That's really worrying.Galfon wrote:Fur crying out loud, that's all we need..
https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... m=referral
: I think the article should have mentioned the name SARS-CoV-2 to make it clear this is a mutation of the virus which causes Covid-19, not some other coronavirus.)
The odds were quite high I suppose of this or similar happening. Good to see the Danes take swift action, hopefully it’s swift enough.Son of Mathonwy wrote:That's really worrying.Galfon wrote:Fur crying out loud, that's all we need..
https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... m=referral
(Pedantic aside
) here it is:
gransoporro wrote:https://theamericanonews.com/2020/11/09/pfizer-vaccine/
It should be free. Let’s see.
British Medical Journal wrote:When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die
Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.
...
The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.
ARTICLE CONTINUES...
I feel this story won't feature strongly in the Telegraph.Which Tyler wrote:http://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425
British Medical Journal wrote:When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die
Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.
...
The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.
ARTICLE CONTINUES...
)
Digby wrote:Two queries, why are the vaccines showing up so well in the higher age groups, and what would be the best plan for a global rollout for vaccine deployment even if we'll actually get individual nations scrambling to address their concerns first?
I think he’s talking about the low drop off in efficiency for older patients.morepork wrote:Digby wrote:Two queries, why are the vaccines showing up so well in the higher age groups, and what would be the best plan for a global rollout for vaccine deployment even if we'll actually get individual nations scrambling to address their concerns first?
Wot do you mean showing up well old chap? Less of them dying?
In the UK that's the plan which makes most money for the Tories and their pals.Digby wrote:Two queries, why are the vaccines showing up so well in the higher age groups, and what would be the best plan for a global rollout for vaccine deployment even if we'll actually get individual nations scrambling to address their concerns first?
It does look good, which bar more Brexit voters might survive is a good thing. Just given it's a boost to reduced immune system it's seemingly a much bigger boost than expectedStom wrote:I think he’s talking about the low drop off in efficiency for older patients.morepork wrote:Digby wrote:Two queries, why are the vaccines showing up so well in the higher age groups, and what would be the best plan for a global rollout for vaccine deployment even if we'll actually get individual nations scrambling to address their concerns first?
Wot do you mean showing up well old chap? Less of them dying?
It does look promising.