mixed_biscuits
_________________________
StrawmanYou're not talking about "influence" though. You're talking about them directly controlling every single government, every university, every hospital and clinic.
StrawmanYou're not talking about "influence" though. You're talking about them directly controlling every single government, every university, every hospital and clinic.
That's not a scientific objection (no paper takes this line): you're just proving my pointI think a better objection is that it was developed for treating parasitic worms, not viruses, let alone coronaviruses in particular, let alone this particular coronavirus.
Well as we've already established, the going rate for anti-vaxx hero Piers Corbyn is ten grand:
My point being that there's an unlimited amount of grift on the anti-vaxx side of things, whatever we may think of the pharmaceutical industry.Exactly: society is awash with this stuff
Not remotely. You must believe that pharma companies have some sort of hold over governments - which isn't implausible in the case of very small, poor countries, but risible if you're talking about the USA, China, Japan, Germany... - because why else would they be paying for expensive vaccines rather than using cheap generic drugs?Strawman
You'll find that the pipeline for treatment approval is very narrow in places: easy for something to go awry at these pointsNot remotely. You must believe that pharma companies have some sort of hold over governments - which isn't implausible in the case of very small, poor countries, but risible if you're talking about the USA, China, Japan, Germany... - because why else would they be paying for expensive vaccines rather than using cheap generic drugs?
Imperial's models have been pivotal so it's hardly disingenuous. Have you heard of a certain Neil Ferguson? Now read his papers and tell us which basic assumptions are wholly unwarranted, resulting in a biased outputIn case anyone's interested in the actual models that SAGE were considering, there's a comparison of them vs actual hospitalization data at the end of this page:
UK COVID-19 Tracker
russss.github.io
My guess is that the source that Biscuits was using had deliberately cherry picked the Imperial model, which seems to have been by far the most pessimistic in terms of the size of the exit wave, in order to make a dishonest argument about the untrustworthiness of models.
Those models are flat out incorrect, all of them - the figures have not followed the curve-fitting they didIn case anyone's interested in the actual models that SAGE were considering, there's a comparison of them vs actual hospitalization data at the end of this page:
UK COVID-19 Tracker
russss.github.io
My guess is that the source that Biscuits was using had deliberately cherry picked the Imperial model, which seems to have been by far the most pessimistic in terms of the size of the exit wave, in order to make a dishonest argument about the untrustworthiness of models.
Is this an admission that the process for assessing something like a vaccine or anti-viral treatment is actually pretty rigorous?You'll find that the pipeline for treatment approval is very narrow in places: easy for something to go awry at these points
Imperial's models have been pivotal so it's hardly disingenuous. Have you heard of a certain Neil Ferguson? Now read his papers and tell us which basic assumptions are wholly unwarranted, resulting in a biased output
If you were in any way informed, you would already know the answers 😉What, you posted more shit that you don't understand so now you get to set homework? No, fuck off.
It means there are weak points of failure which can be put under pressureIs this an admission that the process for assessing something like a vaccine or anti-viral treatment is actually pretty rigorous?
Weak points - which all failed in exactly the same way, in every country, at the same time...It means there are weak points of failure which can be put under pressure
No, in many countries they ended up using HCQ (most countries) or ivermectin (see Peru)Weak points - which all failed in exactly the same way, in every country, at the same time...
Your naivety is off the scale. Pharma is the largest industrial lobbyist in Washington.Not remotely. You must believe that pharma companies have some sort of hold over governments - which isn't implausible in the case of very small, poor countries, but risible if you're talking about the USA, China, Japan, Germany... - because why else would they be paying for expensive vaccines rather than using cheap generic drugs?