Todd_is_God Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Rugster said: Haven’t read this thread in quite some time, but just stuck my head in to see if @Todd_is_God is still making a rip roaring c**t of himself. Affirmative. Carry on. I've greenied this purely because you can tag properly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven W Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Rugster said: Haven’t read this thread in quite some time, but just stuck my head in to see if @Todd_is_God is still making a rip roaring c**t of himself. Affirmative. Carry on. Disagree entirely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, H Wragg said: ^^^ Pished (hopefully) Deleted it, hope you do the same with the quote. I'm in a right mood tonight, wine assisted no doubt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 Big fan of this tbh Always knew @MixuFruit was a good egg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawpar Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 12 hours ago, doulikefish said: It will be over by xmas lads according to Boris Herbert Asquith said the same in 1914. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 8 hours ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said: I think @Detournement's example is the only recent example I can think of. But back in the day it was pretty dicey with the smallpox vaccine etc I think. Still worked and you'd be daft to refuse it but it wasn't 100% foolproof The original smallpox vaccine was just to give you cowpox which was a mild disease but being closely related to smallpox allowed you to build immunity to the deadlier disease. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 I like to think they would keep social distancing if only because you could bodyswerve chuggers easier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 17 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said: I understand the wish to differentiate here, Mixu, but there are many who don't see Alcohol, Caffeine or even Tobacco as a drug. In my previous function, we defined a drug as "any substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body." I think you'll agree that this would include vaccines, even though they are radically different to other drugs, being prophylactic rather than re-active in their effects. Erm no, a vaccine is not a drug even by your own definition. A 'substance' causing a physiological change describes a chemical process within the body; a vaccine is an entirely biological process. It is not the chemical substance of a vaccine that confers immunity but rather the inert virus/microorganism contained within it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 17 hours ago, Bairnardo said: I'm not an anti vacxer by any means, nor am I a scientist, but surely if it's just a case of try it and if it misses, no harm done, why do vaccines take so long and require so much careful testing before mass usage? If potential vaccines were a free hit we would he getting jabbed all the fucking time on the off chance the latest promising development worked for any number of ailments. Logic dictates that there must be some harm potential or else the testing protocols wouldn't be what they are, and circumventing them in this instance at least has to ring some alarm bells, even if you are comfortable dismissing them on a risk/reward basis Which ailments do you think that a vaccine could prevent? With the exception of HPV, you can't vaccinate against cancers. The same applies to heart disease and just being an obese mess: the conditions that cause the majority of ill-health in the Western world. The reason why we're not getting 'jabbed all the time' is because previously rounds of vaccination have already hammered diseases like smallpox, polio etc. off the map and made others like measles extremely difficult to spread. Vaccines are probably among the top ten achievements of human science and yet 200 years after their first development the world is overrun with specious hot takes like yours. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 11 minutes ago, virginton said: Which ailments do you think that a vaccine could prevent? With the exception of HPV, you can't vaccinate against cancers. The same applies to heart disease and just being an obese mess: the conditions that cause the majority of ill-health in the Western world. The reason why we're not getting 'jabbed all the time' is because previously rounds of vaccination have already hammered diseases like smallpox, polio etc. off the map and made others like measles extremely difficult to spread. Vaccines are probably among the top ten achievements of human science and yet 200 years after their first development the world is overrun with specious hot takes like yours. No one is disputing that they are a great achievement you gimp. All anyone is saying is that if a normal vaccine takes years or decades to be deemed safe, then one being knocked out in months against a backdrop of massive economic necessity comes with some alarm bells. If you want to dispute that crack on, but I dont think you do, I think you probably just wanted to shout about "hot takes" again, for the millionth time. I am sure if one researched "vaccines in development" you might find more than just a few, and even leaving that aside, no one here is taking your medical opinion any more seriously than their own. Or...... do we have the VT seal of assurance that under no circumstances can any vaccine, let alone one massively underresearched cause unwanted side effects? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 Just as a follow up that took about 30 seconds, heres a list of "pipeline vaccines" from the WHO I am sure VT can now go ahead and give the green light to just start doling out these in development vaccines to wherever the pathogens are prevalent. The people will surely see him as a god, and the medical community will be grateful someone finally thought of "just try it and see" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 18, 2020 Author Share Posted July 18, 2020 Iranian President sayings that they think 35,000,000 Iranians have been exposed to the virus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 15 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: No one is disputing that they are a great achievement you gimp. All anyone is saying is that if a normal vaccine takes years or decades to be deemed safe, then one being knocked out in months against a backdrop of massive economic necessity comes with some alarm bells. If you want to dispute that crack on, but I dont think you do, I think you probably just wanted to shout about "hot takes" again, for the millionth time. I am sure if one researched "vaccines in development" you might find more than just a few, and even leaving that aside, no one here is taking your medical opinion any more seriously than their own. Or...... do we have the VT seal of assurance that under no circumstances can any vaccine, let alone one massively underresearched cause unwanted side effects? If you're a moron then it would 'come with some alarm bells', sure. The reason why the process has been accelerated is completely obvious and is made possible by the fact that an *enormous* market exists for the vaccine in the way that, say, Ebola does not. The potential side-effects of vaccines are already well understood as being so rare as to be not worth considering in any public health debate. There's absolutely zero evidence that speeding up a Covid vaccine will lead either to novel or more frequent side effects. You are peddling knicker-wetting pish about a process that we can have 100% confidence in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 18 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: No one is disputing that they are a great achievement you gimp. All anyone is saying is that if a normal vaccine takes years or decades to be deemed safe, then one being knocked out in months against a backdrop of massive economic necessity comes with some alarm bells. If you want to dispute that crack on, but I dont think you do, I think you probably just wanted to shout about "hot takes" again, for the millionth time. I am sure if one researched "vaccines in development" you might find more than just a few, and even leaving that aside, no one here is taking your medical opinion any more seriously than their own. Or...... do we have the VT seal of assurance that under no circumstances can any vaccine, let alone one massively underresearched cause unwanted side effects? The new mRNA vaccines are inherently safer and faster to develop, so you're not comparing like with like. Quote Benefits of mRNA vaccines over conventional approaches are1: Safety: RNA vaccines are not made with pathogen particles or inactivated pathogen, so are non-infectious. RNA does not integrate itself into the host genome and the RNA strand in the vaccine is degraded once the protein is made. Efficacy: early clinical trial results indicate that these vaccines generate a reliable immune response and are well-tolerated by healthy individuals, with few side effects. Production: vaccines can be produced more rapidly in the laboratory in a process that can be standardised, which improves responsiveness to emerging outbreaks. https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 25 minutes ago, virginton said: If you're a moron then it would 'come with some alarm bells', sure. The reason why the process has been accelerated is completely obvious and is made possible by the fact that an *enormous* market exists for the vaccine in the way that, say, Ebola does not. The potential side-effects of vaccines are already well understood as being so rare as to be not worth considering in any public health debate. There's absolutely zero evidence that speeding up a Covid vaccine will lead either to novel or more frequent side effects. You are peddling knicker-wetting pish about a process that we can have 100% confidence in. Got it.... So it's safe cos money? Could it be that the potential side effects of vaccines are rare because vaccines are subject to years of testing and development? As for the last bit, if the worlds foremost specialist on vaccines came and told me something, anything in the world of medicine was "100%" I would take him to be an idiot, as I would most folk who dole out 100% assurances. Where do you imagine that leaves a ranting clown on a football forum? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 22 hours ago, Tynierose said: The second half of the article is more positive with the possible exclamation that the rise is due to more testing and earlier detection plus improvements in management strategies. I was quite excited by the second half of the article, too, but I think you mean "explanation"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Bairnardo said: Just as a follow up that took about 30 seconds, heres a list of "pipeline vaccines" from the WHO I am sure VT can now go ahead and give the green light to just start doling out these in development vaccines to wherever the pathogens are prevalent. The people will surely see him as a god, and the medical community will be grateful someone finally thought of "just try it and see" One of those is a particularly nasty one. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 21 hours ago, pandarilla said: Bbc test match special definitely reported August trials and then an October start so round (if trials are successful). And can wrk and tod just get down to ruel st and save the rest of us putting up with your pish. I think there should be a "Ruel Street" thread for when a couple of posters get into a ding dong, the mods move their posts over to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 20 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said: I'd like to think so, but the whole testing process takes a fair while, then there's the production, then the actual vaccination program. The whole process ain't gonna happen overnight. This is my biggest worry over loosening lockdown. Yes, cases and deaths are low and getting lower. Would this be the case if we just opened back up again? I am not convinced and, being professionally risk-averse, it doesn't feel right to remove protection without putting a proven, or at least logical, control measure in place. If that means we have to wait a bit longer to go to the football, cinema or theatre, then so be it. My daughter works in theatre and, quite apart from the risk to her and her colleagues, she says she is horrified at the prospect of a packed theatre with one spreader becoming hundreds of cases returning to their homes and workplaces after the show. I'm not gonna lie, I feel frankly disgusted that the focus of so many people on here and irl has been "when can I go for a pint" rather than "when will my parents/grandparents/older colleagues be adequately protected". Not a chance. Cases will take off again, mainly because of people mixing again at close quarters, but also because a lot of folk won't give a f*** about social distancing, hand cleaning or face mask wearing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: Not a chance. Cases will take off again, mainly because of people mixing again at close quarters, but also because a lot of folk won't give a f*** about social distancing, hand cleaning or face mask wearing. Yes, but it depends on the scaling of the numbers. There will be a spike in case numbers due to loosening up, but the size of that spike will be dependent on the base load of cases, and so long as the spike is under a certain size, then it won't trip the virus back into a growth pattern, and long term then the case load will continue to decrease. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.