Search results

I'd not really thought of it like that, but yes I can see the validity of what you say. Scary but valid. Presumably perceptions of survival chances could also influence how long to persevere with life support, consciously or unconsciously; must be incredibly difficult anyway.

Very true. Indeed it's Parker's propaganda style for the LP.

Don't forget tea leaves :).

And yet time and time again the PACE authors and their endorsers have said that GET/CBT should remain in use because "it is the best there is". A bit like saying you'll have to eat their sh*t because there's nothing else in the fridge.

An alternative being, like trying to polish a turd. That glib phrase "evidence-based" yet again. Low or very low quality evidence does not entitle you to start bragging about being evidence based.

Now there's a confession if ever there was.

It now says there are 3 replies, but I can only see 2.

A question re vaccines please. I gather the vaccines basically expose a person's immune system to either a weakened form of the virus, or the spike protein, so that when the immune system is first challenged by it, and takes time to ramp up its defences, the vaccine does this without exposing...

But at the same time we have been highly critical (correctly so) about the lack of, or extremely misguided, coverage in the mainstream UK media. So we have to run with this, albeit the noted concerns are very valid. Is it necessarily for the Guardian to designate which experts a journalist can...

https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2020/12/pandemic-social-isolation-provides-glimpse-into-the-everyday-realities-of-chronically-ill-patients Pandemic social isolation provides glimpse into the everyday realities of chronically ill patients

Jury's out, will have to wait and see.

Presumably if it does, then it would be best to simply xref to the new ME/CFS guideline.

But that is a post-hoc analysis, and presumably vulnerable to various misinterpretations. At this point it is just a hypothesis surely? How can they be sure something else was not going on?

[bold showing changes] I think my original post should have been phrased better, as above. But doesn't this still align with what I was saying? If nobody needed hospital treatment who had two doses of vaccine, then that seems encouraging. And the fact that some of those people were positive...

I imagine their top priority is to slow the rate of hospital admissions, as that is the main breaking point at the moment. So concentrating on getting a first dose into as many vulnerable people as possible.

I guess it's a bit like the Microsoft Windows rollout principle (tongue in cheek) - test in-house as best you can, then release to the rest of the world in the knowledge of having a much larger test population to uncover more obscure issues, and further statistics.

Valid points. Age range 18–55, so not so vulnerable so far as age concerned. Will look further. ETA: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32623-4/fulltext

Done.

But I'm not entirely sure the efficacy figure is the only valid metric, which I think only identifies those who do not develop symptoms. In my post https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-biology-of-coronavirus-covid-19-including-research-vaccines-treatments.14022/page-57#post-314306 there is a link...

[my bold] How is the efficacy determined? Is it saying that the 70.4% developed no symptoms? And that the 29.6% developed symptoms but none too seriously? So maybe the 29.4% end up more in the situation of people who develop flu, get annoying symptoms but not serious? ETA: I guess that's what...