Social distancing, .. what's that?

[Blackswanwood]

Thanks StevieB. If Carlsberg did posts on Covid-19 ...

 

[FatmanG]

I do suspect that a lot of the more recent cases are younger people who are at less risk of dying, so we may not see quite as sharp a rise in deaths as expected - nonetheless the government do point out that either way there's an increased risk of passing the virus on to those who are more vulnerable - especially now with such a large proportion of younger people still living with parents.

Ah its the let's save granny argument. Flawed in numerous ways not less by schools who remain open with the same class sizes as pre pandemic and social distancing not applicable as each class is a bubble. So when the kids visit granny they are putting her at risk as most young are asymptomatic or it's too late once symptoms arise as your already infectious and have been for a week at least. If the main reason of lockdown is for granny then all the services of healthcare wouldn't have been stopped dead and other terrible killers like cancer wouldn't be left to run wild. Finally were told in the bible to expect 3 score years and 10 as life's existence its plenty of time to have lived enjoyed record opportunities to shape the world enjoyed foreign travel and historic freedoms. Freedoms that are now ripped away from grannies children and grandchildren and if she has 4 grandchildren to one of her children she isnt allowed to the house to see them. Its insane! Death is part of life I'm afraid old people die especially from respiratory problem issues. Usually they stop breathing! Flu season is around the corner and the media and govt will ramp up the repetitive narrative again and further erosion of our freedom will occur. Scenes like we have seen in Australia will start happening here. SARS cov 2 is real its dangerous to the elderly just like the flu. We have never quarantined the healthy, decimated a world economy, closed schools for the flu. Covid 19 is a brand there is no peer review paper anywhere that shows covid 19 as a Novel corona virus. Its been branded to cause sheer terror to take away our way of life to take control over us and to vaccinate us all.
God bless granny

 

[Rorschach]

The average age of those who have died WITH (not OF) C19 is 83, let that sink in for a moment. In Scotland that is OVER the average life expectancy by a couple of years.

 

[FatmanG]

Yes, although as positions become entrenched people may choose not to listen! It is also worth recapping on occasion however, as people tend to forget where we have come from and how things have developed along the way. Disclaimer - I am a scientist, and have a scientific view point. I like evidence to back up a hypothesis/statement. I do not seek to covert anyone to a particular way of thinking. I do teach university students however, and I do ask them to question, to think and to form conclusions based on reasoned argument. The most important question they (or indeed anyone) can ask, is 'why?'. So with that caveat out of the way, here is just one semi-scientific viewpoint of the Covid situation! This may be a long post, apologies in advance.

Origins
Covid-19 is a coronavirus. This is a type of virus typically found in some animal species, notably bats, and several variants can cross the species barrier and infect humans. SARS and MERS are two recent examples. Viruses require a living cell as a host. There are many types of virus and they have different mechanisms for replicating - some lay dormant for years, others will use the host cellular machinery to replicate. Some will have no effect on an individual while some will cause significant effects in the host individual. A significant proportion of cancer is actually viral in origin, either directly, or by side effects such as integrating into your genome and turning on genes that should be dormant, or turning off genes that should be expressed. In short, viruses show huge variety and are pretty much ubiquitous. They also mutate rapidly compared to other organisms, generating new strains all the time. These mutations can determine how infectious a virus is to a particular species, and the effects the strain will have on its host organism. Mutations can make a viral strain more infectious or less infectious. The more infectious a virus the faster it spreads (generally). With Covid, the evidence to date suggests that it originated in bats and crossed the species barrier to man. This may have happened via live animal markets in China, but nobody can be certain. It is certainly the case that as we disturb natural habitats and come into closer contact with wildlife that previously we would have avoided (or would have avoided us) we will be exposed to biological agents for the first time. this is not a new phenomenon - think of the Spanish and the Inca's in South America for just one example.

Is there any evidence the virus is man / lab made?
This has been a popular theory in some quarters, not helped by political statements that encourage this thinking. From a scientific viewpoint, it is relatively easy to manipulate the genome of a virus. It is a standard technique both for research, in trying to understand how a virus works, in medicine, for trying to isolate, culture or immunise against a virus, and as a molecular tool. Any university laboratory in the world will have performed procedures relating to this technology, as will any molecular biology R&D lab. What we cannot do however, is make a virus from scratch. So it is certain that nobody 'built' Covid from the ground up as an artificial life form. It is possible to take an existing virus and alter it however, by adding or removing genes or chunks of DNA from the viral genome. This is not a subtle process however, and is extremely easy to spot for a variety of technical reasons. The Covid genome has been sequenced, and that sequence is freely available to the scientific community (and anyone else who wants it). There is no evidence that the genome has been artificially manipulated. The Covid genome has also been compared to other Coronavirus genomes and shows significant similarity as well as expected mutation rates. Without getting too complicated, we can make estimates of mutation rates and the time taken to get from one strain to another, and the Covid genome fits these estimates. So several lines of evidence suggest this is not man-made. Some may choose not to believe these, I would simply suggest that the evidence underpinning a hypothesis is as important as the hypothesis itself, possibly more so.

Sampling and infection rates
So we know the virus exists, and scientific evidence suggests it is a naturally occurring strain. It definitely affects humans, and to a certain extent it does not matter where it has come from, but how it is affecting us. There is plenty of ongoing research into the origins of the virus and mutation rates still, but this is for scientific interest. The study of how it is affecting us all is now as much an epidemiological one, as a molecular one. The key thing to remember when considering population level data is that individuals within a population are all different, and that drawing general conclusions based on sparse data is incredibly complex with wide margins for error. There will always be outliers, there will always be exceptions to the general rule, and populations are not static, so different parts of a (very large) population can show widely different outcomes. This is amplified by sampling strategies - in a sufficiently large population, you need to test a significant proportion of individuals to draw meaningful conclusions and minimise your margin for error. This becomes impossible for extremely large populations, because you cannot test enough of the population to draw meaningful conclusions.

A measure of the spread of infection within a population is given by the 'R' number. This is effectively the number of individuals an infected individual passes the infection onto while they are infectious. A number greater than 1 means the prevalence of a virus in the population is increasing, a number below 1 means it is decreasing. The rise is exponential. 'R' is measured by sampling - effectively you take a random number of individuals from a population, test them for the virus, then repeat this process and work out whether the number of positive individuals has increased or decreased. As it can easily be seen, unless you test a huge proportion of the population, you are not going to get an accurate result. The statistical way to deal with this is to put something called confidence intervals around a number - typically at 95%. This means you define a number, but also a window around that number such that you are 95% certain your estimate is within that window. The bigger the sample you test, the tighter the window is. The issue is that a confidence interval can be difficult to grasp; a confidence interval that spans 1.0 is not helpful (it suggests you are 95% certain the infection rate is either increasing or decreasing!) and variability in the population means a single R number is not representative of all parts of a population anyway. So even in a good scenario, you are using fuzzy data to produce wide estimates, and basing a one size fits all policy on this. Scientifically R numbers are calculated correctly, but they are imperfect (although the best we have) for deciding blanket policy. Some people recognise this and live with the uncertainly, others decry the use of R numbers and ignore them. The approach recently has been to test more, and to base R numbers on local/regional data. To add insult to injury, R numbers work best when infected individuals form a higher proportion of a population, so as infection rates tail off, estimates become even worse. That does not mean testing is useless, but it is just one line of enquiry that informs policy.

Death rates
Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, over deaths due to Covid. Again, we are hampered empirically by poor sampling sizes, lack of accurate testing at time of death, and lack of reliable methodologies for calculating deaths. Should it be at time of death? Should it be the main cause of death? Should it be within 28 days of a positive test? Should we test all deaths post mortem? There is no consensus, and therefore estimates vary even within the UK, let alone between countries. Comparisons are somewhat meaningless, and variation in death rates from year to year anyway make longitudinal comparisons difficult, and accurate ones impossible. Use of different methodologies to support or refute viewpoints is commonplace, and unfortunately very confusing for the general public. An agreed worldwide methodology would help, but again if testing regimens vary, results will vary even of the same calculation is used. It is not in doubt that Covid can cause respiratory distress and in some cases death. Whether individuals would have died anyway is unclear, which co-morbidities are relevant is unclear, and whether deaths are significantly increased or decreased at the population level, and by how much, is also, you guessed it, unclear. Come back in 5 or 10 years and examine the data for a best guess, but even that will be heavily caveated. For now, it is probably safe to simply say that any data on 'death rates' can be refuted or conflicting data presented for an alternate viewpoint. Some will argue the data supports lockdowns, others will argue the data supports that no measures are necessary at all. We can get some idea from other countries, particularly where quarantine or lockdown measures have not been followed (such as Brazil) and note increased deaths, we can look at data from the US and in particular New York and see increased death rates, and we can look at countries with poor living conditions such as India and note high infection rates and deaths. Others will look at Sweden and use that to support alternative arguments. There is no definitive data, so again, look at the strength of evidence underpinning a particular position and draw your own conclusions.

Science, politics and economics
This is a fun one for a scientist! Scientific evidence has largely been derided and devalued in recent decades (I would say that though, I am a scientist remember). Politics, and the need for soundbites in the age of social media and short attention spans has been the priority until recently. Science tends to be cautious, it attaches caveats to findings, rarely makes definitive statements and can be conflicting. Politicians often say they 'follow scientific advice and guidance' as it gives them credibility, but what a politician really follows is the need to be re-elected. They will use science if it meets their needs, but will equally ignore it if it doesn't - that is part and parcel of the job. Yet when we enter a situation such as the current pandemic, scientists are currently in favour again. There is a reason SAGE is in the news, and the Chief Scientific Officer or Healthcare lead flanks whichever politician is giving the days briefing - it adds credibility to the politician. Yet look carefully, and scientists that do not toe the political line will be quickly dropped in favour of those who do. Scientifically, the best way to resolve a pandemic is to isolate everyone to prevent transmission. Politically and economically this is suicide. Balancing these 3 view points - the science to minimise adverse effects, the economic to ensure the effect on the population is not overwhelming, and the politic so politicians can be seen to be doing a good job and be worth re-electing - is a delicate act and the cause of most of the disagreements we see even on threads such as this one, as people cherry pick scientific theory, economic data and political opinion that suit their narrative or viewpoint and then propose this as an argument for or against a position. Some positions are more credible than others (look at the evidence in support of a position to judge this) others are equally credible but in opposition with each other. There is no right answer. No scientist wants to be wrong, no politician wants to be unelectable and nobody wants to tank the economy, but each will have a different perspective on the right way to deal with the reality of 'now'. Hindsight is 20:20 and the past can be studied at leisure.

Random final thoughts
What some see as prudent steps to limit the spread of infection or the consequences of a pandemic situation, others view as an infringement of their civil liberties. I am by no means an expert in this type of sociological argument and try to avoid them as there is no 'right' answer. There are valid points on both sides, and extreme points on both sides that can probably be safely ignored. Some people will accept a small infringement on their day to day activities, others will view any infringement as something worth standing against. The most powerful example is probably the US right to bear arms - some view this as a necessary part of the constitution at the time it was written when the landscape was very different to today, others view it as the right to own a military assault rifle for 'self defence'. Neither side will change the others viewpoint. The more extreme on both sides tend to attract the headlines.

I have steered clear of vaccines and clinical trials, these are complicated and difficult to interpret without significant data. There are also ethical issues I am not in any way an expert in. What we do know is that individual variability means trials must be of significant size to produce statistically meaningful data, and one size will not fit all. This is the case for all medicines and diseases. We currently are uncertain on the longevity of an immune reaction, whether that reaction differs between individuals and if so why. There are multiple factors that influence a bodies response to infection and vaccination. Will a vaccine be produced? Scientifically yes. Will it be 100% effective so we can eradicate Covid like we have smallpox? Probably not, at least not quickly. There are many ways to produce a vaccine, many responses to the same product and much variability and uncertainty about side effects and longevity. There is no quick solution.

Well that was a long post, and there is so much more we could have touched on. There is plenty to learn about Covid, but you have to dig and explore, as well as be willing to listen, judge and evaluate. Always look for the evidence underpinning a position, draw your own conclusions on the strength of this, and above all never be afraid to question.

As a scientist is it right that private and corporate money has too much influence on the research? As a well trained and educated man are you happy that bill gates and his yes man tedroos are leading the WHO and the response to the pandemic? Neither have any training whatsoever to do with health. Is it fair to say from your post that there is a vast amount of this virus that is acting in the same way that SARS and mers did? Do you believe that a working,safe vaccine can be produced in less than 12 months? You point out its not your bag but you will have an opinion would you take if one is produced?
Great post by the way

 

[FatmanG]

The average age of those who have died WITH (not OF) C19 is 83, let that sink in for a moment. In Scotland that is OVER the average life expectancy by a couple of years.

I thought Glasgow was around 64 the worst life expectancy in uk.
Have you checked out Dr David e martin and his forensic following of patents and the money trail. Finally someone with proof of criminality.

 

[AJB Temple]

I had a look at David Martin. He's certainly not modest. About - David Martin | The Wobble Effect

This type of effusive self aggrandisement and wild claims of "saving the lives of billions" fits into a certain mould of American self publicist flogging self help and lifestyle tomes. He may have some sensible things to say, but is hard to get past the constant boasts.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Hallelujah, amen....

Yes, although as positions become entrenched people may choose not to listen! It is also worth recapping on occasion however, as people tend to forget where we have come from and how things have developed along the way. Disclaimer - I am a scientist, and have a scientific view point. I like evidence to back up a hypothesis/statement. I do not seek to covert anyone to a particular way of thinking. I do teach university students however, and I do ask them to question, to think and to form conclusions based on reasoned argument. The most important question they (or indeed anyone) can ask, is 'why?'. So with that caveat out of the way, here is just one semi-scientific viewpoint of the Covid situation! This may be a long post, apologies in advance.

Origins
Covid-19 is a coronavirus. This is a type of virus typically found in some animal species, notably bats, and several variants can cross the species barrier and infect humans. SARS and MERS are two recent examples. Viruses require a living cell as a host. There are many types of virus and they have different mechanisms for replicating - some lay dormant for years, others will use the host cellular machinery to replicate. Some will have no effect on an individual while some will cause significant effects in the host individual. A significant proportion of cancer is actually viral in origin, either directly, or by side effects such as integrating into your genome and turning on genes that should be dormant, or turning off genes that should be expressed. In short, viruses show huge variety and are pretty much ubiquitous. They also mutate rapidly compared to other organisms, generating new strains all the time. These mutations can determine how infectious a virus is to a particular species, and the effects the strain will have on its host organism. Mutations can make a viral strain more infectious or less infectious. The more infectious a virus the faster it spreads (generally). With Covid, the evidence to date suggests that it originated in bats and crossed the species barrier to man. This may have happened via live animal markets in China, but nobody can be certain. It is certainly the case that as we disturb natural habitats and come into closer contact with wildlife that previously we would have avoided (or would have avoided us) we will be exposed to biological agents for the first time. this is not a new phenomenon - think of the Spanish and the Inca's in South America for just one example.

Is there any evidence the virus is man / lab made?
This has been a popular theory in some quarters, not helped by political statements that encourage this thinking. From a scientific viewpoint, it is relatively easy to manipulate the genome of a virus. It is a standard technique both for research, in trying to understand how a virus works, in medicine, for trying to isolate, culture or immunise against a virus, and as a molecular tool. Any university laboratory in the world will have performed procedures relating to this technology, as will any molecular biology R&D lab. What we cannot do however, is make a virus from scratch. So it is certain that nobody 'built' Covid from the ground up as an artificial life form. It is possible to take an existing virus and alter it however, by adding or removing genes or chunks of DNA from the viral genome. This is not a subtle process however, and is extremely easy to spot for a variety of technical reasons. The Covid genome has been sequenced, and that sequence is freely available to the scientific community (and anyone else who wants it). There is no evidence that the genome has been artificially manipulated. The Covid genome has also been compared to other Coronavirus genomes and shows significant similarity as well as expected mutation rates. Without getting too complicated, we can make estimates of mutation rates and the time taken to get from one strain to another, and the Covid genome fits these estimates. So several lines of evidence suggest this is not man-made. Some may choose not to believe these, I would simply suggest that the evidence underpinning a hypothesis is as important as the hypothesis itself, possibly more so.

Sampling and infection rates
So we know the virus exists, and scientific evidence suggests it is a naturally occurring strain. It definitely affects humans, and to a certain extent it does not matter where it has come from, but how it is affecting us. There is plenty of ongoing research into the origins of the virus and mutation rates still, but this is for scientific interest. The study of how it is affecting us all is now as much an epidemiological one, as a molecular one. The key thing to remember when considering population level data is that individuals within a population are all different, and that drawing general conclusions based on sparse data is incredibly complex with wide margins for error. There will always be outliers, there will always be exceptions to the general rule, and populations are not static, so different parts of a (very large) population can show widely different outcomes. This is amplified by sampling strategies - in a sufficiently large population, you need to test a significant proportion of individuals to draw meaningful conclusions and minimise your margin for error. This becomes impossible for extremely large populations, because you cannot test enough of the population to draw meaningful conclusions.

A measure of the spread of infection within a population is given by the 'R' number. This is effectively the number of individuals an infected individual passes the infection onto while they are infectious. A number greater than 1 means the prevalence of a virus in the population is increasing, a number below 1 means it is decreasing. The rise is exponential. 'R' is measured by sampling - effectively you take a random number of individuals from a population, test them for the virus, then repeat this process and work out whether the number of positive individuals has increased or decreased. As it can easily be seen, unless you test a huge proportion of the population, you are not going to get an accurate result. The statistical way to deal with this is to put something called confidence intervals around a number - typically at 95%. This means you define a number, but also a window around that number such that you are 95% certain your estimate is within that window. The bigger the sample you test, the tighter the window is. The issue is that a confidence interval can be difficult to grasp; a confidence interval that spans 1.0 is not helpful (it suggests you are 95% certain the infection rate is either increasing or decreasing!) and variability in the population means a single R number is not representative of all parts of a population anyway. So even in a good scenario, you are using fuzzy data to produce wide estimates, and basing a one size fits all policy on this. Scientifically R numbers are calculated correctly, but they are imperfect (although the best we have) for deciding blanket policy. Some people recognise this and live with the uncertainly, others decry the use of R numbers and ignore them. The approach recently has been to test more, and to base R numbers on local/regional data. To add insult to injury, R numbers work best when infected individuals form a higher proportion of a population, so as infection rates tail off, estimates become even worse. That does not mean testing is useless, but it is just one line of enquiry that informs policy.

Death rates
Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, over deaths due to Covid. Again, we are hampered empirically by poor sampling sizes, lack of accurate testing at time of death, and lack of reliable methodologies for calculating deaths. Should it be at time of death? Should it be the main cause of death? Should it be within 28 days of a positive test? Should we test all deaths post mortem? There is no consensus, and therefore estimates vary even within the UK, let alone between countries. Comparisons are somewhat meaningless, and variation in death rates from year to year anyway make longitudinal comparisons difficult, and accurate ones impossible. Use of different methodologies to support or refute viewpoints is commonplace, and unfortunately very confusing for the general public. An agreed worldwide methodology would help, but again if testing regimens vary, results will vary even of the same calculation is used. It is not in doubt that Covid can cause respiratory distress and in some cases death. Whether individuals would have died anyway is unclear, which co-morbidities are relevant is unclear, and whether deaths are significantly increased or decreased at the population level, and by how much, is also, you guessed it, unclear. Come back in 5 or 10 years and examine the data for a best guess, but even that will be heavily caveated. For now, it is probably safe to simply say that any data on 'death rates' can be refuted or conflicting data presented for an alternate viewpoint. Some will argue the data supports lockdowns, others will argue the data supports that no measures are necessary at all. We can get some idea from other countries, particularly where quarantine or lockdown measures have not been followed (such as Brazil) and note increased deaths, we can look at data from the US and in particular New York and see increased death rates, and we can look at countries with poor living conditions such as India and note high infection rates and deaths. Others will look at Sweden and use that to support alternative arguments. There is no definitive data, so again, look at the strength of evidence underpinning a particular position and draw your own conclusions.

Science, politics and economics
This is a fun one for a scientist! Scientific evidence has largely been derided and devalued in recent decades (I would say that though, I am a scientist remember). Politics, and the need for soundbites in the age of social media and short attention spans has been the priority until recently. Science tends to be cautious, it attaches caveats to findings, rarely makes definitive statements and can be conflicting. Politicians often say they 'follow scientific advice and guidance' as it gives them credibility, but what a politician really follows is the need to be re-elected. They will use science if it meets their needs, but will equally ignore it if it doesn't - that is part and parcel of the job. Yet when we enter a situation such as the current pandemic, scientists are currently in favour again. There is a reason SAGE is in the news, and the Chief Scientific Officer or Healthcare lead flanks whichever politician is giving the days briefing - it adds credibility to the politician. Yet look carefully, and scientists that do not toe the political line will be quickly dropped in favour of those who do. Scientifically, the best way to resolve a pandemic is to isolate everyone to prevent transmission. Politically and economically this is suicide. Balancing these 3 view points - the science to minimise adverse effects, the economic to ensure the effect on the population is not overwhelming, and the politic so politicians can be seen to be doing a good job and be worth re-electing - is a delicate act and the cause of most of the disagreements we see even on threads such as this one, as people cherry pick scientific theory, economic data and political opinion that suit their narrative or viewpoint and then propose this as an argument for or against a position. Some positions are more credible than others (look at the evidence in support of a position to judge this) others are equally credible but in opposition with each other. There is no right answer. No scientist wants to be wrong, no politician wants to be unelectable and nobody wants to tank the economy, but each will have a different perspective on the right way to deal with the reality of 'now'. Hindsight is 20:20 and the past can be studied at leisure.

Random final thoughts
What some see as prudent steps to limit the spread of infection or the consequences of a pandemic situation, others view as an infringement of their civil liberties. I am by no means an expert in this type of sociological argument and try to avoid them as there is no 'right' answer. There are valid points on both sides, and extreme points on both sides that can probably be safely ignored. Some people will accept a small infringement on their day to day activities, others will view any infringement as something worth standing against. The most powerful example is probably the US right to bear arms - some view this as a necessary part of the constitution at the time it was written when the landscape was very different to today, others view it as the right to own a military assault rifle for 'self defence'. Neither side will change the others viewpoint. The more extreme on both sides tend to attract the headlines.

I have steered clear of vaccines and clinical trials, these are complicated and difficult to interpret without significant data. There are also ethical issues I am not in any way an expert in. What we do know is that individual variability means trials must be of significant size to produce statistically meaningful data, and one size will not fit all. This is the case for all medicines and diseases. We currently are uncertain on the longevity of an immune reaction, whether that reaction differs between individuals and if so why. There are multiple factors that influence a bodies response to infection and vaccination. Will a vaccine be produced? Scientifically yes. Will it be 100% effective so we can eradicate Covid like we have smallpox? Probably not, at least not quickly. There are many ways to produce a vaccine, many responses to the same product and much variability and uncertainty about side effects and longevity. There is no quick solution.

Well that was a long post, and there is so much more we could have touched on. There is plenty to learn about Covid, but you have to dig and explore, as well as be willing to listen, judge and evaluate. Always look for the evidence underpinning a position, draw your own conclusions on the strength of this, and above all never be afraid to question.

Hallelujah, amen....

 

[StevieB]

As a scientist is it right that private and corporate money has too much influence on the research? As a well trained and educated man are you happy that bill gates and his yes man tedroos are leading the WHO and the response to the pandemic? Neither have any training whatsoever to do with health. Is it fair to say from your post that there is a vast amount of this virus that is acting in the same way that SARS and mers did? Do you believe that a working,safe vaccine can be produced in less than 12 months? You point out its not your bag but you will have an opinion would you take if one is produced?
Great post by the way

Can you define what you mean by private and corporate please? Research falls broadly into 2 camps - that of an academic nature to further knowledge, and that of a commercial nature to turn a profit. There is obviously overlap between these two things, with academic research leading to spin-outs and companies being formed, while commercial R&D will work with academia. Academic research is primarily funded by applying for grants. These may be to government funding schemes such as UKRI in the UK or NIH in the US, or to charities such as the Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation and a myriad others. Commerical R&D is usually funded by companies themselves. Each of the funding bodies will set their own priorities, judge applications independently and award based on their own set of criteria. A funder does not 'control' the research, rather as a bidder I make a case for a study or series of experiments, the funders decide whether to fund them and I then perform those experiments if funded. So private or corporate funders set a direction of travel (by choosing what they will fund) but this is a very loose direction. Funders do not dictate specific experiments explicitly.

A third but relatively minor category of funding is philanthropic. This is where the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation fits and where some of today's big charities originated (Henry Wellcome was a pharmacist, for example). These are private individuals who have vast wealth, that have chosen to invest in a particular cause. In Bill Gates case this has been largely through under represented diseases or populations, to improve the healthcare of the third world, but also other areas of interest. I have read that he funds the WHO to further this aim. It is not one individual sitting and deciding how to distribute their own wealth, but I suspect he will take an active interest in where his money goes and sets the direction of travel for his Foundation. With the amount of money available for this, those decisions can presumably dictate policy in some instances, or bring others to a cause through matched funding or shared costs (if I put $10 million into this alongside the government of the day, that brings shared benefits). I don't subscribe to the view that this is part of a plan for world domination, or to direct research to a defined goal of his choosing. Others may disagree and see it as wrong that an individual of vast wealth contributes so much to a body such as the WHO.

SARS and MERS are coronaviruses, so from the same family yes. Not sure anyone is denying this are they?

I am not a vaccine expert, but 12 months is very quick for a vaccine to make it to market. This is not because the technology is difficult, but because we are very cautious about how we regulate and market potential therapies. Trials take a long time because you want to follow participants for a long time and ensure there are no side effects that manifest later on, and to ensure any therapy is long lasting. You test, test test and test again, in labs, in animal trials and then in humans. The more of that you skip or rush, the less certain you can be about the efficacy of your vaccine. Even then we can get it wrong, or it only works for a subset of the population. Can we make a vaccine in 12 months - sure, if you are defining a vaccine as something that produces an immune reaction in a test subject. Whether we can say definitively it offers 100% protection for ever is much less certain. I do believe anything that makes it to market will have gone through rigorous testing and be safe, trials are stopped quite early if that is not the case and never make it to market. Would I take a vaccine - yes. Would I make it compulsory - no, that way lies real issues around civil liberties and individual human rights.

 

[FatmanG]

I had a look at David Martin. He's certainly not modest. About - David Martin | The Wobble Effect

This type of effusive self aggrandisement and wild claims of "saving the lives of billions" fits into a certain mould of American self publicist flogging self help and lifestyle tomes. He may have some sensible things to say, but is hard to get past the constant boasts.

If you separate the the USA style/ego away from the substance of what he is saying and focus on that its easier to digest. Watch freedomplatform.tv/davidemartin the interview is purely about provable content that anyone can fact check. Its not about suspicions or theories. Its quite an extraordinary watch. If anyone is genuinely open minded and reasonably concerned about criminality in corporations that is possibly directing the worlds response to this pandemic then they have to watch the interview and fact check the documents provided. An event of such life changing is too big to be a lie.

 

[AJB Temple]

OK, I have in fact watched some of it already before you posted. Freedom Platform lacks credibility - for example it promoted get rich quick schemes "make $1m in one deal" and is an established platform for David Icke, who has been shown many times to be deluded.

Anyway, I skipped through some guff and listened to Mr Martin. His style is to make a large number of assertions, presented as facts. He then repeats them to reinforce the assertions. My judgement, purely as an open minded viewer, is that this man is not credible.

 

[billw]

If anyone is genuinely open minded and reasonably concerned about criminality in corporations that is possibly directing the worlds response to this pandemic then they have to watch the interview and fact check the documents provided.

The fact that the world's biggest economy has a political system that is essentially open (and put on record) to monetary incentives being made to politicians in order to support the requirements of industry over the safety of its citizens suggests that there's no conspiracy theory or criminality at play - it's just a fact.

Reading StevieB's post - he states facts, he admits when he doesn't know something, he doesn't make wild claims or try and link facts to make a dramatic story. I am happy with the scientific community's position that CoVid is naturally occurring and my mum believes China released it as a bioweapon - I read facts, she reads the Daily Mail.

 

[FatmanG]

Can you define what you mean by private and corporate please? Research falls broadly into 2 camps - that of an academic nature to further knowledge, and that of a commercial nature to turn a profit. There is obviously overlap between these two things, with academic research leading to spin-outs and companies being formed, while commercial R&D will work with academia. Academic research is primarily funded by applying for grants. These may be to government funding schemes such as UKRI in the UK or NIH in the US, or to charities such as the Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation and a myriad others. Commerical R&D is usually funded by companies themselves. Each of the funding bodies will set their own priorities, judge applications independently and award based on their own set of criteria. A funder does not 'control' the research, rather as a bidder I make a case for a study or series of experiments, the funders decide whether to fund them and I then perform those experiments if funded. So private or corporate funders set a direction of travel (by choosing what they will fund) but this is a very loose direction. Funders do not dictate specific experiments explicitly.

A third but relatively minor category of funding is philanthropic. This is where the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation fits and where some of today's big charities originated (Henry Wellcome was a pharmacist, for example). These are private individuals who have vast wealth, that have chosen to invest in a particular cause. In Bill Gates case this has been largely through under represented diseases or populations, to improve the healthcare of the third world, but also other areas of interest. I have read that he funds the WHO to further this aim. It is not one individual sitting and deciding how to distribute their own wealth, but I suspect he will take an active interest in where his money goes and sets the direction of travel for his Foundation. With the amount of money available for this, those decisions can presumably dictate policy in some instances, or bring others to a cause through matched funding or shared costs (if I put $10 million into this alongside the government of the day, that brings shared benefits). I don't subscribe to the view that this is part of a plan for world domination, or to direct research to a defined goal of his choosing. Others may disagree and see it as wrong that an individual of vast wealth contributes so much to a body such as the WHO.

SARS and MERS are coronaviruses, so from the same family yes. Not sure anyone is denying this are they?

I am not a vaccine expert, but 12 months is very quick for a vaccine to make it to market. This is not because the technology is difficult, but because we are very cautious about how we regulate and market potential therapies. Trials take a long time because you want to follow participants for a long time and ensure there are no side effects that manifest later on, and to ensure any therapy is long lasting. You test, test test and test again, in labs, in animal trials and then in humans. The more of that you skip or rush, the less certain you can be about the efficacy of your vaccine. Even then we can get it wrong, or it only works for a subset of the population. Can we make a vaccine in 12 months - sure, if you are defining a vaccine as something that produces an immune reaction in a test subject. Whether we can say definitively it offers 100% protection for ever is much less certain. I do believe anything that makes it to market will have gone through rigorous testing and be safe, trials are stopped quite early if that is not the case and never make it to market. Would I take a vaccine - yes. Would I make it compulsory - no, that way lies real issues around civil liberties and individual human rights.

Vaccines is too big a subject to get into here but you mention rigorous testing which is how its supposed to be done, placebo trials etc unfortunately that is not the way modern ones are tested and in the USA manufacturers are protected in law against legal action instead the govt has a vaccine injury fund that has paid out 3.2billion dollars for vaccine injury.
l gates is all over the media pushing his vaccinate the world is the only way out of this pandemic. This is now the narrative of government's the WHO and mainstream media. Gates set up Gavi his money anyhow they as you say went into poor countries like India and were subsequently thrown out for injuries to numerous children mainly girls who have terrible polio like injuries and ruined their lives. In Africa gavi vaccination program was responsible for deaths,brain injuries and polio like injuries however they blame it on the front line workers who administered it incorrectly.
In research there are clear conflicts of interests with gain of function. No one in charge of public health policies should be able to own or shareholders in profit making corporations who make vaccines or corona virus test producers for example its a clear conflict of interest. Unfortunately its happening in most developed nations eg faucci, is going to become very rich from testing and the vaccine whoever makes it. My guess would be Maderna in the Usa but any is OK he's well in whoever it is and so is gates. So science and politics are intertwined. The agenda isn't world domination just make huge amounts of money through vaccines.

 

[FatmanG]

The fact that the world's biggest economy has a political system that is essentially open (and put on record) to monetary incentives being made to politicians in order to support the requirements of industry over the safety of its citizens suggests that there's no conspiracy theory or criminality at play - it's just a fact.

Reading StevieB's post - he states facts, he admits when he doesn't know something, he doesn't make wild claims or try and link facts to make a dramatic story. I am happy with the scientific community's position that CoVid is naturally occurring and my mum believes China released it as a bioweapon - I read facts, she reads the Daily Mail.

and its your right to believe what you like I made my beliefs known as my right nobody has the right to force feed a narrative on anyone and those that mock take the mick are really just toss ers

 

[AJB Temple]

FatMan G, you are also making statements as if they are facts: for example the assertion that the Gates foundation was kicked out of India. This is untrue - it was just viral nonsense that populates part of the internet. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wasn’t kicked out of India

Follow the links and check the Indian Government statement on the issue. Your argument is not helped by repetition of falsehoods.

 

[billw]

The agenda isn't world domination just make huge amounts of money through vaccines.

I'm pretty sure that most pharma profits actually come from the USA where the healthcare system is ripe for being commandeered for profiteering. I have friends over there, as I am sure many folk on here do, and they get stung for virtually anything medical whereas we can buy a pack of aspirin in Tesco for 20p and prescription drugs are capped at 9 quid.

Many big pharmas sell drugs at vastly reduced prices to developing and emerging economies - because otherwise sales would be 0. It's just commercial sense to them. Developed nations effectively subsidise the poorer ones, and quite honestly I am happy with that concept. Additionally, yes pharma makes big profits, but they also spend billions on R&D which can often lead nowhere and take years and years of investment. There's a simple risk/reward ratio in play. Do people manipulate things for personal gain? Look no further than "everyone's favourite President" who's been pushing whacky theories because his "mates" have their fingers in the pie.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Gates set up Gavi his money anyhow they as you say went into poor countries like India and were subsequently thrown out for injuries to numerous children mainly girls who have terrible polio like injuries and ruined their lives. In Africa gavi vaccination program was responsible for deaths,brain injuries and polio like injuries however they blame it on the front line workers who administered it incorrectly.

I must have a dodgy version of Google as a search for "Bill Gates India" quickly gives a list of fact checking sites showing this to be false.

 

[FatmanG]

FatMan G, you are also making statements as if they are facts: for example the assertion that the Gates foundation was kicked out of India. This is untrue - it was just viral nonsense that populates part of the internet. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wasn’t kicked out of India

Follow the links and check the Indian Government statement on the issue. Your argument is not helped by repetition of falsehoods.

No I said gavi was kicked out of India who was set up by gates money its his project

 

[billw]

and its your right to believe what you like I made my beliefs known as my right nobody has the right to force feed a narrative on anyone and those that mock take the mick are really just toss ers

OK I'm not mocking or taking the mick, and correct - you are totally free to believe whatever you want. Last term I did some work around political conspiracies and mapped out how they were perpetuated. The result was that people's belief was really driven by nothing but amplification. One person writes something, someone else repeats it, someone more important says they heard it, people think it must be true if they're saying it, etc etc. Digging into each amplification shows there was absolutely no attempt to verify it and the original author's work was so heavily discredited that it was essentially worthless.

Do people believe it? Yes. Have those people taken the time to go back and verify it? No. They just rely on "but they said it so it must be true". @AJB Temple has made the same point above, you're saying things as if they're facts.

 

[billw]

I must have a dodgy version of Google as a search for "Bill Gates India" quickly gives a list of fact checking sites showing this to be false.

Google's part of the conspiracy - they're hiding the truth!

 

[Blackswanwood]

No I said gavi was kicked out of India who was set up by gates money its his project

That's not correct - as recently as 7th August it was announced Gavi are collaborating with the Serum Insititue of India.