics that actually work. SAGE is not exactly flooded with these. |
When I look at the make up of SAGE I'm unsure of the participants focussing on the science that gets us to a sustainable position as you refer.
I'm not sure how the unqualified scientists get to be front-page news, but that's today's media. | |
| |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 19:45 - Dec 21 with 1045 views | Professor |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 19:30 - Dec 21 by JACKMANANDBOY |
When I look at the make up of SAGE I'm unsure of the participants focussing on the science that gets us to a sustainable position as you refer.
I'm not sure how the unqualified scientists get to be front-page news, but that's today's media. |
That's an important point. The early composition of SAGE certainly lacked virologists, immunologists and actually public health specialists. Cummings liked the 'Sexy Data Boys" from modelling and behaviour and to an extent that's still there. Media rely on either contacts with Universities or from the Science Media Centre (SMC) in London. SMC put out calls for comment fairly regularly. Funders expect and encourage engagement, but I would only comment on what I would consider myself expert in which is not human virology. Did not stop a lot of people, who frankly were blathering nonsense. It's generally better now, but there are a few loud voices who like the sound of their own voice. | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 19:57 - Dec 21 with 1030 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Based on actual data from Denmark for the 14/12/2021 it can be seen that, as suggested by it's spread from Africa that Omicron is the pandemic of the vaccinated.
The analysis is here
https://boriquagato.substack.c
The results are
Unvaccinated 18.6 case per 100,000 population
Boosted 23.4 cases per 100,000 population
Single Vaxxed 29.6 cases per 100,000 population
Double Vaxxed 47.2 cases per 100,000 population | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 20:19 - Dec 21 with 1003 views | Scotia |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 19:57 - Dec 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Based on actual data from Denmark for the 14/12/2021 it can be seen that, as suggested by it's spread from Africa that Omicron is the pandemic of the vaccinated.
The analysis is here
https://boriquagato.substack.c
The results are
Unvaccinated 18.6 case per 100,000 population
Boosted 23.4 cases per 100,000 population
Single Vaxxed 29.6 cases per 100,000 population
Double Vaxxed 47.2 cases per 100,000 population |
You're misunderstanding things again aren't you? | | | |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 20:44 - Dec 21 with 974 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Loudmouth Scientists in the Media on 20:19 - Dec 21 by Scotia |
You're misunderstanding things again aren't you? |
No, you are, you just can't understand numbers. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.