First working and tested for safety vaccine has been completed. Humanity is saved thanks to the efforts of Sechenov University in Russia. Phew!
https://zeenews.india.com/world/russ...e-2295317.html
I'm sure they're not Russian this vaccine and that they are Putin a lot on the line here to get this out to the rest of the world. They went though all 3 phase of testing in less than a month since phase 1 testing started on the 18th June. Hopefully the North Korean vaccine candidate will be equally successful
I’m still not convinced there will ever be a vaccine but antibody therapy and better treatment to reduce the mortality rate to that of a ‘nasty flu’ but it seems there might be a breakthrough soon...
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-15/...-robert-peston
That is promising…. T (killer) cells too !Originally Posted by MrSmith
On the topic of masks.
1) Doctors/Nurses who are treating patients with Covid, etc have to be “fit tested“ for their masks. If the masks (Which come from a variety of different providers) don’t fit, they are not allowed to treat the patient.
2) Masks act as a trap for saliva (and any nasties it might contain) however as soon as you touch it (which seems to be the preferred past time of everyone wearing one - F1 drivers being a perfect example), then those nasties get immediately transferred to your hands and therefore can transfer to anything/anyone you touch. So unless you are washing your hands every time you touch your mask it’s a massive so what.
So in conclusion.
Unless it’s a proper fitted Medical mask, then any other mask is just a Rag based petri-dish covering orifices connected to your lungs, and as soon as you touch it you transfer any nastiest on to your hands. If you want to protect yourself and others avoid people outside your bubble, maintain your social distances and wash your hands regularly.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You are missing the difference between a doctor’s mask (which, as you say, needs to be fitted) that is designed to protect the wearer from a contagious patient, and a mask like the one we wear whose the primary objective is to protect others from our droplets. So if we are infected, we can touch the outside of the mask, the droplets will be captured in the inside. This is also why masks may reduce the extent of social distancing but cannot replace it: if you are infected, your mask will protect me from your droplets but chances are i could still catch it by shaking your hand for example. Mask + social distancing = the best solution we have at the moment to remain virus-free.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
A “doctors” masks (specific to doctors) is worn by anyone treated patients with respiratory problems and has to be fitted for a reason (in order to protect both the patient and the wearer).
Regarding the other sort of masks, yes they technically reduce the wearer of infecting others through breathing on them (depends on the effectiveness of the mark), however if the wearer is constantly touching the mask, they are massively increasing the risk of infecting others through touching stuff. Hence it’s quite possible it’s a nil sum game.
To be effective it’s necessary to wear an effective mask (to reduce airborne inflection) if the situation requires it AND constant hand washing AND keeping your social distance (this is by far the most effective way of not inflecting others or becoming inflected yourself).
The reason for this post is purely to remind others that just because you wear a mask, it’s vitally important you maintain social hygiene. Otherwise you might as well simply carry around a snotty tissue with you and use it to cover your mouth/nose each time you speak/sneeze/wipe your nose.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hygiene_movement
Well this thread is depressing reading, thanks guys.
Does the outside of a surgical mask really become contaminated (i.e. particles pass through the fabric) after use in a couple of shops or whatever?
I rotate mine, left out in sun yesterday and assume good to go again next time.
Unlikely that the outside of the mask gets contaminated by you, (others maybe) but Surgical masks are designed for single use so go figure. But well done for using proper surgical masks. So much better than most.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
But it looks good and that all that matters. Makes it look like ministers are doing something by mandating them.
Yep. Probably the most promising one so far since this thread was started.
Very impressive how quickly they have managed to get to this point. Whether it works in real world situation or not, I'm sure the research work has taken us a lot closer to a working vaccine.
Yes it does sound promising.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
This should be all over the news today, but on the contrary YouTube and Twitter seem working furiously to take it down.
Well worth a watch - a group of doctors, supported by a US Congressman - talking about how they have actually been treating and curing covid, the state of their research and experience, and generally very promising news.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/09K3kIwzeewO/
Based upon their reported success, why are others not testing and/or discussing, to see if it's right, wrong, can be replicated? Silencing is not how science works.
The doctors had a formal website at americasfrontlinedoctors.com, but it seems even that has now been take down?!
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
One of those doctors, Stella Immanuel, has her own Youtube channel...link.
There is coverage on the BBC and the Seattle Times websites.
The BBC have really gone to town: Facts you fit no sabi about di malaria drug for coronavirus treatment...plus this link:
Facebook, Periscope and oda social media sites don pull down one viral video of African doctor wey claim say she use hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibacterial drug, Zithromax to treat Covid-19 patient for United States of America.
Dem pull am down afta pipo don view di video 14 million times even as US President Donald Trump retweet di Periscope video before dem take am down.
For di video, Dr Stella Immanuel wey be primary health physician for Houston tell tori pipo for news conference for US say she don treat ova 350 patients wey get Covid-19.
According to Dr Immanuel, she say some of her patients na old pipo, some get diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma.
"I give dem hydroxychloroquine, I give dem zinc, I give dem Zithromax and all of dem well " Na wetin Dr Stella tok.
Coronavirus still dey spread across di world, with more than 16 million confirmed cases for 188 countries. Almost 650,000 don die from di disease...
If they're wrong then their claims should be investigated and disproven. Simply hiding the claims in an effort to silence them, if that's what is happening, seems a bit wrong.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I’ve not watched the video, so won’t comment on that, but in general what you’ve written isn’t how science works. The responsibility lies with the author to ‘prove’ their hypothesis by presenting convincing evidence to peers able to understand the science. Often there is conflicting evidence, or insufficient data, so that things are unproven, or “the jury is still out”.
It is a dangerous premise to believe something ‘as fact’ until it is disproven by others - “prove me wrong” - it opens the door to fraudulent or pseudoscience. “Show me the proof you are right” is the way we should work.
(The above is somewhat simplified, but hopefully you get the gist!).
On the whole I agree claims shouldn’t be hidden - but neither should they be taken as fact.
Again, I've not watched that video or seen those claims so this is more of a general statement but...
Where claims are (i) unfounded and (ii) potentially dangerous, I'd take that further and say there is a case for removing them. Obviously that requires someone to decide that they are potentially dangerous and FB, Twitter and YouTube have taken it upon themselves to do that but, on balance, I don't disagree with them removing potentially dangerous unproven content.
Agree scientists should remain sceptics until absolute proof is obtained (you wouldn't take a vaccine that 'all things being equal should be safe'). However this is the big paradox - we are in a pandemic where science is leading the efforts to cure however because science takes the sceptical viewpoint and now has been thrust into a position where it has to communicate 'what's going on' to the world, some of the language used has been frightening to the layman.
Saying 'there is no evidence that reinfection cannot happen' is of course true, but the balance of probabilities is that there is some level of longer term protection conferred by the body's immune system. So perhaps the way science communicates needs to be cognizant that the layman is basically a 'bit of a thicko'. This is perhaps one reason why the WHO has become so marginalised - the 'PR' efforts have been downright shambolic and the ability to communicate clearly and in a non-alarmist manner has been absent. Very few scientists actually working on Covid are viewing this as a civilisation-ending event and yet by the time science soundbites are misinterpreted by clickbait media we end up with people cooped up at home and I'm sure the number of people seeking anxiety treatment is going to skyrocket
Science and PR are 2 very different animals which should never be put together, as the latter would irremediably corrupt the former, which would be an absolute disaster, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Claims and assertions cannot be allowed to shout down published, verified, good quality research...see link.
Dr Stella Immanuel says she has treated 350 patients with hydroxychloroquine. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing without the full context that should appear in a research paper. Finding a journal to accept such a study, ie one short on numbers and controls to back up her assertions, might be difficult. That's not suppression (she's free to publish what she likes) it is how scientific research moves forward.
Public dissemination / outreach / communication of science is something universities do a lot of. It’s great training for students - invariably if you can explain a complex subject well you also understand it better. It’s also an important part of most grant applications. Some scientists do this better than others of course!
The problem is that most of our media, and dare I say politicians, are not trained in science so don’t know how to assess scientific claims. The media is there to sell newspapers or advertising space. I’ve had my eyes opened to this recently, and I’ve not been impressed.
Anyway, I digress from the good news vibe of this thread so will shut up now!
- - - Updated - - -
+1
Perhaps the way science works needs to change.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
No it doesn’t.
This is a good up to the minute local council data.
Found it while looking for info on my folks region (Ashford) as they said it was about to be locked down but that’s not true, don’t get your news from Facebook!? Cases are high but falling.
Link is Southwark but just put your own area in the drop down menu
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/report...omparisonGroup
And the twitter link posted earlier, some good Europe and U.K. comparisons
https://twitter.com/MarkJHandley?s=21
Shame the Scribd data has not been updated as that was a good visual indicator across all council areas at once.
Perhaps it doesn't? After all, it's been around and developing for quite a while now. How might it be improved...rather than simply 'changed'?
It could be that Sweden is the first country to hit virtual herd immunity. Masks no longer required- even on public transport
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...w-cases-plunge
I said 'could be' of course. Interestingly in the 'f*ck up' US states of Arizona and Florida infections are now declining. Could be that the disease is burning out there also as prevalence is so high. Of course this all comes at a very high human cost- the question is whether lockdown is merely prolonging the inevitable as evidenced by recent increases in Germany, France and Spain?
Last edited by ryanb741; 29th July 2020 at 00:19.
Well I think it already has, given vaccines have been brought to trials in record times.
Perhaps some of the safeguards and laws surrounding research are actually stifling advances not helping them.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Nope - the principles of science have not changed at all. Neither has the basis of peer reviewed evidence.
Like a lot of science, biotechnology has advanced massively over recent years.
Perhaps stick to subjects you are qualified to speak on.
I think you will find many principles of science have changed, it's called progress. "Like a lot of science, biotechnology has advanced massively over recent years."
Last edited by oldoakknives; 29th July 2020 at 01:34.
Call it what you will...advance, change, progress or anything else...yes science is flexible and has demonstrated the ability to adapt to the rigours of this pandemic or, as other examples, the race into space and WW2. What doesn't need to change (do so at the peril of defeating the ends you seek) is the rigour it applies to the acceptance of evidence that supports such progress. And that's where we came in...
Thanks for educating me on science OOK.
There is a difference between scientific techniques (which indeed change and progress) and scientific reasoning.
The latter is very strict, and doesn't tolerate cut corners. Some still do: it's called bad science.
Politicians and PR love bad science because it brings quicker answers when the public is waiting, and it gets them off the hook. Temporarily.
A recent example of bad science was about an imaginary link between MMR vaccine and autism. Thousands of children have died since.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Oh boy, now who does that nonsense statement remind me of, clue... name rhymes with dump.
It was your statement not mine. I simply agreed with what you said.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I hardly think the MMR rubbish claims are comparable, weren’t they spread about on social media rather than by government?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
No doubt others will join in soon. Well done chap.
Last edited by oldoakknives; 29th July 2020 at 09:38.
You call it rubbish now, because they have been (scientifically) debunked.
But it was published in 1998, in the Lancet, no less:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320/
And it was only retracted by the same paper in 2010, 12 years later. So it is more than comparable: it's exactly the same thing.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
That has a familiar ring to it.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
If it was published in the Lancet, where were the peer reviewed safeguards we are told science relies on.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
They rushed the job, exactly as some would have them rushing research news that would satisfy the public.
Maybe you want to read more about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud
The Lancet certainly did not come out of this smelling of roses. And many scientific journals are sitting tight, too, between scandals like this fraud (there are others) and extortionate subscription rates to Universities.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
So basically the peer reviewed safeguards we hear about simply aren’t working in the way some would have us believe.
No, because you expect them to be absolute. That is not how science works.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
If they are being used properly. Other posts say they aren’t.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
If that is indeed the case then those specific cases need to be investigated and the appropriate learning taken from them.
It's pretty arrogant for you to be proposing fundamental process changes in an area you know nothing about, and that fly in the face of the entire global scientific community. Or don't you think so?
Luckily people are still allowed to have an opinion.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
You’ve got no concept of what I said. You are being obtuse, either intentionally or though ignorance. Perhaps go and play in the Bear Pit again.
Anyway this is the ‘Covid good news thread’ so I will comment no more. Has anyone got some Covid good news stories today?
I was merely answering your post , no need to be rude. I haven't been rude to you have I?
I'll say no more about it also, as you say hopefully someone has some good news, maybe even the news item we began discussing will prove to be.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
