Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Moderator: O'zone

Locked
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33201 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

daddy-kool wrote: 11/10/2020 22:09 Čemu to kada se kraj nazire?


https://www.theweek.co.uk/108321/leaked ... n-november
NHS preparing to roll out coronavirus vaccine next month if jab gets approved
Five vaccination sites to be set up in major cities as part of mass inoculation roll-out
Koje "čemu to", ne kontam?
Na stranu to što niko ne zna kada će efikasna vakcina (i ako je otkriju) biti dostupna u BiH i koliko će se ljudi cijepiti.
Ja ne vjerujem da ću, a moja djeca pogotovu neće.
Edit
Doduše...
“There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18,” Bingham told the Financial Times, adding: “It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33202 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Komentar covjeka koji predaje epidemiologiju na Yale-u na dekleraciju. Znam da @Naslovnica voli zvucna imena.

Let’s put this into some real-world context. In the United States, only a small proportion of older Americans live in nursing or care homes, where we have shown little ability to keep our elders safe over the past eight months. The bulk of older Americans are integrated into our communities, living alone or with their spouses or their families. Even if we could make nursing homes into impenetrable fortresses impervious to viral entry, it’s not at all clear how we’d keep the millions of elderly “safe” as they live around, among, and with us. In fact, data from CDC suggests that we haven’t done a good job at all on this, and when virus cases surge in young people, the elderly are next in line for transmission.

Another group of people to whom these three august academics give short shrift are the chronically ill in America. The CDC estimates that nearly half of all Americans (47.5 percent) have underlying conditions that predispose them to severe Covid-19 outcomes. If it is a challenge to think of sequestering the elderly, what do we do with almost half of our fellow Americans who may be at similar enhanced risk of complications and death from Covid-19? Then there are the young. Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta would have you believe that young people have little to fear from Covid-19, urging them to resume their normal lives. Yet if you look at hospitalizations for young adults with Covid-19 in a national study, 21 percent required intensive care, 10 percent required mechanical ventilation, and 2.7 percent died. Many of these young people had chronic conditions, which enhanced their risk—and over half of the young people hospitalized in this cohort were Black or Latino.

I niko ziv ne predlaze lockdown o kojem ovi potpisnici deklaracije pricaju. Bukvalno se svadjaju s prosloscu. I sta rece za maske?

A evo sta je prijedlog rjesenja:

We need more nuanced, targeted approaches using data on our local epidemics (which will require, in part, massive investments in testing), crafting interventions to address what is happening in our communities, evaluating them for their epidemiological, and social, and economic impact, adapting and changing them as the evidence changes, too. Though we slowed the pandemic this spring, the scattershot strategies we employed came without any real support for ordinary Americans from Washington, leaving most of us alone against the virus.

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... -immunity/
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33203 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:09 Komentar covjeka koji predaje epidemiologiju na Yale-u na dekleraciju. Znam da @Naslovnica voli zvucna imena.

Let’s put this into some real-world context. In the United States, only a small proportion of older Americans live in nursing or care homes, where we have shown little ability to keep our elders safe over the past eight months. The bulk of older Americans are integrated into our communities, living alone or with their spouses or their families. Even if we could make nursing homes into impenetrable fortresses impervious to viral entry, it’s not at all clear how we’d keep the millions of elderly “safe” as they live around, among, and with us. In fact, data from CDC suggests that we haven’t done a good job at all on this, and when virus cases surge in young people, the elderly are next in line for transmission.

Another group of people to whom these three august academics give short shrift are the chronically ill in America. The CDC estimates that nearly half of all Americans (47.5 percent) have underlying conditions that predispose them to severe Covid-19 outcomes. If it is a challenge to think of sequestering the elderly, what do we do with almost half of our fellow Americans who may be at similar enhanced risk of complications and death from Covid-19? Then there are the young. Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta would have you believe that young people have little to fear from Covid-19, urging them to resume their normal lives. Yet if you look at hospitalizations for young adults with Covid-19 in a national study, 21 percent required intensive care, 10 percent required mechanical ventilation, and 2.7 percent died. Many of these young people had chronic conditions, which enhanced their risk—and over half of the young people hospitalized in this cohort were Black or Latino.

I niko ziv ne predlaze lockdown o kojem ovi potpisnici deklaracije pricaju. Bukvalno se svadjaju s prosloscu. I sta rece za maske?

A evo sta je prijedlog rjesenja:

We need more nuanced, targeted approaches using data on our local epidemics (which will require, in part, massive investments in testing), crafting interventions to address what is happening in our communities, evaluating them for their epidemiological, and social, and economic impact, adapting and changing them as the evidence changes, too. Though we slowed the pandemic this spring, the scattershot strategies we employed came without any real support for ordinary Americans from Washington, leaving most of us alone against the virus.

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... -immunity/
I ova 3 glavna potpisnika predaju na Harvardu, Stanfordu i Oxfordu, a ostali supotpisnici ispod su sve redom eminentni ljudi iz struke. ;-)
A ja iz posta u post pitam - GDJE SI TI PROČITALA DA SE U OVOJ DEKLARACIJI PREDLAŽE LOCKDOWN ZA UGROŽENE? :shock:
Poenta je da:
Onima koji nisu ranjivi treba odmah omogućiti da nastave normalno živjeti.
Pusti šuplju priču da deklaracija kaže da se stari i rizični trebaju staviti u karantene, da ne mogu otići u prodavnicu ili do doktora, tome se uopšte ne govori na način na koji ti uporno (iz ko zna kojeg razloga) pokušavaš da predstaviš. Govori se da fokus borbe protiv COVID-19 treba biti na ugroženim grupama (a zar nije i sada :-) :-) :-) ), a one koji nisu ugroženi treba pustiti da normalno žive.
U čemu je problem?
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33204 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Kako bi ti to praktocno izveo? Kako da dedo ode platiti racune, ako je cilj kolektivni imunitet tj. da se zarazi sto veci broj ljudi?
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33205 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:20 Kako bi ti to praktocno izveo? Kako da dedo ode platiti racune, ako je cilj kolektivni imunitet tj. da se zarazi sto veci broj ljudi?
A kako dedo sada plaća račune?
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33206 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:21
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:20 Kako bi ti to praktocno izveo? Kako da dedo ode platiti racune, ako je cilj kolektivni imunitet tj. da se zarazi sto veci broj ljudi?
A kako dedo sada plaća račune?
Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33207 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Da ponovimo:

Deklaracija Iz Great Barringtona

Kao epidemiolozi zaraznih bolesti i znanstvenici u području javnog zdravstva ozbiljno smo zabrinuti zbog štetnih utjecaja na fizičko i mentalno zdravlje prevladavajućih politika koje se tiču bolesti COVID-19 te preporučujemo pristup koji nazivamo – Ciljanom zaštitom (Focused Protection).

Dolazeći i slijeva i zdesna, i iz cijelog svijeta, svoju smo karijeru posvetili zaštiti ljudi. Trenutačne politike zaključavanja proizvode razorne učinke na kratkoročno i dugoročno javno zdravlje. Rezultati (nabrojimo ih samo nekoliko) uključuju niže stope cijepljenja u dječjoj dobi, pogoršanje ishoda kardiovaskularnih bolesti, manje preventivnih pregleda za rak i pogoršanje mentalnog zdravlja – što dovodi do prekomjerne smrtnosti u godinama koje dolaze, a radni ljudi i mlađi članovi društva snose najveći teret. Onemogućivanje redovitoga školovanja velika je nepravda.

Održavanje ovih mjera sve dok cjepivo ne postane dostupno prouzročit će nepopravljivu štetu, a siromašni će biti nesrazmjerno oštećeni.

Srećom, naše razumijevanje virusa raste. Znamo da je mogućnost smrti od bolesti COVID-19 više od tisuću puta veća kod starih i nemoćnih nego kod mladih. Doista, za djecu je COVID-19 manje opasan od mnogih drugih bolesti, uključujući gripu.

Kako imunitet u populaciji raste, rizik od infekcije za sve – uključujući i one ranjive – pada. Znamo da će sve populacije na kraju doseći imunitet stada – tj. točku na kojoj je stopa novih infekcija stabilna – i da tome može pomoći cjepivo (ali i da ne ovisi o njemu). Cilj bi nam stoga trebao biti minimizirati smrtnost i društvenu štetu dok ne postignemo imunitet stada.

Najsuosjećajniji pristup koji uravnotežuje rizike i koristi od dostizanja imuniteta krda je omogućiti onima koji su u minimalnom riziku od smrti da normalno žive svoj život kako bi izgradili imunitet na virus prirodnom infekcijom, istodobno bolje štiteći one koji imaju najveći rizik. To nazivamo – Ciljanom zaštitom.

Usvajanje mjera za zaštitu ranjivih osoba trebao bi biti središnji cilj odgovora javnog zdravstva na COVID-19. Primjerice, starački domovi trebali bi koristiti osoblje sa stečenim imunitetom i provoditi česta PCR testiranja ostalog osoblja i svih posjetitelja. Rotacija osoblja trebala bi biti svedena na minimum. Umirovljenicima koji žive kod kuće namirnice i ostale potrepštine trebalo bi dostavljati u njihove domove. Kad god je moguće, s članovima obitelji trebali bi se susretati vani, a ne u zatvorenom prostoru. Sveobuhvatan i detaljan popis mjera, uključujući pristupe višegeneracijskim kućanstvima, može se primijeniti u svakodnevnom životu, i to je u potpunosti u okviru djelovanja i kompetencija radnika u javnom zdravstvu.

Onima koji nisu ranjivi treba odmah omogućiti da nastave normalno živjeti. Jednostavne higijenske mjere, poput pranja ruku i boravka kod kuće tijekom bolesti, trebali bi primjenjivati svi kako bi se smanjio prag imuniteta krda. Škole i sveučilišta trebaju biti otvoreni za nastavu uživo. Treba nastaviti s izvannastavnim aktivnostima, poput sporta. Mlade odrasle osobe s niskim rizikom trebaju raditi na uobičajen način, a ne od kuće. Trebali bi se otvoriti restorani i druge poslovne aktivnosti. Umjetnost, glazba, sport i druge kulturne aktivnosti trebale bi se
nastaviti.
Ljudi koji su više izloženi riziku mogu sudjelovati ako žele, dok društvo u cjelini uživa zaštitu koju ranjivima pružaju oni koji su izgradili imunitet krda.

Dana 4. listopada 2020. ovu su izjavu napisali i potpisali u Great Barringtonu u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama:
Trappist
Posts: 5998
Joined: 12/09/2020 08:52

#33208 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Trappist »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:24
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:21
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:20 Kako bi ti to praktocno izveo? Kako da dedo ode platiti racune, ako je cilj kolektivni imunitet tj. da se zarazi sto veci broj ljudi?
A kako dedo sada plaća račune?
Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Pa za te "Obavezne" stvari nek ostane maska i distanca. Koja je recimo prosjecna dob ljudi koji idu na sportske utakmice? Sigurno ne ova ugrozena skupina, nego najvise ljudi od 20-30 eventualno 40 godina, sve preko je moguce vidjeti ali nije vecina. Isto vazi i za koncerte, kina, pozorista. Ne vjerujem da deda od 70 godina ide u cinestar da gleda Tenet.
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33209 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:24
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:21
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:20 Kako bi ti to praktocno izveo? Kako da dedo ode platiti racune, ako je cilj kolektivni imunitet tj. da se zarazi sto veci broj ljudi?
A kako dedo sada plaća račune?
Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Pa nastaviće se nositi maske i održavati distanca na mjestima gdje je to potrebno, ne znam u čemu je problem s tim?

Poenta je da:
Škole i sveučilišta trebaju biti otvoreni za nastavu uživo. Treba nastaviti s izvannastavnim aktivnostima, poput sporta. Mlade odrasle osobe s niskim rizikom trebaju raditi na uobičajen način, a ne od kuće. Trebali bi se otvoriti restorani i druge poslovne aktivnosti. Umjetnost, glazba, sport i druge kulturne aktivnosti trebale bi se
nastaviti.
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33210 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:26
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:24
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:21
A kako dedo sada plaća račune?
Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Pa nastaviće se nositi maske i održavati distanca na mjestima gdje je to potrebno, ne znam u čemu je problem s tim?

Poenta je da:
Škole i sveučilišta trebaju biti otvoreni za nastavu uživo. Treba nastaviti s izvannastavnim aktivnostima, poput sporta. Mlade odrasle osobe s niskim rizikom trebaju raditi na uobičajen način, a ne od kuće. Trebali bi se otvoriti restorani i druge poslovne aktivnosti. Umjetnost, glazba, sport i druge kulturne aktivnosti trebale bi se
nastaviti.
To sto potpisnici deklaracije smatraju sa se maske trebaju nositi samo u bolnicama. Jer kako drugacije do kolektivnog imuniteta?
Iz teksta koji si ti postavio:

Važnost nošenja maski u nekim slučajevima ne želi umanjiti.

"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.

Znaci samo u bolnicama.
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33211 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Trappist wrote: 12/10/2020 10:26
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:24
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:21
A kako dedo sada plaća račune?
Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Pa za te "Obavezne" stvari nek ostane maska i distanca. Koja je recimo prosjecna dob ljudi koji idu na sportske utakmice? Sigurno ne ova ugrozena skupina, nego najvise ljudi od 20-30 eventualno 40 godina, sve preko je moguce vidjeti ali nije vecina. Isto vazi i za koncerte, kina, pozorista. Ne vjerujem da deda od 70 godina ide u cinestar da gleda Tenet.
Nije bitno koliko ko ima godina, ima mnogo ljudi srednjih godina, koji spadaju u rizičnu grupu.
I ja sam jedan od njih.
Ja sam spreman na to (i nisam sebiča)n da sve bude kako je bilo, da djeca idu u škole, da se vraćam normalnom životu, utakmice, koncerti, predstave...
Svjestan sam mjesta gdje je opasno za mene, a gdje nije, pa ću se prilagoditi i, shodno tome, adekvatno pripremiti.
Zaista ne znam zašto Mogy toliko potencira da je ova deklaracija, a priori, loša i nedobronamjerna, i potencira da nosimo maske i držimo distancu, i da nas jedino to može spasiti. Na stranu što vakcina još nije spremna, a i kada bude spremna zna se ko će se cijepiti a ko neće.
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33212 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:29
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:26
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:24

Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Pa nastaviće se nositi maske i održavati distanca na mjestima gdje je to potrebno, ne znam u čemu je problem s tim?

Poenta je da:
Škole i sveučilišta trebaju biti otvoreni za nastavu uživo. Treba nastaviti s izvannastavnim aktivnostima, poput sporta. Mlade odrasle osobe s niskim rizikom trebaju raditi na uobičajen način, a ne od kuće. Trebali bi se otvoriti restorani i druge poslovne aktivnosti. Umjetnost, glazba, sport i druge kulturne aktivnosti trebale bi se
nastaviti.
To sto potpisnici deklaracije smatraju sa se maske trebaju nositi samo u bolnicama. Jer kako drugacije do kolektivnog imuniteta?
Iz teksta koji si ti postavio:

Važnost nošenja maski u nekim slučajevima ne želi umanjiti.

"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.

Znaci samo u bolnicama.
Ne znači. To što si ti tako zaključila - ne mora da znači da je tako.
Ja to čitam drugačije.
"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.
- de mi samo pojasni odakle si ovo citirala?
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33213 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

A evo i mišljenje eksperata vezano za dekleraciju: i za razliku od same dekleracije koju može potpisati moja nana i napisati da ima PHD ovi naučnici su odvojili vrijeme da daju svoje ekspertno mišljenje:

Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester

“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”

Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute

“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”

Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton

“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading

Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford

Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent

The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... rotection/
Trappist
Posts: 5998
Joined: 12/09/2020 08:52

#33214 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Trappist »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:32
Trappist wrote: 12/10/2020 10:26
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:24

Tako sto su ljudi obavezni u banci nositi masku i drzati distancu.
Pa za te "Obavezne" stvari nek ostane maska i distanca. Koja je recimo prosjecna dob ljudi koji idu na sportske utakmice? Sigurno ne ova ugrozena skupina, nego najvise ljudi od 20-30 eventualno 40 godina, sve preko je moguce vidjeti ali nije vecina. Isto vazi i za koncerte, kina, pozorista. Ne vjerujem da deda od 70 godina ide u cinestar da gleda Tenet.
Nije bitno koliko ko ima godina, ima mnogo ljudi srednjih godina, koji spadaju u rizičnu grupu.
I ja sam jedan od njih.
Ja sam spreman na to (i nisam sebiča)n da sve bude kako je bilo, da djeca idu u škole, da se vraćam normalnom životu, utakmice, koncerti, predstave...
Svjestan sam mjesta gdje je opasno za mene, a gdje nije, pa ću se prilagoditi i, shodno tome, adekvatno pripremiti.
Zaista ne znam zašto Mogy toliko potencira da je ova deklaracija, a priori, loša i nedobronamjerna, i potencira da nosimo maske i držimo distancu, i da nas jedino to može spasiti. Na stranu što vakcina još nije spremna, a i kada bude spremna zna se ko će se cijepiti a ko neće.
ALi ko je rizicna skupina trebao bi se cuvati i kad je sezona gripe, drugo je sto niko nije obracao paznju na to do sada.
Ja ne spadam ni u kakve rizicne skupine, a opet moram razmisljati hocu li bez posla ostati zbog ekonomske krize, ne mogu u kino, na utakmicu, ne mogu otici na put nigdje, svaki dan slusam kojekakve najave o zatvaranju itd. Ako sam sebican sto zelim da se to promijeni i da se vratim normalnom zivotu, jebiga, sebican sam onda.
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33215 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:35
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:29
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:26
Pa nastaviće se nositi maske i održavati distanca na mjestima gdje je to potrebno, ne znam u čemu je problem s tim?

Poenta je da:
Škole i sveučilišta trebaju biti otvoreni za nastavu uživo. Treba nastaviti s izvannastavnim aktivnostima, poput sporta. Mlade odrasle osobe s niskim rizikom trebaju raditi na uobičajen način, a ne od kuće. Trebali bi se otvoriti restorani i druge poslovne aktivnosti. Umjetnost, glazba, sport i druge kulturne aktivnosti trebale bi se
nastaviti.
To sto potpisnici deklaracije smatraju sa se maske trebaju nositi samo u bolnicama. Jer kako drugacije do kolektivnog imuniteta?
Iz teksta koji si ti postavio:

Važnost nošenja maski u nekim slučajevima ne želi umanjiti.

"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.

Znaci samo u bolnicama.
Ne znači. To što si ti tako zaključila - ne mora da znači da je tako.
Ja to čitam drugačije.
"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.
- de mi samo pojasni odakle si ovo citirala?
Iz članka iz Jutarnjeg lista koji si ti postavio. Nije valjda da ga nisi pročitao do kraja?
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33216 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:37 A evo i mišljenje eksperata vezano za dekleraciju: i za razliku od same dekleracije koju može potpisati moja nana i napisati da ima PHD ovi naučnici su odvojili vrijeme da daju svoje ekspertno mišljenje:

Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester

“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”

Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute

“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”

Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton

“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading

Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford

Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent

The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... rotection/
Dobro, i?
Šta je poenta?
Jedni imaju jedno mišljenje, drugi imaju drugo.
Ja sam za one koji su napisali deklaraciju, ti si protivna i to je to.
Možemo ovako do sutra.
Trappist
Posts: 5998
Joined: 12/09/2020 08:52

#33217 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Trappist »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:37 A evo i mišljenje eksperata vezano za dekleraciju: i za razliku od same dekleracije koju može potpisati moja nana i napisati da ima PHD ovi naučnici su odvojili vrijeme da daju svoje ekspertno mišljenje:

Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester

“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”

Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute

“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”

Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton

“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading

Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford

Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent

The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... rotection/
Sto bi oni bili strucniji od dr. Jay Bhattacharya? Jer tebi odgovara vise sta neko drugi ima reci? Otidji kod 3 razlicita zubara sva trojica ce ti nesto drugo reci kako zub treba popraviti, a kamoli ovako neke globalne i velike stvari.
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33218 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:38
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:37 A evo i mišljenje eksperata vezano za dekleraciju: i za razliku od same dekleracije koju može potpisati moja nana i napisati da ima PHD ovi naučnici su odvojili vrijeme da daju svoje ekspertno mišljenje:

Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester

“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”

Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute

“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”

Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton

“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading

Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford

Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent

The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... rotection/
Dobro, i?
Šta je poenta?
Jedni imaju jedno mišljenje, drugi imaju drugo.
Ja sam za one koji su napisali deklaraciju, ti si protivna i to je to.
Možemo ovako do sutra.
Evo i motiva ovih što su potpisali deklaraciju:

The 'herd immunity strategy' is not part of scientific debate. It's a political campaign coordinated by right-wing orgs designed to create the appearance of scientific disagreement.

Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33219 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:38
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:35
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:29

To sto potpisnici deklaracije smatraju sa se maske trebaju nositi samo u bolnicama. Jer kako drugacije do kolektivnog imuniteta?
Iz teksta koji si ti postavio:

Važnost nošenja maski u nekim slučajevima ne želi umanjiti.

"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.

Znaci samo u bolnicama.
Ne znači. To što si ti tako zaključila - ne mora da znači da je tako.
Ja to čitam drugačije.
"Vrlo je korisno u bolnicama koje se brinu za bolesnike sa zaraznim bolestima. No, ne postoje dokazi o njihovoj praktičnoj korisnosti kao načinu usporavanja širenja covida-19", izričit je.
- de mi samo pojasni odakle si ovo citirala?
Iz članka iz Jutarnjeg lista koji si ti postavio. Nije valjda da ga nisi pročitao do kraja?
Pročitao sam taj članak od početka do kraja, ali je to bilo jučer.
Zar zaista očekuješ da, kada mi izvučeš neki citat od jučer, da se sjetim gdje je to tačno bilo napisano?
Bilo je govora striktno o deklaraciji (a ti najednom sa nekakvim citatom pa mi nije bilo jasn odakle ti sada to), a ako ćeš se služiti takvim stvarima i izvlačiti citate iz konteksta gdje i kako tebi odgovara, onda je to prljava igra i više govori o tebi nego o meni.
Neka ljudi pročitaju cijeli tekst a ne samo to što si citirala, pa neka onda donose zaključke. ;-)
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33220 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:42
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:38
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:37 A evo i mišljenje eksperata vezano za dekleraciju: i za razliku od same dekleracije koju može potpisati moja nana i napisati da ima PHD ovi naučnici su odvojili vrijeme da daju svoje ekspertno mišljenje:

Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester

“So I appreciate and understand the concerns and the sentiment behind this declaration, and of course other diseases are important and need attention, but without these anti-COVID-19 ‘tools’, I cannot see how they will achieve this ‘Focused Protection’ for these vulnerable groups in any practical, reliable or safe way.”

Dr Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute

“An effective response to the Covid pandemic requires multiple targeted interventions to reduce transmission, to develop better treatments and to protect vulnerable people. This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible – so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine. Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose. This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate.”

Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton

“The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise – that governments and the scientific community wish for extensive lockdowns to continue until a vaccine is available. Lockdowns are only ever used when transmission is high, and now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much ‘lighter’ than the full suppressions we have seen for example in the UK across the spring of 2020.

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds

Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading

Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford

Prof Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent

The Great Barrington Declaration attempts to alleviate these impacts by promoting herd immunity and the protection of vulnerable populations. Unfortunately, this declaration ignores three critical aspects that could result in significant impacts to health and lives. First, we still do not know if herd immunity is possible to achieve. Herd immunity relies on lasting immunological protection from coronavirus re-infection; however, we have heard many recent cases of re-infection occurring and some research suggests protective antibody responses may decay rapidly. Second, the declaration focuses only on the risk of death from COVID-19 but ignores the growing awareness of long-COVID, that many healthy young adults with ‘mild’ COVID-19 infections are experiencing protracted symptoms and long-term disability. Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population. While there is clearly a need to support and ease the physical and mental health burdens many are suffering under, the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... rotection/
Dobro, i?
Šta je poenta?
Jedni imaju jedno mišljenje, drugi imaju drugo.
Ja sam za one koji su napisali deklaraciju, ti si protivna i to je to.
Možemo ovako do sutra.
Evo i motiva ovih što su potpisali deklaraciju:

The 'herd immunity strategy' is not part of scientific debate. It's a political campaign coordinated by right-wing orgs designed to create the appearance of scientific disagreement.

Da, da, profesori sa Stanforda, Oxforda, Harvarda i supotpisnici su, ustvari, plaćenici i right-wing debili?
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Sram ih bilo, treba im svima oduzeti titule!
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33221 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Koliko su stručni govori činjenica da jedan od kreatora dekleracije Sunetra Gupta je u martu napravila matematički model gdje je procijenila da pola populacije u UK je imalo Covid. Naravno, nije bila u pravu. I sad da bez ikakvih dokaza slijedimo njenu strategiju o kolektivnom imutitetu? S takvom fulom?

The natural authority that imbues a professorship – and the perception that scientists are somehow neutral experts – makes this very dangerous. Scientists are human, with all the cognitive biases, flaws and personal grudges that entails. This is why academic science has so many institutional checks and balances, such as peer review, to try to filter it all out – checks and balances that the Great Barrington declaration sidesteps altogether. This is a problem because, as always, there is potential for significant human bias.
The Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta’s widely reported mathematical modelling in late March suggested that up to half the UK population may have had Covid-19; she claimed at the time she was confident that humanity would build up herd immunity. The serological evidence suggests her modelling was wrong, but Gupta has not addressed this in her declaration. How do we know she is not being influenced by the natural desire to be proved right?
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33222 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:46 Koliko su stručni govori činjenica da jedan od kreatora dekleracije Sunetra Gupta je u martu napravila matematički model gdje je procijenila da pola populacije u UK je imalo Covid. Naravno, nije bila u pravu. I sad da bez ikakvih dokaza slijedimo njenu strategiju o kolektivnom imutitetu? S takvom fulom?

The natural authority that imbues a professorship – and the perception that scientists are somehow neutral experts – makes this very dangerous. Scientists are human, with all the cognitive biases, flaws and personal grudges that entails. This is why academic science has so many institutional checks and balances, such as peer review, to try to filter it all out – checks and balances that the Great Barrington declaration sidesteps altogether. This is a problem because, as always, there is potential for significant human bias.
The Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta’s widely reported mathematical modelling in late March suggested that up to half the UK population may have had Covid-19; she claimed at the time she was confident that humanity would build up herd immunity. The serological evidence suggests her modelling was wrong, but Gupta has not addressed this in her declaration. How do we know she is not being influenced by the natural desire to be proved right?
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Šta će oni, naći će Mogy dokaze da su to right-wing šarlatani i plaćenici.
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33223 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:46
Mogy87 wrote: 12/10/2020 10:42
Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:38
Dobro, i?
Šta je poenta?
Jedni imaju jedno mišljenje, drugi imaju drugo.
Ja sam za one koji su napisali deklaraciju, ti si protivna i to je to.
Možemo ovako do sutra.
Evo i motiva ovih što su potpisali deklaraciju:

The 'herd immunity strategy' is not part of scientific debate. It's a political campaign coordinated by right-wing orgs designed to create the appearance of scientific disagreement.

Da, da, profesori sa Stanforda, Oxforda, Harvarda i supotpisnici su, ustvari, plaćenici i right-wing debili?
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Sram ih bilo, treba im svima oduzeti titule!
Za razliku od citata koje sam navela ovi ljudi koje si ti naveo nisu provjereno potpisali deklaraciju.

Upravo ono o čemu smo pričali sadrži LAŽNE POTPISE uključujući Dr Harolda Shipmana

The statement claims to have been signed by more than 6,000 medical scientists, but anyone can sign up claiming to be one (there are a number of fake medical signatories on the list, including a Dr Harold Shipman). When Sky News pressed one of the co-authors on this, he said: “We do not have the resources to audit each signature.”
Last edited by Mogy87 on 12/10/2020 10:50, edited 1 time in total.
Naslovnica
Posts: 35074
Joined: 20/03/2013 15:38

#33224 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Naslovnica »

Došli smo od "kako će dedo platiti račune" do toga da se diskredituju nobelovci i profesori eminentnih univerziteta.
Možemo ovako do sutra, kažem ja tebi.
8-)
Mogy87
Posts: 5966
Joined: 27/05/2013 10:49

#33225 Re: Novi korona virus - velika opasnost ili ne ? POGLEDATI PRVI POST!

Post by Mogy87 »

Naslovnica wrote: 12/10/2020 10:50 Došli smo od "kako će dedo platiti račune" do toga da se diskredituju nobelovci i profesori eminentnih univerziteta.
Možemo ovako do sutra, kažem ja tebi.
8-)
Šta kažeš na lažne potpisnike?
Locked