Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And your qualifications in epidemiology that enable you to make such observations are what exactly?

What that BBC piece misses is where the Ivermectin non sense started.

The qualifications of the person who wrote the paper that started all this?

'Dr. Kylie M, Ph.D, is a National Breast Cancer Foundation Career Development Fellow within the Department of Biochemistry and Mol. Biology, at Monash University (Clayton, Melbourne, Australia) and Head of the Cancer Targeting and Nuclear Therapeutics Laboratory. She got her B.Biomed.Sci.and her Ph.D.in Biochemistry at Monash University (Melbourne). Her research over the last 18 years has focused on the regulation of transport into and out of the eukaryotic cell nucleus, and how this relates to viral disease, cancer and development. She has c. 40 peer-reviewed publications (>1,000 citations; H-factor of 18). Her awards and prizes include National Breast Cancer Foundation, Career Development Fellowship(2017), the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IUBMB) Young Scientist Program Prize (2009) and the Caroline Chisholm award for service (2015).'

She should know what she is talking about, eh? Pity she jumped the gun.

This from Monash in April last year
https://www.monash.edu/discovery-ins...ls-in-48-hours

The Invermectin mess has supercharged the anti-vax movement and has thus killed thousands of people.



One might be forgiven for believing at first those initial flawed studies -- of course who wouldn't be happy for the world to have a cheap and effective treatment. But the evidence piled up pretty quickly that it was all a bunch of nonsense. Good history of the whole affair in Nature, here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...ntent=deeplink.


I blame Campbell for reading superficially and uncriticially and failing to figure out what was going on, misleading his million YouTube followers and fuelling the anti-vax movement. And to my knowledge he hasn't corrected or retracted his earlier statements, just like he hasn't corrected his earlier bloopers about Sweden. Campbell is really good at explaining scientific stuff to lay people -- and that is in fact his area of expertise. As long as the paper he is explaining is itself sound, then everything is fine. But he is himself uncritical and superficial, and that leads to stuff like this, which is not fine.



This is I guess really typical of the kind of thing that can happen when people get their information from YouTube stars and social media.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I wouldn't say it looks so bad in Ireland so far.


Death rate in Ireland is 1.6, which is 3x higher than Sweden and more than 2x Denmark, but this is not a high death rate, not enough to bump excess death figures. And death rates are not increasing; they are actually down since the beginning of the month.



Hospitalizations at 100 per million but not rising at all.


Ireland has an excellent vaccination rate with more than 75% of the entire population fully vaxxed, almost as high as Denmark.


I would think you should be OK. Touch wood. Infection rate is quite high and increasing, but when you're so well vaccinated this doesn't seem to lead to any real disaster. I imagine that the overwhelming majority of new infections is among young people now. Are they considering reimposing measures?

No new measures but slower release of existing ones ( indoor rules etc , MASM wearing )

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And your qualifications in epidemiology that enable you to make such observations are what exactly?

What that BBC piece misses is where the Ivermectin non sense started.

The qualifications of the person who wrote the paper that started all this?

'Dr. Kylie M, Ph.D, is a National Breast Cancer Foundation Career Development Fellow within the Department of Biochemistry and Mol. Biology, at Monash University (Clayton, Melbourne, Australia) and Head of the Cancer Targeting and Nuclear Therapeutics Laboratory. She got her B.Biomed.Sci.and her Ph.D.in Biochemistry at Monash University (Melbourne). Her research over the last 18 years has focused on the regulation of transport into and out of the eukaryotic cell nucleus, and how this relates to viral disease, cancer and development. She has c. 40 peer-reviewed publications (>1,000 citations; H-factor of 18). Her awards and prizes include National Breast Cancer Foundation, Career Development Fellowship(2017), the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IUBMB) Young Scientist Program Prize (2009) and the Caroline Chisholm award for service (2015).'

She should know what she is talking about, eh? Pity she jumped the gun.

This from Monash in April last year
https://www.monash.edu/discovery-ins...ls-in-48-hours

Ping, what is critically required in analysing situations such as this is clear thinking, which Dockhead has in spades. You may be surprised, but this does not apply to all holders of PhDs.

Dr Wagstaff examined the effects of ivermectin on eukaryotic cells in vitro (= in petri dishes). The idea came about, as in the past ivermectin “has also been shown to be effective in vitro against a broad range of viruses including HIV, Dengue, Influenza and Zika virus”. This did not subsequently lead to ivermectin effectively treating these conditions.

I have not kept up on all the latest papers, but good studies have been scarce and I think the jury is still out regarding ivermectin’s effectiveness in vivo. I think it showed promise, but that is a long way from taking a leap and actively promoting it, as Dr Campbell has been doing.

SWL

[CatNewBee]

https://youtu.be/W8ShvWc0_kw

worth watching and maybe re-thinking what you are told...

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

https://youtu.be/W8ShvWc0_kw

worth watching and maybe re-thinking what you are told...

"Everybody Knows", is a phrase of conviction by the lazy without irrefutable proof and a tool to share blame if the administration gets it wrong.

I would be OK with that as long as it did not remove the right to disagree

[CatNewBee]

stumbled upon another interesting interview with Robert Malone.

https://youtu.be/9E2UkhCWosg

[CatNewBee]

https://youtu.be/if7WsLiZG0M
Drbeen medical lectures, review of the Phizer trial study scandal investigation on BMJ

[Zippee]

"Another big gaffe of Campbell's was to uncritically repeat reports about scientific studies confirming the therapeutic value of Ivermectin, although it was ALREADY known at the time that those studies were manipulated or wrong. He became a fan of Invermectin and was much quoted in the wacko anti-vax social media."

You don’t say!


But sadly, you do. Campbell did nothing but critically review 112 reports and a meta-analysis of the literature (review of literature). The claim that apparently all were “manipulated or wrong” is so extreme as to be incredible on its face. Campbell never became a “fan” in the poster’s deprecating sense of promoting the wacko use of Ivermectin in the self-help fashion of the anti-vaxxers. The one and only fair fact made above is that Campbell was indeed parsed and misquoted by the wackos, in the same fashion as the poster appears to have also done here).

To the contrary and from the beginning, he remained strongly in favor of thorough and peer reviewed governmental clinical studies, to reach a needed fair and sound epidemiological conclusion. To conclude, your continued bias and defense of Sweden and your alleged “Nordic” (non) unity is noted.

Frankly, it seems that Campbell’s real error was to express professional data that the poster apparently perceived in contradiction or competitive to his own constantly tweaked and modified positions. Needless to say, epidemiology (in my view) is not the poster’s strong suit. However, if I were guilty of character assassination and needed a good lawyer to get me off…

Look, it really does seem that the poster – as a moderator - seems to treat this thread as his own personal stomping grounds, and thus licensed to hold forth and to coopt respect as the resident epidemiological expert. Heaven forbid! Those who disagree seem to hear from him quickly, forcefully, and repeatedly in curt and to me, bullying fashion. To me this is not moderation, but more domination. I think it’s an error. I believe a change in tone and a modicum of respect for differing opinions would be productive.

Frankly the poster’s own record regarding Covid is highly checkered, and which I have discovered as being far more wrong than right. The rubber goal posts keep getting moved. I note a strong bias defending Sweden and an imaginary “Nordic unity”, when in fact Sweden has been an outlier from the beginning. The strictness scores of these countries over time are anything but unified. The term “shutdown (or) lockdown” have resisted definition and have been used as polemically expedient.

Campbell is indeed widely followed and read by millions, mostly because he is more than qualified to so. He provides copious links and citations and the material is expressed with a minimum of personal opinion, despite our poster’s seeming jealousy. Do we suffer here from Big fish in Small Pond Syndrome? Being able to sail in the ocean doesn’t mean you can swim in it, lol...

Sorry. In my opinion the comments made in re Campbell border on defamatory, unjustified, miscited, mispresented, jealous and just plain wrong. In the UK such behavior is grounds for litigation. And for what? Ego? Jealousy? You decide.


In closing as always, I urge readers NOT to believe either me or Dockhead, but rather to actually listen to the source and make up their own minds. Campbell is a treasure – a knowledgeable educator who takes the time and effort to present confusing epidemiological data in an open, unbiased and understandable matter. He does not lecture or browbeat, he educates, and has thus earned a following from scratch.

Campbell further provides links to the details original material and sources – again so that the millions of followers and viewers can understand the issues, and make up their own minds. More value.

Sailors who pretend to be experts should ease off the wind... or as better said by the poster: "This is I guess really typical of the kind of thing that can happen when people get their information from YouTube stars and social media." Including CF and our resident expert?

A Meta-Analysis of 112 Invermectin Studies (with links)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7am9kjMrk

[Anders]

Was announced today that all frontline NHS staff in England must be fully vaccinated by April 1st 2022.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Anders

Was announced today that all frontline NHS staff in England must be fully vaccinated by April 1st 2022.

Lol, I can see that British sense of dynamic diplomatic efficacy.

A deadline that can also be seen as an April Fools joke

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Lol, I can see that British sense of dynamic diplomatic efficacy.

A deadline that can also be seen as an April Fools joke

I would not be entirely surprised if that date changes when they write the legislation...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Zippee

You don’t say!

But sadly, you do.

Hmm. Someone seems to have an axe to grind. When did I offend you? You've only made 11 posts on here -- when did I even have the chance?

Originally Posted by Zippee

Campbell did nothing but critically review 112 reports and a meta-analysis of the literature (review of literature). The claim that apparently all were “manipulated or wrong” is so extreme as to be incredible on its face.

No one said that. The scientific consensus at the moment, contra Campbell, is that there is no credible evidence yet that Invermectin is effective as a treatment for COVID 19. Campbell UNcritically latches on to two studies (not 121) which had already been discredited by the time he made the video where he praises them. I already gave cites for this.

Originally Posted by Zippee

. . . Frankly the poster’s own record regarding Covid is highly checkered, and which I have discovered as being far more wrong than right. The rubber goal posts keep getting moved. I note a strong bias defending Sweden and an imaginary “Nordic unity”, when in fact Sweden has been an outlier from the beginning. The strictness scores of these countries over time are anything but unified. The term “shutdown (or) lockdown” have resisted definition and have been used as polemically expedient.

The facts say otherwise.



Stringency index tracks closely among the Nordic countries which diverge greatly from the rest of Europe. The differences among the Nordic countries are slight, but note that Sweden had the HIGHEST stringency index in the Nordic countries from 22 May 2020 until 10 January 2021, and again during most of May, 2021. If any Nordic country could be called an "outlier", it's Finland, which was 10 points less strict than the next laxest Nordic countries for the whole first half of 2021, and was least strict from June through the end of October, 2020. If you average the Stringency Index during the whole pandemic, Finland is the least strict and Sweden is the most strict. So to say that the Stringency Index shows that Sweden is an outlier is, factually, nonsense.

Here is Finland compared to the UK:




The UK is supposed to have dithered and delayed, and implemented insufficiently strict measures. But you see here that AT NO POINT is the UK less strict than Finland; in fact the UK is hugely stricter, up to almost 40 points stricter, than Finland during most of the pandemic. Nor was the UK materially slower in starting up the measures. By 25 March, UK is already more than 10 points stricter than Finland.


And none of this will be any surprise to anyone who has dug into the facts of the pandemic measures in the Nordics. In fact the combination of measures was exactly the same throughout the region, and totally different from the rest of Europe. With no stay at home orders used anywhere in the region at any time ("stay at home orders" = "lockdown" used in the strict sense -- the term does not indeed "resist definition"), nor any of the other stricter measures. Primary schools were never closed in Sweden, but they were only closed for 3 or 4 weeks in the rest of the Nordics, compared to most of a year in most of Europe.

I do speak up about Sweden, because Sweden has been been involuntarily and incorrectly inducted into the U.S. culture wars, by idiots on the right falsely claiming that Sweden just did nothing and did just fine (therefore, we should just do nothing :nono; and by idiots on the left falsely claiming that Sweden had some unique and deadly approach to the pandemic which would result in everyone dying. Neither is even slightly true. Political polarization leads to ridiculous distortion, and that is what happened to Sweden. So it's a bit of a pet peeve, and I try to set the record straight.

Note that this harping on Sweden was mostly a 2020 phenomenon. By the end of 2020, when it became clear that Sweden was actually doing very well, and when better informed people started to understand that there is nothing unique about the Swedish measures, this harping died down. A few people haven't received the memo yet, though.

What concerns the term "lockdown" -- this term has been carefully defined numerous times in this thread, and the term has been used with total consistency. This term causes no confusion among people who go to the slightest trouble to use their terms with care. A resource as basic as Webster's, for God's sake, clearly answers the question, of what is "lockdown":


"Definition of lockdown

"1 : the confinement of prisoners to their cells for all or most of the day as a temporary security measure
"2a : an emergency measure or condition in which people are temporarily prevented from entering or leaving a restricted area or building (such as a school) during a threat of danger … the school went on lockdown when a student brought a pellet gun to campus.— Ian Gordon
"b : a temporary condition imposed by governmental authorities (as during the outbreak of an epidemic disease) in which people are required to stay in their homes and refrain from or limit activities outside the home involving public contact (such as dining out or attending large gatherings)"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown

So, I say again, there was never any lockdown in any Nordic country, unlike the rest of Europe. This is a fact. No one will be confused by the terminology, who does not want to be confused, or to sow confusion.

[CatNewBee]

Interesting new study in the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...648-4/fulltext

I refrain from commenting, it speaks for itself regarding spread of the virus and vaccines.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Interesting new study in the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...648-4/fulltext

I refrain from commenting, it speaks for itself regarding spread of the virus and vaccines.

What do you find surprising? The study finds:
"Interpretation

"Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.. . " Op. cit.


In other words, vaccination reduces infection, even the Delta variant. Vaccination accelerates clearance of the virus even if an infection takes place. However, when there IS a breakthrough infection, vaccinated people are also contagious.


We've known all this for a long time.

[CatNewBee]

https://youtu.be/ufy2AweXRkc

Horses to courses...